Impact of a post-partum family planning intervention on contraception and fertility in Tanzania: two-year follow-up of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1080/13625187.2023.2290985
Julia K Rohr, Sarah Huber-Krum, Angelica Rugarabamu, Erin Pearson, Joel M Francis, Muqi Guo, Hellen Siril, Iqbal Shah, David Canning, Nzovu Ulenga, Till W Bärnighausen
{"title":"Impact of a post-partum family planning intervention on contraception and fertility in Tanzania: two-year follow-up of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Julia K Rohr, Sarah Huber-Krum, Angelica Rugarabamu, Erin Pearson, Joel M Francis, Muqi Guo, Hellen Siril, Iqbal Shah, David Canning, Nzovu Ulenga, Till W Bärnighausen","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2023.2290985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We evaluate contraceptive use and pregnancy two years following an intervention in Tanzania, which provided antenatal post-partum family planning counselling and post-partum intrauterine device (PPIUD) services following delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyse data from five hospitals in Tanzania using a difference-in-difference cluster randomised design, with randomisation at the hospital level. We use women-level data collected at the index birth and a follow-up survey two years later among 6,410 women. Outcomes (overall modern contraceptive use, contraceptive type, pregnancy) are modelled with an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach using linear regression. We compare with the complier average causal effect (CACE) of the intervention among those counselled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention increased long-term PPIUD use by 5.8 percentage points (95% CI: 0.7-11.2%) through substitution away from other modern methods. There was no impact on overall modern contraceptive prevalence or pregnancy. Only 29% of women reported receiving PPIUD counselling. When accounting for this in the CACE analysis we saw a larger impact with 25.7% percentage point increase in PPIUD use (95% CI: 22.7-28.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention provided women an additional contraceptive choice, resulting in higher use of PPIUD over two years. Increase in PPIUD use was brought about by shifting methods, not creating new modern contraceptive users.</p>","PeriodicalId":50491,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2023.2290985","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluate contraceptive use and pregnancy two years following an intervention in Tanzania, which provided antenatal post-partum family planning counselling and post-partum intrauterine device (PPIUD) services following delivery.

Methods: We analyse data from five hospitals in Tanzania using a difference-in-difference cluster randomised design, with randomisation at the hospital level. We use women-level data collected at the index birth and a follow-up survey two years later among 6,410 women. Outcomes (overall modern contraceptive use, contraceptive type, pregnancy) are modelled with an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach using linear regression. We compare with the complier average causal effect (CACE) of the intervention among those counselled.

Results: The intervention increased long-term PPIUD use by 5.8 percentage points (95% CI: 0.7-11.2%) through substitution away from other modern methods. There was no impact on overall modern contraceptive prevalence or pregnancy. Only 29% of women reported receiving PPIUD counselling. When accounting for this in the CACE analysis we saw a larger impact with 25.7% percentage point increase in PPIUD use (95% CI: 22.7-28.6%).

Conclusion: The intervention provided women an additional contraceptive choice, resulting in higher use of PPIUD over two years. Increase in PPIUD use was brought about by shifting methods, not creating new modern contraceptive users.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坦桑尼亚产后计划生育干预对避孕和生育的影响:分组随机对照试验的两年随访。
目的:我们对坦桑尼亚一项干预措施实施两年后的避孕药具使用和怀孕情况进行了评估,该干预措施提供产前产后计划生育咨询和产后宫内节育器(PPIUD)服务:我们采用差异群组随机设计方法分析了坦桑尼亚五家医院的数据,并在医院层面进行了随机化。我们使用了在指标分娩时收集的妇女层面的数据,并在两年后对 6410 名妇女进行了随访调查。结果(现代避孕药具的总体使用情况、避孕药具类型、怀孕情况)采用线性回归的意向治疗(ITT)方法进行建模。我们将干预效果与接受咨询者的平均因果效应(CACE)进行了比较:结果:通过替代其他现代避孕方法,干预措施将 PPIUD 的长期使用率提高了 5.8 个百分点(95% CI:0.7-11.2%)。对现代避孕方法的总体使用率或怀孕率没有影响。只有 29% 的妇女表示接受过 PPIUD 咨询。当在 CACE 分析中考虑到这一点时,我们发现其影响更大,PPIUD 使用率增加了 25.7 个百分点(95% CI:22.7-28.6%):干预为妇女提供了额外的避孕选择,从而在两年内提高了 PPIUD 的使用率。宫内节育器使用率的增加是由于避孕方法的改变,而不是新的现代避孕药具使用者的出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care publishes original peer-reviewed research papers as well as review papers and other appropriate educational material.
期刊最新文献
A randomised double-blind trial to determine the bleeding profile of the prolonged-release contraceptive dienogest 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg versus an immediate-release formulation of drospirenone 3 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg. Medical termination of pregnancy: people's expectations and experiences in the Netherlands. Neighbourhood environment and early menarche among adolescent girls of five countries. Postpartum contraception provision across Europe: preliminary findings from a multi country survey. Response to Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit's Letter to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1