ReviewBMJ global health2026
Assessing family planning progress in exemplar countries: development of a conceptual framework and case study methodology.
Review in BMJ global health, 2026. 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.
- Progress in family planning in Sierra Leone: a mixed-methods case study.BMJ global 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Family planning (FP) is a critical component of reproductive health, enabling individuals to plan the number and timing of children through various contraceptive methods.We outline the conceptual framework and country case study methodology used by the Exemplars in Family Planning (EFP) project. This was based on the wider Exemplars in Global Health programme, which uses mixed-methods to examine determinants of FP progress in countries that exceed expectations for health outcomes. The EFP project integrates findings from case studies on six such countries, including quantitative analyses of trends and drivers of modern contraceptive prevalence, systematic reviews, policy, programme and financing assessments, and qualitative data collection with policymakers, providers and community actors. Data triangulation across these methods, complemented by consortium input and country workshops, enabled robust validation of findings and identification of cross-cutting themes. This approach produced a nuanced understanding of FP progress by capturing interactions between government programmes (demand and supply), service delivery mechanisms, subnational contexts and individual determinants. Quantitative decomposition and trend analyses quantified the contributions of population characteristics, behavioural factors and interventions, while qualitative and stakeholder data contextualised these findings within local sociocultural, health system and policy environments.This multicountry, mixed-methods analysis led by local researchers and supported by a global consortium enhanced methodological rigour, contextualised findings and enabled cross-country learning on FP progress. It identified key cross-cutting drivers and offers evidence-informed guidance to improve contraceptive uptake and demand satisified, while highlighting the need for context-specific interventions and further longitudinal, multicountry research.
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.