Contraceptive Autonomy: Conceptions and Measurement of a Novel Family Planning Indicator

被引:138
作者
Senderowicz, Leigh [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Dept Global Hlth & Populat, Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
INFORMATION; FERTILITY; VOLUNTARY; CHOICE; WOMEN; RISK; GOAL;
D O I
10.1111/sifp.12114
中图分类号
C921 [人口统计学];
学科分类号
摘要
Since the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, there has been increased attention to high-quality and rights-based family planning, but these concepts have been difficult to measure. Perhaps due to an intellectual history intertwined with population control, contemporary family planning programs and researchers often use (modern) method use as a primary marker of success, with indicators focusing narrowly on contraceptive use and fertility. This results in a fundamental misalignment between existing metrics and the stated family planning goals of promoting reproductive health and rights. This report describes the rationale for a novel family planning indicator called "contraceptive autonomy" and proposes a methodology for measuring this concept at the population level. Defining contraceptive autonomy as the factors necessary for a person to decide for themself what they want in relation to contraception and then to realize that decision, this indicator divides the contraceptive autonomy construct into subdomains of informed choice, full choice, and free choice. By acknowledging that autonomous nonuse is a positive outcome,aiming to maximize contraceptive autonomy rather than use could help shift incentives for family planning programs and reduce some common forms of contraceptive coercion, as our measurement approach is realigned with our focus on high-quality rights-based care.
引用
收藏
页码:161 / 176
页数:16
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries [J].
Ahmed, Saifuddin ;
Li, Qingfeng ;
Liu, Li ;
Tsui, Amy O. .
LANCET, 2012, 380 (9837) :111-125
[2]  
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics, 2009, INFORM CONSENT
[3]  
American Medical Assocation, 2001, COD MED ETH OP CONS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, HLTH SYST STRENGTH G
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2010, OXFORD HDB HIST EUGE
[6]  
Barot S., 2015, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Indicators for the SDGs
[7]   GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE FERTILITY - ETHICAL ISSUES [J].
BERELSON, B ;
LIEBERSON, J .
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 1979, 5 (04) :581-613
[8]  
Bester Johan, 2016, AMA J Ethics, V18, P869, DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.peer2-1609
[9]  
Bloom D.E., 2003, DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND, DOI DOI 10.7249/MR1274
[10]  
Bongaarts J, 2009, INT PERSPECT SEX R H, V35, P39, DOI 10.1363/ifpp.35.039.09