Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35875372›Full record

ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2022

Natural Family Planning, An Option in Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Study on Clinicians' Perceptions.

Ozoemena Joan Ibeziako

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System Follow-up Form to Brazilian Portuguese.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    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

1 author.

Ozoemena Joan IbeziakoDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng Province, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0264-8113

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural family planning (NFP) empowers women to control their reproductive health and approach fertility as a normal biological process. Although substantive literature supports their comparative effectiveness with contraceptive methods, there is a paucity of this knowledge amongst clinicians and users. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perceptions regarding offering NFP to patients as part of reproductive health care. It explored clinicians' knowledge of NFP, described their perceptions of their effectiveness, and identified enabling and deterring factors to their use. Basic Interpretive qualitative research design was appropriate in obtaining an in-depth description of this phenomenon. It was conducted in 2018 in two hospitals and clinics in Ekurhuleni health district, located East of Gauteng Province, South Africa. Fifteen doctors and nurses from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds were purposefully selected and interviewed. Transcribed data were analyzed, coded, and recurrent themes identified. Training that empowers clinicians on NFP methods and their effectiveness will improve their willingness to advocate for it and promote patient autonomy by providing comprehensive counseling on family planning methods. Further, a pro-NFP policy would drive training in undergraduate and postgraduate programs and increase public awareness, including early education of male and female children.

Indexed as

clinicians’ perceptionscontraceptiveseffectivenessfertility awareness-based methodsmedical educationNatural family planningnursing educationqualitativereproductive healthSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID35875372
PMCPMC9297485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.