Agency in Family Planning: A Scoping Review of the Measurement of Agency in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Francine Wood, Courtney McLarnon, Sarah Smith, Nitya Yerabandi, Lotus McDougal
{"title":"Agency in Family Planning: A Scoping Review of the Measurement of Agency in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries","authors":"Francine Wood, Courtney McLarnon, Sarah Smith, Nitya Yerabandi, Lotus McDougal","doi":"10.1111/sifp.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Improving women's agency in family planning is an integral component of empowerment, requiring culturally relevant, reliable, and valid measures. Measuring agency—action towards the achievement of self‐determined goals—is key to tracking progress as highlighted by its inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, agency measurement within low‐ and middle‐income contexts has all too often involved applying measures developed and tested in high‐income contexts, and conceptual confusion has also led to both overlapping measures and those that omit key facets of agency. To examine the construction and application of agency measures in family planning research and programs, we conducted a scoping review of studies in low‐and middle‐income countries. Of 9,289 articles and abstracts screened, 72 met our inclusion criteria and included family planning outcomes. We identified 58 unique measures. Most measures were summative and described psychometric testing. Measures often included family planning‐specific items, generally focused on contraceptive use with less attention to areas such as communication, access to services, or fertility timing. While increased interest in measuring family planning agency is evident, inconsistencies in measurement hinder cross‐contextual comparisons. As family planning research and programs adopt empowerment‐focused benchmarks, validated measures of agency are needed to accurately assess impact.","PeriodicalId":22069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Family Planning","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Family Planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.70025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Improving women's agency in family planning is an integral component of empowerment, requiring culturally relevant, reliable, and valid measures. Measuring agency—action towards the achievement of self‐determined goals—is key to tracking progress as highlighted by its inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, agency measurement within low‐ and middle‐income contexts has all too often involved applying measures developed and tested in high‐income contexts, and conceptual confusion has also led to both overlapping measures and those that omit key facets of agency. To examine the construction and application of agency measures in family planning research and programs, we conducted a scoping review of studies in low‐and middle‐income countries. Of 9,289 articles and abstracts screened, 72 met our inclusion criteria and included family planning outcomes. We identified 58 unique measures. Most measures were summative and described psychometric testing. Measures often included family planning‐specific items, generally focused on contraceptive use with less attention to areas such as communication, access to services, or fertility timing. While increased interest in measuring family planning agency is evident, inconsistencies in measurement hinder cross‐contextual comparisons. As family planning research and programs adopt empowerment‐focused benchmarks, validated measures of agency are needed to accurately assess impact.
计划生育中的机构:中低收入国家机构测量的范围审查
改善妇女在计划生育中的作用是增强权能的一个组成部分,需要采取与文化相关、可靠和有效的措施。衡量机构——为实现自主目标而采取的行动——是跟踪进展的关键,因为它被纳入了可持续发展目标。然而,在低收入和中等收入背景下的机构测量常常涉及应用在高收入背景下开发和测试的措施,概念混乱也导致了重叠的措施和那些忽略机构关键方面的措施。为了检验机构措施在计划生育研究和项目中的构建和应用,我们对低收入和中等收入国家的研究进行了范围审查。在筛选的9289篇文章和摘要中,72篇符合我们的纳入标准并纳入了计划生育结局。我们确定了58种独特的测量方法。大多数测量是总结性和描述性的心理测量测试。措施通常包括计划生育特定项目,通常侧重于避孕药具的使用,而较少关注通信、获得服务或生育时机等领域。虽然对测量计划生育机构的兴趣增加是显而易见的,但测量的不一致性阻碍了跨背景比较。随着计划生育研究和规划采用以赋权为重点的基准,需要有效的机构措施来准确评估影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Studies in Family Planning publishes public health, social science, and biomedical research concerning sexual and reproductive health, fertility, and family planning, with a primary focus on developing countries. Each issue contains original research articles, reports, a commentary, book reviews, and a data section with findings for individual countries from the Demographic and Health Surveys.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信