Estimated use of emergency contraception (EC) remains low, and one reason is measurement challenges. The study aims to compare EC use estimates using five approaches. Data come from Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 surveys from 10 countries, representative sample surveys of women aged 15 to 49 years. We explore EC use employing the five definitions and calculate absolute differences between a reference definition (percentage of women currently using EC as the most effective method) and each of the subsequent four, including the most inclusive (percentage of women having used EC in the past year). Across the 17 geographies, estimated use varies greatly by definition and EC use employing the most inclusive definition is statistically significantly higher than the reference estimate. Impact of using various definitions is most pronounced among unmarried sexually active women. The conventional definition of EC use likely underestimates the magnitude of EC use, which has unique programmatic implications.

中文翻译：

---

重新概念化紧急避孕药使用的测量：估计紧急避孕药使用情况的方法比较。


紧急避孕药 (EC) 的估计使用率仍然很低，原因之一是测量方面的挑战。该研究旨在使用五种方法比较 EC 使用估计值。数据来自10个国家的2020年绩效监测和问责调查，对15至49岁女性的代表性抽样调查。我们采用五种定义来探讨 EC 的使用，并计算参考定义（目前使用 EC 作为最有效方法的女性百分比）与后续四个定义之间的绝对差异，包括最具包容性的定义（过去使用过 EC 的女性百分比）年）。在 17 个地区，估计使用量因定义而异，并且采用最具包容性定义的 EC 使用量在统计上显着高于参考估计值。使用不同定义的影响在未婚性活跃的女性中最为明显。 EC 使用的传统定义可能低估了 EC 使用的规模，而 EC 使用具有独特的规划意义。