Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32799892›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2020

Validation of family planning tool in the pastoralist community.

Mussie Alemayehu, Araya Abrha Medhanyie, Elizabeth Reed, Afework Mulugeta Bezabih

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mussie AlemayehuSchool of Public Health, Mekelle University, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia. mossalex75@gmail.com.
Araya Abrha MedhanyieSchool of Public Health, Mekelle University, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Elizabeth ReedGraduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA.
Afework Mulugeta BezabihSchool of Public Health, Mekelle University, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Mekelle University · ETSan Diego State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPastoralist community, Afar, women felt that they are embedded in strong cultural and religious perspectives which promotes a high number of children, and discourages family planning (FP) use. They are multifaced factors which hinder women not to use FP and it is time to develop a context-based tool to understand the situation at the ground. However, we have a dearth of evidence on a reliable and valid tool. Therefore, this study aims in developing a reliable and valid tool that considers the women's knowledge, male involvement, attitude, and belief about whether most people approve or disapprove of the behavior to use or not use of FP.

methodsA total of 891 married women participated in the study. Reviewing the literature, piloting, pretesting, and collecting the actual data were the steps we used to develop a reliable and valid tool. We used the integrated behavioral model (IBM) as a conceptual framework for developing the tool. The developing tool consists of 1) knowledge 2) perceived male involvement and 3) constructs of integrated behavioral model (IBM); expressional and instrumental attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, perceived control and intention to use of FP. The IBM items composed of direct and indirect measurement. In the analysis of the data, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was done. Independent t. test with cohen's d was used to calculate the effect size. The correlation coefficient was carried between the direct and indirect measurements of the items of the integrated behavioral model (IBM).

resultsA total of 891 pastoralist married women were included in the analysis of the reliability and validity of the tool. The mean age of the participants was 26.74(±6.45). The KMO value for all items was greater than 0.83 with a Bartlett test of sphericity of (p < 0.00). Thirteen items were used to measure the knowledge of the respondent towards FP use. The tool had 64.92 variances explained and Cronbach alpha of 0.85. Acceptable values of the fitness indices were obtained in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) The items of knowledge towards FP had normed chi-square of 4.5, RMSEA with 90% CI of 0.064(0.056,.0.071), SRMR of 0.039, CFI of 0.969 and TLI of 0961. All the developed items had a Cohen's d ranges from 0.5 to 2. Moreover, the correlation test of the IBM ranges from 0.6 to 0.7 which shows a higher correlation between the measurement direct and indirect items.

conclusionThe pastoralist community version of the FP questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool and can be used to measure future family planning use. The indirect measurement of the IBM constructs was a good item to measure FP. However, as a limitation of the study respondents may face difficulty in realizing the difference one item to another especially when items on the scale look so similar to her.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityAdultContraception BehaviorFactor Analysis, StatisticalFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMarriagePregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSex EducationSurveys and QuestionnairesAfarAttitudesConfirmatoryContraceptiveExploratoryFamily planningMarried womenPastoralistReliabilityValidation

Identifiers

PMID32799892
PMCPMC7429676
OpenAlexW3049091391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.