男性参与计划生育的衡量和概念化:对非洲研究的文献计量分析。

IF 2.2 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Contraception and reproductive medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1186/s40834-024-00293-9
Tosin Olajide Oni, Rebaone Petlele, Olufunmilayo Olufunmilola Banjo, Akinrinola Bankole, Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi
{"title":"男性参与计划生育的衡量和概念化:对非洲研究的文献计量分析。","authors":"Tosin Olajide Oni, Rebaone Petlele, Olufunmilayo Olufunmilola Banjo, Akinrinola Bankole, Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi","doi":"10.1186/s40834-024-00293-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Male involvement in Family Planning (FP) is an exercise of men's sexual and reproductive health rights. However, the measurement of male involvement has been highly inconsistent and too discretional in FP studies. As a result, we used bibliometric tools to analyze the existing measures of male involvement in FP and recommend modifications for standard measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using developed search terms, we searched for research articles ever published on male involvement in FP from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The search results were filtered for studies that focused on Africa. A total of 152 research articles were selected after the screening, and bibliometric analysis was performed in R.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed that 54% of the studies measured male involvement through approval for FP, while 46.7% measured it through the attitude of males to FP. About 31% measured male involvement through input in deciding FP method, while others measured it through inputs in the choice of FP service center (13.6%), attendance at FP clinic/service center (17.8%), and monetary provision for FP services/materials (12.4%). About 82.2% of the studies used primary data, though the majority (61.2%) obtained information on male involvement from women alone. Only about one in five studies (19.1%) got responses from males and females, with fewer focusing on males alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most studies have measured male involvement in FP through expressed or perceived approval for FP. However, these do not sufficiently capture male involvement and do not reflect women's autonomy. Other more encompassing measures of male involvement, which would reflect the amount of intimacy among heterosexual partners, depict the extent of the exercise of person-centered rights, and encourage the collection of union-specific data, are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":93956,"journal":{"name":"Contraception and reproductive medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement and conceptualization of male involvement in family planning: a bibliometric analysis of Africa-based studies.\",\"authors\":\"Tosin Olajide Oni, Rebaone Petlele, Olufunmilayo Olufunmilola Banjo, Akinrinola Bankole, Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40834-024-00293-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Male involvement in Family Planning (FP) is an exercise of men's sexual and reproductive health rights. However, the measurement of male involvement has been highly inconsistent and too discretional in FP studies. As a result, we used bibliometric tools to analyze the existing measures of male involvement in FP and recommend modifications for standard measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using developed search terms, we searched for research articles ever published on male involvement in FP from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The search results were filtered for studies that focused on Africa. A total of 152 research articles were selected after the screening, and bibliometric analysis was performed in R.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed that 54% of the studies measured male involvement through approval for FP, while 46.7% measured it through the attitude of males to FP. About 31% measured male involvement through input in deciding FP method, while others measured it through inputs in the choice of FP service center (13.6%), attendance at FP clinic/service center (17.8%), and monetary provision for FP services/materials (12.4%). About 82.2% of the studies used primary data, though the majority (61.2%) obtained information on male involvement from women alone. Only about one in five studies (19.1%) got responses from males and females, with fewer focusing on males alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most studies have measured male involvement in FP through expressed or perceived approval for FP. However, these do not sufficiently capture male involvement and do not reflect women's autonomy. Other more encompassing measures of male involvement, which would reflect the amount of intimacy among heterosexual partners, depict the extent of the exercise of person-centered rights, and encourage the collection of union-specific data, are recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception and reproductive medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception and reproductive medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-024-00293-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception and reproductive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-024-00293-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:男性参与计划生育(FP)是男性行使性健康和生殖健康权利的一种方式。然而,在计划生育研究中,对男性参与的衡量标准非常不一致,而且过于随意。因此,我们使用文献计量学工具分析了男性参与计划生育的现有测量方法,并提出了修改标准测量方法的建议:方法:我们使用制定的搜索条件,从 Scopus、Web of Science 和 PubMed 数据库中搜索了有关男性参与 FP 的研究文章。搜索结果中筛选出以非洲为重点的研究。筛选后共选出 152 篇研究文章,并用 R.Results 软件进行了文献计量分析:结果显示,54%的研究通过男性对计划生育的认可度来衡量男性的参与度,46.7%的研究通过男性对计划生育的态度来衡量男性的参与度。约 31% 的研究通过男性在决定 FP 方法方面的投入来衡量男性参与度,其他研究则通过男性在选择 FP 服务中心(13.6%)、到 FP 诊所/服务中心就诊(17.8%)以及为 FP 服务/材料提供资金(12.4%)方面的投入来衡量男性参与度。约 82.2%的研究使用了原始数据,但大多数研究(61.2%)仅从妇女那里获得了有关男性参与的信息。只有约五分之一的研究(19.1%)从男性和女性那里获得了答复,而仅关注男性的研究较少:大多数研究都是通过男性对计划生育的明示认可或感知认可来衡量男性参与计划生育的情况。结论:大多数研究都是通过男性对计划生育的明示认可或感知认可来衡量男性在计划生育中的参与程度,但这并不能充分反映男性的参与程度,也不能反映女性的自主性。建议采用其他更全面的男性参与措施,这些措施将反映异性伴侣之间的亲密程度,描述以人为本的权利的行使程度,并鼓励收集针对具体结合的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measurement and conceptualization of male involvement in family planning: a bibliometric analysis of Africa-based studies.

Background: Male involvement in Family Planning (FP) is an exercise of men's sexual and reproductive health rights. However, the measurement of male involvement has been highly inconsistent and too discretional in FP studies. As a result, we used bibliometric tools to analyze the existing measures of male involvement in FP and recommend modifications for standard measures.

Methods: Using developed search terms, we searched for research articles ever published on male involvement in FP from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The search results were filtered for studies that focused on Africa. A total of 152 research articles were selected after the screening, and bibliometric analysis was performed in R.

Results: Results showed that 54% of the studies measured male involvement through approval for FP, while 46.7% measured it through the attitude of males to FP. About 31% measured male involvement through input in deciding FP method, while others measured it through inputs in the choice of FP service center (13.6%), attendance at FP clinic/service center (17.8%), and monetary provision for FP services/materials (12.4%). About 82.2% of the studies used primary data, though the majority (61.2%) obtained information on male involvement from women alone. Only about one in five studies (19.1%) got responses from males and females, with fewer focusing on males alone.

Conclusion: Most studies have measured male involvement in FP through expressed or perceived approval for FP. However, these do not sufficiently capture male involvement and do not reflect women's autonomy. Other more encompassing measures of male involvement, which would reflect the amount of intimacy among heterosexual partners, depict the extent of the exercise of person-centered rights, and encourage the collection of union-specific data, are recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
From theories of contraceptive use to human rights principles: implications for indicators on the supply and demand side. Factors associated with modern contraceptive utilization among reproductive age women in Cambodia; evidenced by the recent Cambodia demographic and health survey. Barriers and enablers to utilisation of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception in Eastern Uganda: a qualitative study. Comparative effectiveness of sildenafil citrate and estradiol valerate as adjuvants during clomiphene citrate-assisted ovarian stimulation cycles in patients with unexplained infertility: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Barriers to modern contraceptive utilization in Ethiopia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1