Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Studies in Family Planning

Measuring Unmet Need for Contraception Using a Person-Centered Algorithm: An Application With a Community-Based Sample of Married Rohingya Women in Bangladesh

Rohingya with Cox

Authors

Octavia Mulhern, Guttmacher Institute Rubina Hussain, Guttmacher Institute Joe Strong, London School of Economics and Political Science Ann M. Moore, Guttmacher Institute Mira Tignor, Guttmacher Institute Kaosar Afsana, BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University Pragna Paramita Mondal, BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University Altaf Hossain, Association for Prevention of Septic Abortion

The standard measure of unmet need for contraception is not person-centered and may not adequately represent women's contraceptive needs. To demonstrate the strength of a modified measure, we replicated the standard algorithm for unmet need, then created a person-centered algorithm that considers (1) whether nonusers want to use contraception and (2) whether users want to use a different method. We applied the standard and person-centered algorithms to a sample of 847 married Rohingya women aged 15–49 years living in camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, a population about whom little is known regarding contraceptive need. Forty-six percent of respondents were currently using contraception. Among users, 14 percent wanted to use a different method and 36 percent of nonusers wanted to use a method. Using the standard algorithm, 39 percent had “unmet need,” 18 percent had “no need,” and 44 percent had “met need.” Using the person-centered measure, 24 percent had “unmet need,” 38 percent had “no need,” and 38 percent had “met need.” The standard algorithm may overestimate unmet need among Rohingya nonusers, and the person-centered measure provides evidence of method dissatisfaction among users. This measure also complements existing person-centered measures of need and is an example of how incremental change can improve our understanding of women's contraceptive needs.

Read the full article at Studies in Family Planning. 

First published on Studies in Family Planning: July 2, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.70024
Source / Available for Purchase
Full article available at Studies in Family Planning

Share

Topic

Global

  • Contraception

Geography

  • Global
  • Asia: Bangladesh
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.®

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.