↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A practical alternative to calculating unmet need for family planning

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Contraception, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
A practical alternative to calculating unmet need for family planning
Published in
Open Access Journal of Contraception, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/oajc.s137705
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irit Sinai, Susan Igras, Rebecka Lundgren

Abstract

The standard approach for measuring unmet need for family planning calculates actual, physiological unmet need and is useful for tracking changes at the population level. We propose to supplement it with an alternate approach that relies on individual perceptions and can improve program design and implementation. The proposed approach categorizes individuals by their perceived need for family planning: real met need (current users of a modern method), perceived met need (current users of a traditional method), real no need, perceived no need (those with a physiological need for family planning who perceive no need), and perceived unmet need (those who realize they have a need but do not use a method). We tested this approach using data from Mali (n=425) and Benin (n=1080). We found that traditional method use was significantly higher in Benin than in Mali, resulting in different perceptions of unmet need in the two countries. In Mali, perceived unmet need was much higher. In Benin, perceived unmet need was low because women believed (incorrectly) that they were protected from pregnancy. Perceived no need - women who believed that they could not become pregnant despite the fact that they were fecund and sexually active - was quite high in both countries. We posit that interventions that address perceptions of unmet need, in addition to physiological risk of pregnancy, will more likely be effective in changing behavior. The suggested approach for calculating unmet need supplements the standard calculations and is helpful for designing programs to better address women's and men's individual needs in diverse contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 27%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Social Sciences 10 16%
Psychology 2 3%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,562,823
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Contraception
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,448
of 327,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Contraception
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them