Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 14, 2026

Breakfast Habits among Schoolchildren in the City of Uruguaiana, Brazil
Published on: July 29, 2020
Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing self-rated and researcher-ascribed measures
Brooke W Bullington1,2, Katherine Tumlinson2,3, Nathalie Sawadogo4
1Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, USA.
Background:
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.
Objective:
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.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
More Related Videos
07:40Validation of a Psychosocial Intervention on Body Image in Older People: An Experimental Design
Published on: May 31, 2021
08:10Neuroimaging Field Methods Using Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy NIRS Neuroimaging to Study Global Child Development: Rural Sub-Saharan Africa
Published on: February 2, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Odds Ratio
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Strategies of Self-Presentation III: Self-Monitoring
Sites for measruring blood pressure
The Brachial Artery: Primary Site for Blood Pressure Measurement
Measurement of Blood Pressure