Understanding drivers of family planning in rural northern India: An integrated mixed-methods approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family planning is a key means to achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals. Around the world, governments and partners have prioritized investments to increase access to and uptake of family planning methods. In Uttar Pradesh, India, the government and its partners have made significant efforts to increase awareness, supply, and access to modern contraceptives. Despite progress, uptake remains stubbornly low. This calls for systematic research into understanding the 'why'-why people are or aren't using modern methods, what drives their decisions, and who influences them. METHODS: We use a mixed-methods approach, analyzing three existing quantitative data sets to identify trends and geographic variation, gaps and contextual factors associated with family planning uptake and collecting new qualitative data through in-depth immersion interviews, journey mapping, and decision games to understand systemic and individual-level barriers to family planning use, household decision making patterns and community level barriers. RESULTS: We find that reasons for adoption of family planning are complex-while access and awareness are critical, they are not sufficient for increasing uptake of modern methods. Although awareness is necessary for uptake, we found a steep drop-off (59%) between high awareness of modern contraceptive methods and its intention to use, and an additional but smaller drop-off from intention to actual use (9%). While perceived access, age, education and other demographic variables partially predict modern contraceptive intention to use, the qualitative data shows that other behavioral drivers including household decision making dynamics, shame to obtain modern contraceptives, and high-risk perception around side-effects also contribute to low intention to use modern contraceptives. The data also reveals that strong norms and financial considerations by couples are the driving force behind the decision to use and when to use family planning methods. CONCLUSION: The finding stresses the need to shift focus towards building intention, in addition to ensuring access of trained staff, and commodities drugs and equipment, and building capacities of health care providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".