Misconceptions, Misinformation, and Misperceptions: A Case for Removing the "Mis-" When Discussing Contraceptive Beliefs.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Studies in Family Planning Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-08 DOI:10.1111/sifp.12232
Rose Stevens, Kazuyo Machiyama, Constancia Vimbayi Mavodza, Aoife M Doyle
{"title":"Misconceptions, Misinformation, and Misperceptions: A Case for Removing the \"Mis-\" When Discussing Contraceptive Beliefs.","authors":"Rose Stevens, Kazuyo Machiyama, Constancia Vimbayi Mavodza, Aoife M Doyle","doi":"10.1111/sifp.12232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Family Planning","volume":"54 1","pages":"309-321"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","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.12232","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

误解、错误信息和错误认识:在讨论避孕观念时删除 "错误 "一词的理由。在讨论避孕观念时。
人们通常认为,避孕观念在避孕决策中起着重要作用。针对避孕观念的干预措施通常包括提供咨询,以消除任何 "神话 "或 "误解"。目前,几乎没有证据表明这些干预措施对减少信念有影响。本评论深入探讨了与使用隐含消极的术语来指代避孕观念相关的问题,这些术语带有对其有效性的假设。将妇女的观念视为错误或她们的信念视为无效,会使人们对妇女关注的问题产生怀疑,并妨碍设计富有成效的干预措施来解决这些问题。我们建议今后使用 "信念 "一词来取代众多术语,以保持无价值的好奇心,并消除对信念的起源或有效性的任何隐含假设。我们提供了衡量信念的建议,以帮助研究人员了解他们所衡量的信念的驱动因素和影响。最后,我们讨论了一旦更好地理解了不同类型的信念,对干预设计的影响。我们认为,根据信念类型采取有针对性的干预措施将有助于解决信念的根本原因,并更好地满足妇女更广泛的避孕需求,如避孕自主性和满意度的需求。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信