IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v179y2025i2d10.1007_s11205-025-03650-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing Self-Rated and Researcher-Ascribed Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Brooke W. Bullington

    (University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    University of Utah)

  • Katherine Tumlinson

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health)

  • Nathalie Sawadogo

    (Université Joseph Ki-ZERBO)

  • Claire W. Rothschild

    (Population Services International)

  • Leigh Senderowicz

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Abstract

While self-rated measures that rely on participant’s perceptions of themselves are common in public health, they remain underused in contraceptive research. Family planning scholars often rely on researcher-ascribed measures of success that capture whether people have the criteria researchers deem necessary for a given outcome. As family planning researchers shift toward rights-based outcomes, understanding women’s perceptions of their contraceptive knowledge is imperative. We sought to determine whether researcher-ascribed measures of contraceptive knowledge or information provided during contraceptive counseling and self-rated measures of informed choice for contraception align. Informed choice captures whether people have sufficient, unbiased information about their contraceptive options. Using data from a population-based sample of 3,929 reproductive-aged women in Burkina Faso, we compared researcher-ascribed measures, including the informed choice subdomain of the contraceptive autonomy indicator (CAIC) and the Method Information Index (MII), with novel self-rated measures of informed choice developed based on formative research, including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, that capture people’s perceptions of their contraceptive knowledge (self-rated overall informed choice and self-rated method-specific informed choice) using Cohen’s Kappa Statistic. We find that researcher-ascribed measures of contraceptive knowledge and counseling content diverge substantially from self-rated measures of informed choice. CAIC and self-rated overall informed choice had no agreement (Kappa: -0.03); the MII and self-rated method-specific informed choice had no to slight agreement (Kappa = 0.05). These findings reveal that the information researchers consider important for informed choice may not align with women’s perceptions of their informed choice. Both researcher-ascribed and self-rated measures provide uniquely important information needed to inform family planning programs and should be measured on population-based surveys. This study demonstrates the differences between researcher-ascribed and self-rated measures in family planning research, highlighting the importance of both types of measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Brooke W. Bullington & Katherine Tumlinson & Nathalie Sawadogo & Claire W. Rothschild & Leigh Senderowicz, 2025. "Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing Self-Rated and Researcher-Ascribed Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 179(2), pages 1119-1141, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:179:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-025-03650-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-025-03650-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-025-03650-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-025-03650-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:179:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-025-03650-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.