ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2023
Putting our money where our mouth is? The degree of women-centred family planning in the era of FP2020.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Are men clients, catalysts or controllers of family planning?Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Operationalizing Client-Centered Care: A Strategic Framework and Measurement Approach to Guide Sexual and Reproductive Health Programming.Global health, science and practice · 2025Article
- Thirty years after the Cairo declaration on population & development: have family planning measurements caught up?Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development was a landmark moment for the international family planning community, who committed to adopt a women-centred approach to programming-one that would prioritise the reproductive and contraceptive intentions, or autonomy, of individuals over population-level demographic concerns. The FP2020 partnership, established in 2012 and lasting until 2020, also described itself using women-centred language. However, throughout the period of FP2020, critics questioned the extent to which women-centred principles truly defined why family planning programmes were funded and how they were implemented. In this study, we use thematic discourse analysis to examine six major international donors' rationale(s) for funding family planning and the measurements they used to articulate successful programming. We present an overview of the rationales and measurements used by all six donors before offering four case studies to demonstrate divergences in their approaches. Our analysis demonstrates that, although donors described the importance of family planning for fostering women's autonomy and empowerment, they also justified family planning on the basis of demographic concerns. In addition, we identified a misalignment between how donors described family planning programmes-using the language of voluntarism and choice-and how they measured their success-through increased uptake and use of contraceptive methods. We call on the international family planning community to reflect on their true motives for funding and implementing family planning and engage in radically rethinking how they capture programme success, in order to better align their rhetoric with their practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.