Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35119110›Full record

ArticleStudies in family planning2022

Getting Intentional about Intention to Use: A Scoping Review of Person-Centered Measures of Demand.

Victoria Boydell, Christine Galavotti

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Studies in family planning, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Contraceptive Concordance.Studies in family planning · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Fertility Desires and Contraceptive Transition.Population and development review · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Victoria BoydellSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5051-9167
Christine GalavottiThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been much reflection on the measures used to assess and monitor contraceptive programming outcomes. The meaning and measurement of intention-to-use (ITU) contraception, however, has had less attention and research despite its widespread inclusion in many major surveys. This paper takes a deeper look at the meaning and measurement of ITU around contraception. We conducted a scoping review guided by the following questions: What is the existing evidence regarding the measurement of ITU contraception? What definitions and measures are used? What do we know about the validity of these measures? We searched databases and found 112 papers to include in our review and combined this with a review of the survey instruments and behavioral theory. Our review found growing evidence around the construct of ITU in family planning programming and research. However there are inconsistencies in how ITU is defined and measured, and this tends not to be informed by advances in behavioral theory and research. Further work is needed to develop and test measures that capture the complexity of intention, examine how intention differently relates to longer-range goals compared to more immediate implementation, and demonstrate a positive relationship between ITU and contraceptive use.

Indexed as

ContraceptionIntentionContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsFamily Planning ServicesHumansContraceptive Agentscontraceptiondemandintention to usescoping review

Identifiers

PMID35119110
PMCPMC9303959

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.