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
  • Impact Report 2025

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
  • Impact Report 2025

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Opinion
August 2025

Intention to use contraception: Promises and pitfalls of family planning's emerging demand indicator

Authors

Jamaica Corker, Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology Ilene S. Speizer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jean Christophe Fotso, EVIHDAF Niranjan Saggurti, Population Council Elizabeth A. Sully, Guttmacher Institute

Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?

Donate

Abstract / Summary

The “intention to use” (ITU) contraception indicator has gained recent prominence as a proposed high-level success metric for family planning (FP) programs and as a step toward identifying measures that better capture what women want. Although ITU offers advantages over traditional indicators like contraceptive prevalence and unmet need, its elevation as a key programmatic measure requires critical examination. In this commentary, we outline advantages of ITU to measure FP demand and offer critiques and considerations for reliance on ITU as a demand metric for measuring programmatic success. We argue that while ITU may be a step toward more person-centered measurement, it is not inherently person-centered. Rather than positioning ITU as an innovative person-centered breakthrough, we argue it should be considered a transitional measure—a bridge toward more comprehensive indicators that capture the complexities of contraceptive decision-making. We recognize the current lack of viable alternatives for programs seeking a singular person-centered measure; when used, ITU should be complemented by additional topline indicators that capture access, agency, and preferences. With declining research funding and data infrastructure disruptions, it is important that ITU complement, not replace, efforts to develop the next generation of FP measurement that meaningfully reflects people's contraceptive realities.

Read the full article at Studies in Family Planning. 

First published on Studies in Family Planning: August 11, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.70029

Share

Printer-friendly version

Read More

Research Article

[Un]met need and [un]wanted family planning: A cross-sectional study among women in Argentina, Ghana, and India examining characteristics, reasons, and alignment with fertility desires

Studies in Family Planning
Research Article

The state of person-centered measurement for family planning need and use: A scoping review

Studies in Family Planning

Topic

Global

  • Contraception

Geography

  • Global

US Policy Resources

More
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.