ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2026
Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the contemporary intellectual consensus within the family planning (FP) community on the need to implement rights-based interventions, little attention has gone into understanding when, why, and which rights-based interventions are ethically sound. Although we are in a time of increased attention to decolonisation processes on global health, current political climate is shifting the discourse on the need for decolonisation, reproductive justice and rights-based approaches in sexual and reproductive health. Hence, we offer this paper to begin the conversation on what questions can help the design of ethical right-based family planning grants and interventions. We suggest six interconnected principles governing these conversations, which we present separately to look at their specific validity: (1) compassion; (2) vulnerability; (3) voice; (4) authenticity; (5) agency; and (6) equity. Using these principles as a guide, we encourage actors across the family planning community to come together to hold courageous critical conversations on whether the resources invested in family planning interventions go beyond effectiveness to have ethics as the ultimate goal. We hope that the family planning community will build on and expand upon this framework, incorporating it into standards of practice as part of a broader transition toward self-reflection and transparency around intentions and actions.
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.