Misconceptions, Misinformation, and Misperceptions

A Case for Removing the “Mis‐” When Discussing Contraceptive Beliefs

Bibliographic Data

ID10796267
AuthorsRose Stevens (0000-0002-6858-4765, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography University of Oxford Oxford UK, corresponding author), Kazuyo Machiyama (0000-0003-4369-3954, Department of Population Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK), Constancia Vimbayi Mavodza (0000-0003-1651-5888, Department of Public Health and Policy, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK), Aoife M Doyle (0000-0002-3305-7738, Biomedical Research and Training Institute Harare Zimbabwe)
Year2023
Volume54
Issue1
Pages309-321
Publication date2023-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueStudies in Family Planning (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0039-3665 • E-ISSN: 1728-4465
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/sifp.12232
PMID36753058
OpenAlexW4319460810
LanguageEN
Citations received11
References cited63

Beliefs about contraception are commonly conceptualized as playing an important role in contraceptive decision‐making. Interventions designed to address beliefs typically include counseling to dispel any “myths” or “misconceptions.” These interventions currently show little evidence for impact in reducing beliefs. This commentary delves into the problems associated with using implicitly negative terminology to refer to contraceptive beliefs, which come laden with assumptions as to their validity. By conceptualizing women as getting it wrong or their beliefs as invalid, it sets the scene for dubious treatment of women's concerns and hampers the design of fruitful interventions to address them. To replace the multitude of terms used, we suggest using “belief” going forward to maintain value‐free curiosity and remove any implicit assumptions about the origin or validity of a belief. We provide recommendations for measuring beliefs to help researchers understand the drivers and impacts of the belief they are measuring. Finally, we discuss implications for intervention design once different types of belief are better understood. We argue that tailored interventions by belief type would help address the root causes of beliefs and better meet women's broader contraceptive needs, such as the need for contraceptive autonomy and satisfaction

Intervention (counseling · Misinformation · Psychological intervention · Terminology · Computer Science · Global Maternal and Child Health · Medicine · Psychology · Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Social Psychology