Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34531690›Full record

ArticleOpen access journal of contraception2021

Advancing Rights-Based Family Planning from 2020 to 2030.

Karen Hardee, Sandra Jordan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open access journal of contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 'Global health action · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Contraceptive Concordance.Studies in family planning · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

2 authors.

Karen HardeeExecutive Office, What Works Association, Arlington, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2545-6269
Sandra JordanPublic Health Consulting, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn assessment in 2019 by Family Planning 2020 of progress on rights-based family planning since 2012 highlighted the development of tools and guidelines that identify and explain rights in relation to family planning, promotion of rights-based approaches to programing, strengthened accountability, and measurement of rights-focused outcomes. The assessment was also forward-looking, asking what aspects of rights-based family planning still need attention moving from 2020 to 2030.

methodsThis paper draws on interviews with 23 key informants from governments, civil society, and youth focused organizations, implementing partners, and bi-lateral and multilateral organizations from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, all working on family planning and engaged in various roles with the FP2020 partnership at global and national levels, along with documentation of FP2030 partnership plans. The interviews were conducted as part of the assessment and included questions to respondents for their recommendations on rights-based family planning moving towards 2030.

resultsRespondents agreed that rights should be at the center of the vision for family planning, with attention to rights literacy, accountability and equity, including adolescent and youth leadership. They noted the need for consistent political and financial support, and incorporating rights into result-based financing programming. While respondents noted the need for development and dissemination of practical tools and training materials, along with rights metrics and implementation research, they stressed the importance of focusing work on rights at the country level. Respondents also acknowledged that institutionalizing rights-based family planning will require enhanced commitment and funding from both donors and countries to ensure programming - and success - over the long term. Amplifying civil society and particularly adolescent and youth voices will be key to engaging governments to support both rights-based programming and provide funding. Review of initial planning under FP2030 related to each of the recommendations suggests that the new partnership is seeking to addressing each of them. DISCUSSION: As the family planning field looks beyond 2020 to 2030, this paper provides a roadmap for building on the gains made over the past decade to effectively tackle the challenges remaining to ensure that programming to achieve the vision of the FP2030 Partnership is rights-based.

Indexed as

accountabilitycontraceptionfamily planningFP2030human rights

Identifiers

PMID34531690
PMCPMC8438348
OpenAlexW3197039529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.