ArticlePloS one2024
Gender differences in perceptions of "joint" decision-making about spending money among couples in rural Tanzania.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived changes in mothers' outcomes following a pilot parenting program for couples with young children in Mwanza, Tanzania: A longitudinal qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Community-driven strategies for preventing childhood stunting: perspectives from parents and front-line workers in Rwanda.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Beyond individual choice: Exploring pathways linking couple dynamics with Unintended Pregnancy and Birth in India.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Social Norms: A Missing Ingredient of Programs Seeking to Foster Women's Agency in Nutrition.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Family and cultural contexts can constrain the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions designed to improve the health and wellbeing of women and their children. Unequal power relationships within the household may underlie the failure of many programs targeting women to achieve their intended impact. To reduce these unequal power dynamics within the households, many programs or interventions aim to both assess and improve the gender dynamics between husbands and wives within the household. Decision-making is one important facet of these dynamics and has been linked to health outcomes for women and children. However, household decision-making is rarely observed and often difficult to capture. This study aimed to use qualitative research to further understand one aspect of decision-making, namely on how to spend money. In two regions of Tanzania, we used surveys and interviews to explore different perspectives on spending and allocation of resources among 58 couples in rural farming households. While many men and women initially reported that they made decisions jointly, most women stated they would often concede if there was a disagreement or argument around spending. These results highlight the different perceptions of joint decision-making between men and women. We compared these results to survey responses on decision-making and found differences within and between couples across interview and survey responses. Based on the differences in qualitative and survey responses within couples and how they reported dealing with disagreement, our study found households were on a spectrum from no cooperation in decision-making to full cooperation. Our results highlight challenges for assessing decision-making on spending and ultimately improving these decision-making dynamics within the household. These challenges are especially important for maternal and child behavioral change and provide insights on why many interventions aimed at improving women's decision- making power on money may not reach their full potential.
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.