ReviewHeliyon2024
Autonomy and freedom of choice: A mixed methods analysis of the endorsement of SRHR and its core principles by global agencies.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulating algorithmic tools in reproductive health: ethical and legal challenges.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with adolescent pregnancy in Nyarugenge and Burera districts, Rwanda.Reproductive 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.