Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584730›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025

Thirty years after the Cairo declaration on population & development: have family planning measurements caught up?

Nour Horanieh, Alice Witt, Marieme Fall, Eloisa Montt-Maray, Lamiah Adamjee, Elizabeth Larson, Thais Gonzalez-Capella, Beniamino Cislaghi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Nour HoraniehDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alice WittDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Marieme FallDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Eloisa Montt-MarayDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Lamiah AdamjeeDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Elizabeth LarsonCenter on Gender Equity and Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Thais Gonzalez-CapellaDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Beniamino CislaghiSchool of Social Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The 1994 International Conference on Population Development (ICPD) initiated the transition of family planning (FP) programmes from focusing on population control to promoting human rights and women's empowerment. The indicators used to measure success of FP programmes, however, continue to focus on estimating modern contraceptive uptake. Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) and unmet need are the main indicators used. We aim to assess the views of those working within the FP community from the Global North and South on the use of current indicators for FP programmes. While there have been calls for new measures, understanding the barriers to changing existing ones is essential for adopting and implanting these new measures. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 participants from five distinct groups; academics, NGO workers, government officials, funding agency workers and advocates. Participants were working in countries worldwide, including both the Global North and South; the latter were mostly based in Francophone West Africa. Interviews explored several themes including FP targets and indicators. We applied a thematic analysis. Results: Participants' views ranged from those who believed in the need to eradicate current indicators from FP programmes to those expressing contentment with current indicators and their benefit in measuring success. Most of the participants acknowledged the benefit of indicators in assessing progress or as a starting point, yet they identified multiple limitations to their use, including the possibility of implicit coercion, skewing training to focus on long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) promotion, and prioritising modern contraceptive methods over natural ones. Some expressed anxiety that challenging the status quo could lead to funding cuts. Participants identified challenges in adopting new indicators and emphasised that funding for FP programs remains largely concentrated among international agencies based in the Global North, which results in maintaining certain traditional demographic approaches. Conclusion: Current indicators affect the understanding of success of FP programmes and influence how FP services translate on the ground. We provide international stakeholders' perspectives on the barriers to be overcome to support development of new indicators, including non-use of contraception as a success as long as it is a full, free and informed choice.

Indexed as

autonomyethicsfamily planningindicatorsmeasurements

Identifiers

PMID40584730
PMCPMC12202332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.