ArticleReproductive health2025
Proposed changes to framework to assess contraceptive autonomy based on phased in-depth interviews in northwest Tanzania.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Linking women's empowerment to modern contraceptive use: evidence from the Tanzania demographic and health survey 2022.BMC women's 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccess to sexual and reproductive healthcare is internationally regarded as an essential human right. Use of modern contraception is typically selected as a key indicator of women's reproductive rights. However, there is a growing consensus that measuring rates of modern contraceptive use may not provide a full picture of women's reproductive autonomy. A novel framework to investigate contraceptive autonomy, which includes broader indicators to reflect knowledge, justice, and volition, has been recently proposed.
methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews in three phases in eight rural communities in northwest Tanzania with users and non-users of contraceptives using open-ended questions derived from the proposed contraceptive autonomy framework. Trained female interviewers performed one-on-one interviews in Kiswahili to explore women's perspectives and knowledge about family planning (FP), decision-making, and experiences. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and independently coded by two investigators.
resultsA total of 72 women were interviewed. Women had a median age of 29.5 years [interquartile range, 24-38] and a median of 4 [2-5] children. Those using modern contraception (75%) had been doing so for 1.9 [0.75-4.0] years. In the informed choice domain of contraceptive autonomy, most women could correctly name at least 3 contraceptive methods and summarize benefits and side-effects; women described risks and some benefits of non-use. In the full choice domain, health facilities had multiple contraceptives, although some stockouts were noted. In the free choice domain, nearly all women reported being free to choose to use, discontinue, or refuse FP. Many also described strong external influences that affected their decision-making about FP that were not captured by the proposed contraceptive autonomy framework.
conclusionsBoth users and non-users of FP in our study demonstrated many components of contraceptive autonomy. Their experiences have shaped our suggestions for ways to increase comprehensiveness in measuring contraceptive autonomy. These suggestions likely have broad applicability that extends beyond rural Tanzania to many other regions. Integrating assessment of external influences into evaluations of contraceptive autonomy will further expand global capacity to evaluate both access to, and autonomy about, contraceptive use as a fundamental human right.
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.