ArticleStudies in family planning2025
Contraceptive Concordance.
Article in Studies in family planning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postpartum Intrauterine Device Removal and Access to Removal in the 18 Months Following an Intervention in Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.Studies in family planning · 2026Trial
- Contraceptive Alignment: A Descriptive Study of Concordance between Preferred and Actual Contraceptive Method Use.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- It's Time to Get Practical: A Call for Shorter Measures in the Family Planning Community.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Piloting measures of provider-imposed contraceptive coercion among reproductive-aged contraceptive users in Kisumu, Kenya: a cross-sectional, population-based study.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose an indicator of contraceptive concordance that identifies the alignment between stated preferences for contraception and concurrent contraceptive behavior. Our indicator departs from traditional approaches to measurement in family planning that infer concordance to be the alignment between women's contraceptive (non-)use and their fertility preferences. We estimate our indicator using data from a cross-sectional survey that was conducted with 1,958 married women in rural India. More than half of all women in our sample (51.2 percent) report that they are currently using a contraceptive method. More than three in five women (60.8 percent) were classified as wanting to use a contraceptive method at the time of the survey. We find that 60 percent of women in our sample are classified to be concordant (either wanted users or wanted nonusers), while almost 1 in 4 women (24.8 percent) state a preference for using contraception but are not users (unwanted nonusers), and 15.2 percent of women in our sample state a preference for not using contraception but are users (unwanted users). We discuss the comparative advantages and limitations of our approach relative to traditional measures and other recently developed indicators.
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.