Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325793›Full record

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.

Alice Witt, Eloisa Montt-Maray, Marieme Fall, Elizabeth Larson, Nour Horanieh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  2. Are men clients, catalysts or controllers of family planning?Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Alice WittDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Eloisa Montt-MarayDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Marieme FallDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth LarsonDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Nour HoraniehDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

autonomydiscoursedonorempowermentethicsfamily planningmeasurementswomen-centred

Identifiers

PMID37325793
PMCPMC10262847

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.