Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34120630›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2021

Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys.

Martin Robinson, Áine Aventin, Jennifer Hanratty, Eimear Ruane-McAteer, Mark Tomlinson, Mike Clarke, Friday Okonofua, Maria Lohan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Are men clients, catalysts or controllers of family planning?Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Martin RobinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Áine AventinSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. a.aventin@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5849-0506
Jennifer HanrattySchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Eimear Ruane-McAteerSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Mark TomlinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Mike ClarkeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Friday OkonofuaWomen's Health Action Research Centre, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria.
Maria LohanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GBSocial Action · NGUniversity College Cork · IE

Funding

CEDIL S.238Medical Research Council MR/T040246/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing recognition of the need for interventions that effectively involve men and boys to promote family planning behaviours. Evidence suggests that the most effective behavioural interventions in this field are founded on theoretical principles of behaviour change and gender equality. However, there are few evidence syntheses on how theoretical approaches are applied in this context that might guide best practice in intervention development. This review addresses this gap by examining the application and reporting of theories of behaviour change used by family planning interventions involving men and boys.

methodsWe adopted a systematic rapid review approach, scoping findings of a previously reported evidence and gap map of intervention reviews (covering 2007-2018) and supplementing this with searches of academic databases and grey literature for reviews and additional studies published between 2007 and 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if their title, abstract or keywords referred to a psychosocial or behavioural intervention targeting family planning behaviours, involved males in delivery, and detailed their use of an intervention theory of change.

resultsFrom 941 non-duplicate records identified, 63 were eligible for inclusion. Most records referenced interventions taking place in low- and middle-income countries (65%). There was a range of intervention theories of change reported, typically targeting individual-level behaviours and sometimes comprising several behaviour change theories and strategies. The most commonly identified theories were Social Cognitive Theory, Social Learning Theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Information-Motivation-Behaviour Skills (IMB) Model. A minority of records explicitly detailed gender-informed elements within their theory of change.

conclusionOur findings highlight the range of prevailing theories of change used for family planning interventions involving men and boys, and the considerable variability in their reporting. Programmers and policy makers would be best served by unified reporting and testing of intervention theories of change. There remains a need for consistent reporting of these to better understand how complex interventions that seek to involve men and boys in family planning may lead to behaviour change.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesHealth BehaviorPsychological TheoryHumansMaleBehaviour change theoryFamily planningInterventionsReviewTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID34120630
PMCPMC8201745
OpenAlexW3167274655

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.