Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41225526›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2025

Does family planning use empower women? A systematic review of the evidence.

Nadia G Diamond-Smith, Lakshmi Gopalakrishnan, Salome Wawire, Jacqueline Kunesh, Jennifer Choi, Moazzam Ali, Alison M El Ayadi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Nadia G Diamond-SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lakshmi GopalakrishnanInstitute of Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Salome WawirePrivate Sector Innovation Programme for Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacqueline KuneshSchool of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Jennifer ChoiSchool of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Moazzam AliDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive health, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland. alimoa@who.int.
Alison M El AyadiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

United States Agency for International Development 7200GH21IO00005World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExtensive evidence suggests that family planning programs are second only to education in providing returns on dollars spent with improvements in long-term maternal and child health outcomes. However, no current research synthesis to date has robustly examined whether use of family planning results in increased empowerment and greater agency of women, despite theoretical, but not empirical, support that family planning influences this outcome as well. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence on how women's access to and/or use of family planning methods impacts their agency and empowerment, including mechanisms and effect modifiers important to this relationship.

methodsWe searched 20 global and regional databases for interventional and observational research published from January 2000 through January 2022 which reviewed the relationship between family planning use and subsequent women's empowerment. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened in duplicate, and key data were extracted using a standardized form. We evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and rated the certainty of evidence for four outcomes (decision-making, labor force participation, wages, and schooling) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Findings were analyzed and summarized in both tabular and narrative format.

resultsWe identified 3,170 articles after de-duplication, of which 14 quantitative and three qualitative studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were in both high income and low- and middle-income countries, with the largest proportion being from South Asia. Studies ranged from randomized controlled trials of programs at the community level to quasi-experimental studies of policies. The GRADE framework yielded low and very low confidence in the findings. Outcomes were categorized into domains using Kabeer's framework of Resources, agency and achievements. Most studies measured the impact of family planning on resources or agency. Combining measures across all domains of empowerment, 47% had positive, 39% null, and 14% negative results. DISCUSSION: Overall, this systematic review suggests that family planning access has a positive impact on a variety of empowerment measures across different domains of empowerment. However, the quality ratings indicate that while our synthesis suggests potential benefits of family planning for women's empowerment, the current evidence base provides limited confidence for definitive conclusions. One of the main challenges in understanding the impact of family planning on empowerment is the diversity of conceptualizations and measures of empowerment used. In addition, the geographic coverage of studies was limited to few countries, with only one study from Latin America. Further research using a process-oriented measure of empowerment comparable across contexts could add to our understanding. In addition to being a fundamental human right, investing in family planning likely contributes to women's empowerment in multiple domains.

Indexed as

EmpowermentFamily Planning ServicesDecision MakingFemaleHumansAgencyContraceptionDecision-makingEconomic statusEmpowermentFamily planningSocial statusSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41225526
PMCPMC12613654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.