ArticlePloS one2025
Revising the definition of "demand satisfied for modern methods of family planning:" A cross-sectional study to explore incorporating person-centered constructs of demand, choice, and satisfaction.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Rethinking family planning success metrics: moving beyond coverage.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- The State of Person-Centered Measurement for Family Planning Need and Use: A Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- [Un]met Need and [Un]wanted Family Planning: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Women in Argentina, Ghana, and India Examining Characteristics, Reasons, and Alignment With Fertility Desires.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Measuring social, economic, policy, and health system determinants of maternal health and survival: An urgent global priority.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several challenges to validity have been identified with standard approaches used to measure "demand satisfied for modern methods of family planning." This study explored construct validity of the widely used indicator for "demand satisfied" by comparing the standard definition to alternative definitions of the indicator highlighting dimensions of women's own perceived demand, choice, and satisfaction. This cross-sectional study of women aged 15-49 years was conducted in Argentina (n = 1492), Ghana (n = 1600), and India (n = 1702) using a two-staged random sampling design. Women were directly asked about their: 1) demand, whether they wanted to use a contraceptive method to prevent pregnancy; 2) choice, whether they had autonomy in decision-making during their last family planning visit; and 3) satisfaction, whether they were satisfied with their method. The values of the standard and alternative indicators were compared. Convergent validity was assessed using logistic regression to explore the association between indicator definition and use of a preferred contraceptive method. In Argentina and India, the percentage of women with demand satisfied after incorporating constructs of demand, choice, and satisfaction was substantially lower than that obtained using the standard definition-a reduction of ~70% in Argentina and ~40% in India. Women who were categorized as having their "demand satisfied" for family planning according to the person-centered dimensions of the alternative indicator were significantly more likely to be using their preferred method of contraception in all three countries (OR: 7.7, 95% CI: 5.31-11.07 in Argentina, OR: 4.83, 95% CI: 2.27-10.27 in Ghana, and OR: 2.07 95% CI: 1.11-3.86 in India) compared to those whose demand was satisfied by only the standard indicator definition. Revising the definition of demand satisfied to reflect the principles of person-centered care offers an opportunity to improve construct validity by ensuring that global measurement efforts align with women's reproductive rights.
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.