Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674903›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2023

Understanding ethical challenges of family planning interventions in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.

Eloisa Montt-Maray, Lamiah Adamjee, Nour Horanieh, Alice Witt, Thaïs González-Capella, Anja Zinke-Allmang, Beniamino Cislaghi

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Eloisa Montt-Maray *Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Lamiah Adamjee *Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Nour HoraniehDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alice WittDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Thaïs González-CapellaDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Anja Zinke-AllmangDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Beniamino CislaghiDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBKing Saud University · SAMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Improving the design of family planning (FP) interventions is essential to advancing gender equality, maternal health outcomes, and reproductive autonomy for both men and women. While progress has been made towards applying a rights-based approach to FP interventions in sub-Saharan Africa, Methods: We conducted a scoping review to understand if and how FP interventions published between 2000 and 2020 within sub-Saharan Africa address the ethical challenges raised within the literature. We identified a total of 1,652 papers, of which 40 were included in the review. Results: Our review demonstrated that the majority of family planning interventions in sub-Saharan Africa place a strong emphasis, on measuring success through quantitative indicators such as uptake of modern contraception methods among women, specifically those that are married and visiting healthcare centres. They also tend to bias the provision of family planning by promoting long-acting reversible contraception over other forms of contraception methods potentially undermining individuals' autonomy and choice. The interventions in our review also found most interventions exclusively target women, not recognising the importance of gender norms and social networks on women's choice in using contraception and the need for more equitable FP services. Conclusion: The results of this review highlight how FP interventions measured success through quantitative indicators that focus on uptake of modern contraception methods among women. Utilising these measures makes it difficult to break away from the legacy of FP as a tool for population control as they limit the ability to incorporate autonomy, choice, and rights. Our results are meant to encourage members of the global family planning community to think critically about the ethical implications of their existing interventions and how they may be improved. More public health and policy research is required to assess the effect of applying the new indicators with the FP community as well as explicitly outlining monitoring and evaluation strategies for new interventions to allow for programme improvement and the dissemination of lessons learned.

Indexed as

contraceptionethicsfamily planning interventionsreproductive healthsub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID37674903
PMCPMC10478786
OpenAlexW4386114537

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.