Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice letter Reprod Health . 2026 Apr 10;23:77. doi: 10.1186/s12978-026-02292-2 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Downplaying reality: is the UN population fund forgetting population growth and family planning? Frank Götmark Frank Götmark 1 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden Find articles by Frank Götmark 1, ✉ , Chukwuedozie Ajaero Chukwuedozie Ajaero 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria Find articles by Chukwuedozie Ajaero 2 , Mohammad Mainul Islam Mohammad Mainul Islam 3 Department of Population Sciences, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh Find articles by Mohammad Mainul Islam 3 , Rhoda Mundi Rhoda Mundi 4 Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria Find articles by Rhoda Mundi 4 , Nebechukwu H Ugwu Nebechukwu H Ugwu 5 Demography and Population Studies Program, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Find articles by Nebechukwu H Ugwu 5 , Malte Andersson Malte Andersson 1 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden Find articles by Malte Andersson 1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 3 Department of Population Sciences, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh 4 Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria 5 Demography and Population Studies Program, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Jul 16; Accepted 2026 Feb 19; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13067449 PMID: 41964027 Abstract Background The global population is projected by the UN Population Division to continue growing by over 2 billion, from 8.1 in 2024 to 10.3 in 2084, aggravating climate change and biodiversity loss, raising risks of poverty and starvation, and impairing reproductive health in many developing countries, especially in Africa. Objective Evaluation of the population policy of a major international actor in reproductive health, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and presentation of alternative and complementary policy addressing population growth, high fertility rates and unmet need for family planning in African and other countries. Argument Original research and reviews show that family planning (FP) programs help reduce unsustainably high fertility and population growth. Historically birth control has seen grave mistakes, but most FP programs were voluntary and successful. Yet the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) leadership criticizes such programs, avoids emphasizing the need for fertility decline in Africa and elsewhere, and averts important facts about population growth. Instead, the leadership assumes that sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) fully solve related problems. While SRHR contributes to public health, voluntary FP programs in several African countries with serious undernourishment have helped increase contraceptive use and slow population growth. Many African countries face problems from strong population growth and wish to lower fertility by family planning. The US government has now cut most of its previously large international aid, with tragic health consequences. The new situation should encourage African and other high-fertility countries to invest in own population programs that reduce dependency on uncertain foreign donors. Conclusion Voluntary family planning programs can increase contraceptive use, slow population growth, and improve the life of children, women and men. UNFPA leadership should endorse such FP programs and, in particular, re-adopt its historic mandate of improving human welfare by ameliorating rapid population growth. Keywords: Population growth, developing countries, population policy, UNFPA, international aid, family planning, sustainability Background From about 1960, global population growth and poverty motivated many family planning (FP) programs [ 1 ]. Over a 40-year period, FP programs improved life especially for women and children, and helped raise contraceptive prevalence from 10 to 60%, reducing fertility from about 6 to 3 births per woman [ 2 , 3 ]. Reviewing 23 programs the World Bank [ 4 ] concluded that “for the most part, the family planning program ‘experiment’ worked: policy and program interventions contributed substantially to the revolutionary rise of contraceptive use and to the decline in fertility that has occurred in the developing world”. While China’s now abandoned one-child policy, India’s vasectomy campaign 1975-76, and Peru’s sterilizations 1996-97 included coercion and violated human rights, most FP programs in developing countries were voluntary and successful. A review of population policies between 1950 and 2023 in Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia and Rwanda [ 5 ] finds that family planning interventions were “successful in increasing family planning coverage by implementing broader multi-sectoral policies and considering the diverse needs of the population”. In 2024, the UN Population Division projected strong population growth in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and especially in Africa where the population is expected to increase from 1.4 billion in 2024 to 3.4 billion in 2100 [ 6 ]. Fertility remains high in Africa, on average 4.1 births per woman (4.3 in Sub-Saharan Africa). From 2017, undernourishment has increased globally and remains high, overall, 9.1% in 2023 [ 7 ]. In Africa, 298 million people were undernourished in 2023, and 847 million moderately or severely food insecure (58% of the total population). In a projection to 2050, population growth was a stronger driver of undernourishment than was climate change [ 8 ]. A rapidly growing population is a challenge, especially in conditions of poverty, environmental degradation, climate change, and limited public services for health and employment. Efforts should therefore be geared toward health facilities and FP services that improve maternal health and reduce unintended pregnancies and child mortality. Unfortunately, many aid programs previously supported by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were ended by the US administration in 2025. The rising global and African population and increasing consumption per capita in high- and middle-income countries are major threats to development, food production, ecosystem functions and biodiversity [ 9 – 12 ]. In 2022, the IPCC’s 6th report concluded that the two strongest drivers of CO 2 emissions are economic growth (GDP per capita) and population growth [ 13 ]. We all contribute to emission growth: rich individuals everywhere must consume less, and countries with high birth rate need to reduce it. Unless fertility declines substantially the African population is likely to double in 40 years, imperiling regional and local ecosystems, livelihoods and food security. The role of UNFPA, the United Nation’s Population Fund Reducing negative effects of population growth by family planning was central at UN’s first major conference on population and development (in Bucharest 1974) which stimulated more FP programs. The second conference (in Mexico City 1984) followed a similar course, though with resistance against abortion by USA. But the third such UN conference, in Cairo 1994 (below, ‘Cairo’), led to great changes. Family planning was largely replaced by the concept SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights, followed by markedly reduced financial and other support for FP programs. In the UN’s international goals and statements about SRHR, FP is still sometimes included, but without recommendation of coordinated programs. Over time, concern about population growth and support for FP programs waned in international aid [ 9 ], despite continued rapid population growth. An exception was the London Summit 2012 initiated by the Gates Foundation and its partners, leading to the program FP2020 and subsequently, FP2030 . From 1973, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is mandated to promote awareness of population problems and strategies to deal with them. But according to UNFPA’s current website, its goal elaborated since Cairo is instead to “ensure reproductive rights for all”. Its Executive Director in 2022 regarded concerns about population growth as “population alarmism”, and claimed that focus on numbers risk imposing population controls that had been shown by history to be “ineffective and even dangerous” [ 14 ]. But the program of action from the Cairo conference points out that people have right “to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning”, and countries need to “contribute to the stabilization of the world population” (see also [ 15 ]). Yet in a foreword to the program texts in 2004, UNFPA emphasized a shift from “a focus on human numbers to a focus on human lives” [ 16 ]. In the meantime, the global population 1994–2004 had increased by almost one billion. The yearly increase is still 70 million, or more [ 6 , 17 ]. But current concerns about low fertility in some countries unfortunately overshadows the worrying prospect of 2 more billion in coming decades. Most of that increase will occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and some other countries with still unsustainably high fertility, which threatens progress in health, nutrition, education, employment, ecosystem functions and other important aspects. Despite much scientific evidence [ 2 – 5 , 9 – 12 ] UNFPA underrates voluntary family planning programs that helped fertility decline in developing countries 1960–1995. For instance, South Korea’s successful program markedly reduced high fertility and population growth, and helped improve living conditions [ 2 , 3 ]. The UNFPA report 2023 [ 18 ] neglects the evidence that population growth and economic growth together are the key drivers of crises in climate, food security, and biodiversity [ 8 – 12 ]. Ambiguous statements such as “population sizes are neither good nor bad” [ 18 ] do not help politicians and policymakers. According to one critical evaluation [ 19 ], UNFPA’s “extreme reluctance to address the population factor has resulted in messaging that excludes the impact of demographic realities on women, girls, ecosystems and vulnerable human communities”. Such policy contrasts with insightful evaluation of population growth and family planning by the UN Population Division in 2024 (Ref. 6; e.g. Summary of Results, ch. IV). Contraception, family planning programs, and social norms In Sub-Saharan Africa contraceptive use has increased especially where longer education is combined with FP programs [ 20 ] (Fig. 1 ). Education and FP programs are also determinants of fertility decline in Sub-Saharan Africa [ 21 ]. Family planning programs for this and many other humanitarian reasons should promote longer female education and school teaching of safe contraceptive use, easy access to free contraceptives [ 22 ], and information about the need to slow population growth. Social legitimation of contraception lets individuals re-assess how many children they want. That number may also depend on culture [ 23 – 25 ], and on what others are doing. Africa is partly trapped in unfortunate social norms of high fertility [ 25 ], and efforts to lower such norms are essential for reducing unsustainably high population growth. Fig. 1. Open in a new tab The use of modern contraception in sub-Saharan Africa is correlated with the relative strength of national family planning programs (size of gray circle), also when education level of women is controlled for. Data and Figure from Bongaarts & Hardee [ 20 ] who used a public sector program score for family planning, ranging from 0 in the absence of a government program, to a theoretical value of 100 for the strongest program. The lines leading to each circle represent time series of five-year estimates for contraception. Data from 24 sub-Saharan countries 1970–2015. Figure used with permission from authors Over the last 30 years since Cairo, the global fertility decreased from 2.9 to 2.2 children per woman [ 6 ]. Yet in Sub-Saharan Africa, SRHR has not markedly reduced desire for many children. African researchers [ 26 ] found that 20% of women wanted 0–3 children, 37% 4–5 children, and as many as 44% reported 6 or more children as ideal. Problematic early childbearing was lower in countries where women were more educated and desired smaller families. FP services and contraception can markedly reduce teenage and other unplanned pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted disease such as HIV/AIDS. Husband’s/partner’s approval of family planning is associated with increased use of modern contraception [ 27 ], and reaching more men should be one critical part of FP programs. In addition, churches and religious leaders that emphasize family planning can be important partners in the programs (see, e.g. [ 28 ]). Unmet female need for family planning was 37% in Sub-Saharan Africa 2022, together with Oceania highest among world regions studied [ 29 ]. A UN/UNFPA Summit in Nairobi 2019 celebrated 25 years since Cairo with a laudable goal of no unmet need for family planning. Yet, review and revision of the Cairo program is urgently needed, given the continued high fertility and population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa and some other countries and regions [ 6 – 8 ]. High consumption norms in rich countries must be lowered to reduce human impact on climate, environment and biodiversity. For the same reason, and for improving human life conditions and economy [ 25 ], norms of large family in Africa need to be lowered. Smaller family size can engender demographic dividends with economic benefits and improved life conditions, especially for women and children. Such dividends are still hardly visible, however [ 25 ]. FP programs and health support are strongly needed in Africa for all these reasons. National policies on population growth and fertility are reported to and listed by the UN on its website. In 2015, 42 of 54 African nations reported a policy of “lower population growth”, and in 2017, 45 of these 54 nations reported “lower fertility level”. Such important information about policy is, however, omitted in UNFPA’s report [ 18 ]. Many policy makers and researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa agree that population growth is negative for social welfare and environment [ 30 ]. Given insightful leadership and outreach, UNFPA can assist governments and organizations that wish to build voluntary FP programs. Some local UNFPA organizations in for instance Bangladesh and Egypt seem to support national population policies that consider both population growth and family planning. According to its website, UNFPA is the world’s largest public-sector procurer of contraceptives. This important component of family planning and SRHR should be expanded to full FP programs where UNFPA emphasizes the positive roles of fertility decline and population stabilization in Africa and elsewhere. A laudable example is FP2030 , according to its website “The only global partnership dedicated solely to family planning” [ 31 ], pointing the way for urgently needed new policy. Such policy should also inform about environmental benefits of reduced population growth [ 8 , 10 – 12 ]: saving more forest, savannah, freshwater and the remains of the Earth’s mega-fauna, with still viable populations in some African and other countries. Evidence indicates that voluntary FP programs between 1965 and 1995 were important in reducing fertility rates in many developing countries [ 2 – 5 , 9 ], see also Fig. 2 . Recent analyses point to their influence in Africa [ 20 , 21 ], but these programs need much more support to reduce the unsustainably high fertility rate in many countries. The widespread use of mobile phones combined with outreach and communication through media, such as serial drama effectively used by Population Media Center, are important for FP programs [ 32 – 35 ]. Policies should consider the total situation in which people live, and not only human rights, but also responsibilities. Strong commitment by political leaders is essential for such programs, and for crucially improved status, education and empowerment of women. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Total fertility rate (TFR, average number of live births per woman) in 1965, 1995 and 2024. The five countries from Latin America and Asia are examples of early and comprehensive family planning programs. Such programs began later and/or were less comprehensive in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Family planning programs occurred in many developing countries between 1965 and 1995, a period of strong decrease in TFR [ 2 , 4 , 6 ]. Data from UN Population Division 2024 [ 6 ] For many years, USA was a major supporter of family planning, and the recent stop of many USAID health programs to Africa and other developing countries has serious consequences, also for FP services and contraception. In this situation, African commentators now point to opportunities for countries to reconsider aid programs, increase self-reliance, and reduce dependency on uncertain foreign donors [ 36 ]. But international aid is also important; it has for instance helped lower the high adolescent fertility rate in low-income countries [ 37 ]. Aid is therefore still much needed, in accordance with premises and decisions taken by African and other recipients. Conclusion Experience from previous and current voluntary family planning programs show that they help increase contraceptive use, slow population growth, improve economy and life of children, women and men, and thereby facilitate several of UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The leadership of UNFPA should therefore, like other UN organizations and FP2030 , emphasize and endorse voluntary family planning programs, and re-adopt its historic mandate of improving human welfare by ameliorating rapid population growth. This is especially important for developing countries in Africa and elsewhere that seek to invest in such programs. Acknowledgements We thank John Cleland, Aisha Dasgupta, Partha Dasgupta, Michel Garenne and an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Abbreviations FP Family Planning SRHR Sexual and reproductive health and rights UNFPA United Nations Population Fund USAID US Agency for International Development IPCC Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change Authors’ contributions F.G. and M.A. conceptualized and wrote the original draft. It was reviewed, improved and edited by C.A., M.I., R.M. and N.U. (Care was taken to involve competent researchers from different countries and regions, and to include gender aspects, a major topic of the manuscript). Funding We had no funding to produce this manuscript. Data availability Data used in the manuscript are publicly available. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Greenberg DS. Birth control: Swedish government has ambitious program to offer help to underdeveloped nations. Science. 1962;137:1038–39. 10.1126/science.137.3535.1038. https://www-science-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Cleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, Faundes A, Glasier A, Innis J. Family planning: the unfinished agenda. Lancet. 2006;368:1810–27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17113431/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. The Overpopulation Project. Responsible parenthood, family planning, and the United Nations. An interview with Carl Wahren – pioneer of family planning. Film, 2024. https://videos.files.wordpress.com/k49Ar25n/carl-w-intervju-master19-4.mp4 4. Robinson WC, Ross JA., Eds. The Global Family Planning Revolution. The World Bank, Washington D. C.,2007. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ru/259541468177850467/pdf/405350Familiy0101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf 5. Hellwig F, Moreira LR, Silviera MF, et al. Impacts of policies for expanding family planning coverage: lessons from five successful countries. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1339725. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1339725/full . https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. United Nations, World Population Prospects. 2024. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/world-population-prospects-2024 7. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024 – Financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. Rome. 2024. 10.4060/cd1254en. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Molotoks A, Smith P, Dawson TP. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security. Food Energy Sect. 2021;10:e261. 10.1002/fes3.261. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ . [ Google Scholar ] 9. Bongaarts J. Development: slow down population growth. Nature. 2016;530:409–12. https://www.nature.com/articles/530409a . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Crist E, Mora C, Engelman R. The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science. 2017;356:260-4. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal2011 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 11. Dasgupta A, Dasgupta P. Human population and the biosphere. Popul Dev Rev. 2024;51:41–61. 10.1111/padr.12710. [ Google Scholar ] 12. Cafaro P, Hansson P, Götmark F. Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left. Biological Conservation. 2022; 272:109646. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722001999?casa_token=E1LRV9NeDFgAAAAA:WQsHmIti4vqq7f3mCq2n7BUxrXapAYiLIRa4egzPaXHr2w00tn3Yoh-slqZ_ZxkN-n3P5pe2qclF 13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2022 – Mitigation of Climate Change. Sixth Assesment Report, IPCC 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf 14. Davies L. UN warns against alarmism as world’s population reaches 8 bn milestone. Guardian 2022;18 October. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/18/global-population-growth-8-billion-unfdp-united-nations-warning-alarmism 15. Brown W, Hardee K. Can the international conference on population and development programme of action and Cairo consensus normalize the discourse on population? Global Health: Science and Practice. 2024;12:no.5:5–14. https://www.ghspjournal.org/content/12/5/e2400121.short [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 16. UNFPA, Programme of Action [reprinted from UN’s Cairo conference 1994]. 2004. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/event-pdf/PoA_en.pdf 17. O’Sullivan J. Demographic delusions: world population growth is exceeding most projections and jeopardising scenarios for sustainable futures. World. 2023;4:545–68. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/4/3/34 . 18. UNFPA, State of the World Report. 2023. https://www.unfpa.org/swp2023 19. Bajaj N, Crist E, Stade K. Confronting the United Nations pro-growth agenda: A call to reverse overshoot. J Popul Sustain. 2024;8:15–44. https://www.whp-journals.co.uk/JPS/article/view/1142 . [ Google Scholar ] 20. Bongaarts J, Hardee K. Trends in contraceptive prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa: The roles of family planning programs and education. Afr J Reprod Health. 2019;23:96–105. https://www.ajrh.info/index.php/ajrh/article/view/1902 . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Bongaarts J. Trends in fertility and fertility preferences in sub-Saharan Africa: the roles of education and family planning programs. Genus. 2020;76:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00098-z . https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/ . [ Google Scholar ] 22. Tiendrebeogo CO, et al. Does abolishing user fees for family planning increase contraception use? An impact evaluation of the national policy in Burkina Faso. J Global Health. 2022;12:04086. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559360/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Götmark F, Andersson M. Human fertility in relation to education, economy, religion, contraception and family planning programs. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7 . https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Slaymaker E, Scott RH, Palmer MJ, et al. Trends in sexual activity and demand for and use of modern contraceptive methods in 74 countries: a retrospective analysis of nationally representative surveys. Lancet Global Health. 2020;8:e567–79. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30060-7/fulltext [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Dasgupta A, Dasgupta P. Socially embedded preferences, environmental externalities, and reproductive rights. Popul Dev Rev. 2017;43:405–41. 10.1111/padr.12090. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ . [ Google Scholar ] 26. Ahinkora BO, Sedu A-A, Armah-Ansah EK, et al. Drivers of desire for more children among child-bearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for fertility control. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:778. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03470-1 . https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Adane B, Kefale B, Damtie Y et al. Male involvement in family planning and its association with knowledge and spouse discussion in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2024;21e082094. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/14/4/e082094.full.pdf [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 28. Adedini SA, et al. Role of religious leaders in promoting contraceptive use in Nigeria: evidence from the Nigerian urban reproductive health initiative. Global Health: Sci Pract. 2018;6:500–14. https://www.ghspjournal.org/content/6/3/500?utm_source=TrendMD . &utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Global_Health%253A_Science_and_Practice_TrendMD_0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. United Nations. World Family Planning 2022: Meeting the changing needs for family planning: Contraceptive use by age and method. UN, Population Division, 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2023/Feb/undesa_pd_2022_world-family-planning.pdf 30. Delacroix C, Owoo N. Documenting the perspectives of Sub-Saharan African policy makers, researchers, and activists on the reproductive rights, population dynamics, and environmental sustainability nexus. World. 2023;4:758–75. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/4/4/48 . [ Google Scholar ] 31. FP. 2030, Website, accessed 29 June, 2025. https://www.fp2030.org/ 32. Ajaero CK, Odimegwu C, Ajaero ID, Nwachukwu CA. Access to mass media messages, and use of family planning in Nigeria: A spatio-demographic analysis from the 2013 DHS. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:427. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2979-z . https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Babalola S, Figueroa M-E, Krenn S. Association of mass media communication with contraceptive use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys. J Health Communication. 2017;22:885–95. 10.1080/10810730.2017.1373874. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Rogers D, Snyder LB, Rego M. The Impact of Mass Media-Delivered Family Planning Campaigns in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Meta-Analysis of Advertising and Entertainment-Education Format Effects. Stud Fam Plann. 2021;52:439–65. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sifp.12175?casa_token=rdduQbxPxIMAAAAA%3AdT0eR0wshnWY . 5G-D8OD02aUn14bf7_9PjW2eWXIG-Irz46T2Ad66645JE3VDYQPLZ62TJ1lMfMl_y_Af2Q. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Corey J, Schwandt H, Boulware A, et al. Family planning demand generation in Rwanda: Government efforts at the national and community level impact interpersonal communication and family norms. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0266520. 10.1371/journal.pone.0266520. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Tsanni A. Health aid cuts spur African calls for self-reliance. Science, 2025;387;1022-23. https://www-science-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/content/article/we-have-become-self-reliant-african-scientists-respond-dramatic-u-s-aid-cuts [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 37. Zhuang H, Wang M, Daniels J. Foreign aid and adolescent fertility rate: Cross-country evidence. J globalization Dev. 2020;11:20180051. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jgd-2018-0051/html [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Data used in the manuscript are publicly available. Articles from Reproductive Health are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (932.3 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top