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.

中文翻译：

---

误解、错误信息和误解：讨论避孕观念时消除“错误”的案例


人们普遍认为对避孕的信念在避孕决策中发挥着重要作用。旨在解决信念的干预措施通常包括消除任何“神话”或“误解”的咨询。目前，几乎没有证据表明这些干预措施对减少信念有影响。这篇评论深入探讨了与使用隐含的负面术语来指代避孕观念相关的问题，这些术语充满了对其有效性的假设。通过将女性概念化为错误的或她们的信念无效，它为对女性问题的可疑处理奠定了基础，并阻碍了解决这些问题的富有成效的干预措施的设计。为了取代所使用的众多术语，我们建议使用“信念”来保持与价值无关的好奇心，并消除有关信念的起源或有效性的任何隐含假设。我们提供衡量信念的建议，以帮助研究人员了解他们正在衡量的信念的驱动因素和影响。最后，我们讨论一旦更好地理解不同类型的信念对干预设计的影响。我们认为，根据信仰类型进行量身定制的干预措施将有助于解决信仰的根本原因，并更好地满足妇女更广泛的避孕需求，例如避孕自主性和满意度的需求。