ArticleStudies in family planning2025
Development and Validation of the Agency in Contraceptive Decisions Scale in Uganda and Nigeria.
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 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.
- Rethinking family planning success metrics: moving beyond coverage.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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To fill a gap in measures of empowered contraceptive decision-making, we developed the Agency in Contraceptive Decisions Scale in Uganda and Nigeria. We developed an item pool drawing on the previously published Contraceptive Agency framework. We refined items through cognitive interviews (N = 80) and expert feedback and piloted a reduced item pool via surveys (N = 3002). Exploratory factor analysis using a random half of the sample suggested a 15-item scale (Cronbach's α = 0.8) including four subscales: (1) Beliefs about Rights and Perceived Decision-making Control (α = 0.8), (2) Decision-making Self-efficacy (α = 0.8), (3) Knowledge Aligned with Preferences (α = 0.8), and (4) Control over Use or Non-use (α = 0.8). Confirmatory factor analysis with the other half of the sample supported this solution. Agency in Contraceptive Decisions Scale scores were significantly associated with scores on the contraceptive existence of choice and contraceptive exercise of choice subscales of the Women's and Girls Empowerment in Sexual and Reproductive Health Index, supporting construct validity. The 15-item Agency in Contraceptive Decisions Scale and individual subscales are valid and reliable for use in Nigeria and Uganda. This measure offers an innovative alternative for gauging the success of contraceptive programs and policies in advancing the right to empowered choices.
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.