Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39220903›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Autonomy and freedom of choice: A mixed methods analysis of the endorsement of SRHR and its core principles by global agencies.

Anny J T P Peters, Leon Bijlmakers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Anny J T P PetersResearcher/freelance Consultant, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Leon BijlmakersRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on an adapted version of the conceptual framework used by the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR), this study sought to analyse to what extent seven global agencies, five of which belong to the UN family and the other two closely linked, incorporate women's autonomy and freedom of choice in accessing services into their SRHR policies, and how they operationalize these in their global SRHR programmes that target women and adolescent girls. Twenty-nine SRHR-related policy documents published in 2013-2020 and 17 independent evaluations of global SRHR programmes in the same period were analysed. They were found to fall short of considering women's individual autonomy and choice as the two core principles of SRHR. By ignoring autonomy and choice, global SRHR programmes missed the opportunity to incorporate activities that could enhance the emancipatory empowerment of women and girls to improve their sexual and reproductive wellbeing. The study identified concrete aspects on which global agencies, in view of their respective mandates, could have pronounced themselves more explicitly and might have been more effective in implementing SRHR programmes. In light of the international gender equality and women's empowerment discourse this suggests that donor countries could hold global agencies more accountable, bilaterally or jointly, for their SRHR performance, in particular their active endorsement and application of SRHR core principles.

Indexed as

AutonomyChoiceOfficial development assistanceSexual and reproductive health and rightsUN organisations

Identifiers

PMID39220903
PMCPMC11365359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.