Studies in Family Planning最新文献

Social norms related to fertility may be driving pregnancy desire, timing and contraceptive use, but measurement has lagged. We validated a 10-item injunctive Fertility Norms Scale (FNS) and examined its associations with family planning outcomes among 1021 women and 1020 men in India. FNS captured expectations around pronatalism, childbearing early in marriage and community pressure. We assessed reliability and construct validity through Cronbach's alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) respectively, examining associations with childbearing intention and contraceptive use. FNS demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.65-0.71) and differing sub-constructs by gender. High fertility norm among women was associated with greater likelihood of pregnancy intention [RRR = 2.35 (95% CI: 1.25,4.39); ARRR = 1.53 (95% CI: 0.70,3.30)], lower likelihood of delaying pregnancy [RRR = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.50,0.96); ARRR = 0.72 (95% CI: 0.51,1.02)] and greater ambivalence on delaying pregnancy [RRR = 1.92 (95% CI: 1.18,3.14); ARRR = 1.99 (95% CI: 1.21,3.28)]. Women's higher FNS scores were also associated with higher sterilization [RRR = 2.17 (95% CI: 1.28,3.66); ARRR = 2.24 (95% CI: 1.32,3.83)], but the reverse was noted for men [RRR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.36,1.04); ARRR = 0.54 (95% CI: 0.32,0.94)]. FNS indicated better predictive value among women compared to men for key reproductive outcomes. This measure may be useful for social norms-focused evaluations in family planning and warrants cross-contextual study.

Fertility intentions-intentions regarding whether and when to have children-predict reproductive health outcomes. Measuring fertility intentions is difficult, particularly during macrostructural shocks, for at least two reasons: (1) fertility intentions may be especially volatile during periods of uncertainty and (2) macrostructural shocks may constrain data collection. We propose a set of indicators that capture how a macrostructural shock directly alters fertility intentions, with a particular focus on the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. We advance the conceptualization and construct of fertility intentions measures in three ways. First, we demonstrate the value of direct questions about whether women attributed changes in fertility intentions to the pandemic. Second, we highlight the importance of a typology that delineates fertility postponement, advancement, foregoing, and indecision. Third, we demonstrate the importance of incorporating a granular time window within a two-year period to capture short-term changes to fertility intentions. We exemplify the value of our proposed measures using survey data from a probabilistic sample of women aged 18-34 in Pernambuco, Brazil. We discuss the self-reported change in intentions due to Covid in wave 1 as well as panel change across waves. We further ground our contributions by uncovering important variations by social origin and parity.

Although the reproductive calendar is the primary tool for measuring contraceptive dynamics in low-income settings, the reliability of calendar data has seldom been evaluated, primarily due to the lack of longitudinal panel data. In this research, we evaluated the reproductive calendar using data from the Performance Monitoring for Action Project. We used population-based longitudinal data from nine settings in seven countries: Burkina Faso, Nigeria (Kano and Lagos States), Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa and Kongo Central Provinces), Kenya, Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, and India. To evaluate reliability, we compared the baseline cross-sectional report of contraceptive use (overall and by contraceptive method), nonuse, or pregnancy with the retrospective reproductive calendar entry for the corresponding month, measured at follow-up. We use multivariable regressions to identify characteristics associated with reliability or reporting. Overall, we find that the reliability of the calendar is in the "moderate/substantial" range for nearly all geographies and tests (Kappa statistics between 0.58 and 0.81). Measures of the complexity of the calendar (number of contraceptive use episodes, using the long-acting method at baseline) are associated with reliability. We also find that women who were using contraception without their partners/husband's knowledge (i.e., covertly) were less likely to report reliably in several countries.

Contraceptive counseling protocols tend to focus narrowly on pregnancy intentions, which may overlook other factors that contribute to whether an individual wants or needs contraception. In this report, we demonstrate the potential of two measures of individual contraceptive need that could be assessed as part of contraceptive counseling: (1) a composite score constructed from pregnancy intentions, sexual frequency, and perceived fecundity and (2) a direct measure of contraceptive need ("do you feel it is necessary for you to be using contraception right now?") We compare the two measures using data from Umoyo wa Thanzi, a cohort study in Central Malawi (N = 906; 2017-2018). More frequent sex, perceptions of being more fecund, and a stronger desire to avoid pregnancy were associated with directly reporting contraceptive need (p < 0.001). Women who directly reported contraceptive need had a higher average composite score than women who directly reported they had no need (mean = 7.4 vs. 6.3; p < 0.01), but nearly all participants had scores indicating some risk of unintended pregnancy. Contraceptive counseling protocols should consider assessing women's direct report of contraceptive need, along with risk factors for unintended pregnancy, such as sexual frequency, perceived fecundity, and desire to avoid pregnancy, to better counsel clients.

Unmet need for contraception is a widely used but frequently misunderstood indicator. Although calculated from measures of pregnancy intention and current contraceptive use, unmet need is commonly used as a proxy measure for (1) lack of access to contraception and (2) desire to use it. Using data from a survey in Burkina Faso, we examine the extent to which unmet need corresponds with and diverges from these two concepts, calculating sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Among women assigned conventional unmet need, 67 percent report no desire to use contraception and 61 percent report access to a broad range of affordable contraceptives. Results show unmet need has low sensitivity and specificity in differentiating those who lack access and/or who desire to use a method from those who do not. These findings suggest that unmet need is of limited utility to inform family planning programs and may be leading stakeholders to overestimate the proportion of women in need of expanded family planning services. We conclude that more direct measures are feasible at the population level, rendering the proxy measure of unmet need unnecessary. Where access to and/or desire for contraception are the true outcomes of interest, more direct measures should be used.

Women's engagement in the decision to use contraception, an indicator captured in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), is frequently used to assess women's reproductive agency. In 2014, DHS added a corollary question to the women's questionnaire on decision-making not to use contraception. Study authors hypothesize that women's engagement in decision-making not to use contraception is also indicative of reproductive agency. Analyzing DHS microdata from 30 countries collected between 2015 and 2020 (n = 292,141), this country-level study examines data quality in terms of missingness of data (t-tests), indicator utility in terms of response pattern variability (descriptive statistics), and construct validity in terms of associations between engagement in the decision not to use contraception and engagement in household decision-making (multivariable linear regression). Findings indicate the measure is of good quality, provides nuanced insight, and has construct validity. Importantly, the new measure deepens our understanding of women's reproductive agency.

Beliefs about contraception are commonly conceptualized as playing an important role in contraceptive decision-making. Interventions designed to address beliefs typically include counseling to dispel any "myths" or "misconceptions." These interventions currently show little evidence for impact in reducing beliefs. This commentary delves into the problems associated with using implicitly negative terminology to refer to contraceptive beliefs, which come laden with assumptions as to their validity. By conceptualizing women as getting it wrong or their beliefs as invalid, it sets the scene for dubious treatment of women's concerns and hampers the design of fruitful interventions to address them. To replace the multitude of terms used, we suggest using "belief" going forward to maintain value-free curiosity and remove any implicit assumptions about the origin or validity of a belief. We provide recommendations for measuring beliefs to help researchers understand the drivers and impacts of the belief they are measuring. Finally, we discuss implications for intervention design once different types of belief are better understood. We argue that tailored interventions by belief type would help address the root causes of beliefs and better meet women's broader contraceptive needs, such as the need for contraceptive autonomy and satisfaction.

Equating contraceptive use with programmatic success is fundamentally flawed in failing to account for whether individuals desire contraceptive use; this is problematic because nonuse can reflect empowered decision-making and use may reflect an individual's inability to refuse or discontinue a method. A rights-based approach demands respect for individuals' freedom to weigh options and choose how their desire for pregnancy prevention can be accommodated by available methods and within the context of their own personal, social, and material constraints. We offer an alternative construct, preference-aligned fertility management (PFM), that provides a more holistic indicator of whether one's contraceptive needs are met. PFM is more person-centered and informative for programming than status quo measures of unmet need, demand satisfied, and contraceptive use which define a positive outcome in relation to pregnancy risk rather than one's stated preferences. The PFM approach goes beyond other recent proposals for modifying the concept of unmet need by refraining from judgment of legitimate reasons for nonuse of contraception and offers a straightforward way to capture whether people act in line with their preferences. We conclude with discussion of how we plan to measure PFM in the Innovations for Choice and Autonomy (ICAN) study in Nigeria and Uganda.