Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36911859›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2023

Involving men and boys in family planning: A systematic review of the effective components and characteristics of complex interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

Áine Aventin, Martin Robinson, Jennifer Hanratty, Ciara Keenan, Jayne Hamilton, Eimear Ruane McAteer, Mark Tomlinson, Mike Clarke, Friday Okonofua, Chris Bonell and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Are men clients, catalysts or controllers of family planning?Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Áine AventinQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Martin RobinsonQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Jennifer HanrattyQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Ciara KeenanQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Jayne HamiltonQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Eimear Ruane McAteerUniversity College Cork Cork Ireland.
Mark TomlinsonQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Mike ClarkeQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.
Friday OkonofuaWHARC Benin City Lagos Nigeria.
Chris BonellLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK.
Maria LohanQueen's University Belfast Belfast Northern Ireland.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T040246/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Involving men and boys as both users and supporters of Family Planning (FP) is now considered essential for optimising maternal and child health outcomes. Evidence on how to engage men and boys to meet FP needs is therefore important. Objectives: The main objective of this review was to assess the strength of evidence in the area and uncover the effective components and critical process- and system-level characteristics of successful interventions. Search Methods: We searched nine electronic databases, seven grey literature databases, organisational websites, and the reference lists of systematic reviews relating to FP. To identify process evaluations and qualitative papers associated with the included experimental studies, we used Selection Criteria: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of behavioural and service-level interventions involving males aged 10 years or over in low- and middle-income countries to increase uptake of FP methods were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis: Methodology was a causal chain analysis involving the development and testing of a logic model of intervention components based on stakeholder consultation and prior research. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to the evaluation studies and interventions were extracted based on the principles of 'effectiveness-plus' reviews. Quantitative analysis was undertaken using r with robust variance estimation (RVE), meta-analysis and meta-regression. Qualitative analysis involved 'best fit' framework synthesis. Results: We identified 8885 potentially relevant records and included 127 in the review. Fifty-nine (46%) of these were randomised trials, the remainder were quasi-experimental studies with a comparison group. Fifty-four percent of the included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias. A meta-analysis of 72 studies ( Authors' Conclusions: FP interventions that involve men and boys alongside women and girls are effective in improving uptake and use of contraceptives. The evidence suggests that policy should continue to promote the involvement of men and boys in FP in ways that also promote gender equality. Recommendations for research include the need for evaluations during conflict and disease outbreaks, and evaluation of gender transformative interventions which engage men and boys as contraceptive users and supporters in helping to achieve desired family size, fertility promotion, safe conception, as well as promoting equitable family planning decision-making for women and girls.

Identifiers

PMID36911859
PMCPMC9837728

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.