ArticleSocial indicators research2025
Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing self-rated and researcher-ascribed measures.
Article in Social indicators research, 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: While self-rated measures that rely on participant's perceptions of themselves are common in public health, they remain underused in contraceptive research. Family planning scholars often rely on researcher-ascribed measures of success that capture whether people have the criteria researchers deem necessary for a given outcome. As family planning researchers shift toward rights-based outcomes, understanding women's perceptions of their contraceptive knowledge is imperative. Objective: We sought to determine whether researcher-ascribed measures of contraceptive knowledge or information provided during contraceptive counseling and self-rated measures of informed choice for contraception align. Informed choice captures whether people have sufficient, unbiased information about their contraceptive options. Methods: Using data from a population-based sample of 3,929 reproductive-aged women in Burkina Faso, we compared researcher-ascribed measures, including the informed choice subdomain of the contraceptive autonomy indicator (CAIC) and the Method Information Index (MII), with novel self-rated measures of informed choice developed based on formative research, including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, that capture people's perceptions of their contraceptive knowledge (self-rated overall informed choice and self-rated method-specific informed choice) using Cohen's Kappa Statistic. Results: We find that researcher-ascribed measures of contraceptive knowledge and counseling content diverge substantially from self-rated measures of informed choice. CAIC and self-rated overall informed choice had no agreement (Kappa: -0.03); the MII and self-rated method-specific informed choice had no to slight agreement (Kappa=0.05). These findings reveal that the information researchers consider important for informed choice may not align with women's perceptions of their informed choice. Conclusions: Both researcher-ascribed and self-rated measures provide uniquely important information needed to inform family planning programs and should be measured on population-based surveys.
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.