ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025
Thirty years after the Cairo declaration on population & development: have family planning measurements caught up?
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.
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.
- Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.