| Literature DB >> 24885657 |
Syed Khurram Azmat1, Moazzam Ali, Waqas Hameed, Ghulam Mustafa, Ghazanfer Abbas, Muhammad Ishaque, Mohsina Bilgrami, Marleen Temmerman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High fertility rates, unwanted pregnancies, low modern contraceptive prevalence and a huge unmet need for contraception adversely affect women's health in Pakistan and this problem is compounded by limited access to reliable information and quality services regarding birth spacing especially in rural and underserved areas. This paper presents a study protocol that describes an evaluation of a demand-side financing (DSF) voucher approach which aims to increase the uptake of modern contraception among women of the lowest two wealth quintiles in Punjab Province, Pakistan. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24885657 PMCID: PMC4059733 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-39
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
List of key indicators
| 1. Contraceptive prevalence rate among women living in lowest two wealth quintiles | Population-based household survey in project areas | |
| 2. % of clients recommending services to others | Endline population-based household survey; voucher validation | |
| 3. Number of new FP acceptors | Routine service delivery records | |
| 4. Number of clients who never used FP before receiving services from study providers | Routine service delivery records | |
| 5. Number and% of post-partum (PP) clients accepting an FP method (disaggregated by long-term versus short-term FP) | Routine service delivery records | |
| 6. % of vouchers validated | External voucher validation survey | |
| 7. Number and% of service providers adhering to medical/clinical standards | Clinical quality assurance monitoring | |
| 8. % of family planning services provided through vouchers (disaggregated by FP method) | Routine service data | |
| 9. % of referrals made by FHE for family planning services | Routine service data | |
| Financial records | ||
| 10. Monthly service income | ||
| Financial records; routine service delivery records and registers | ||
| 11. Cost per couple year protection (CYP) | ||
| 12. Cost per new FP acceptor | ||
| Baseline and endline service provider assessment | ||
| 13. % of study providers offering FP services at the start of the study who are still participating at the end of the project | ||
| Baseline and endline service provider audit | ||
| 14. % of providers trained by MSS on different dimensions of FP who are providing services for which they were trained (disaggregated by type of service, e.g. IUD insertion, PAC FP) |
Details of intervention components
| 1 | Training on reproductive health/family planning and post-training evaluation | |
| 2 | Field health educator (FHE) | Field educators are local community members; they undergo training on family planning methods, voucher distribution systems and data recording. They pay door-to-door visits, raise awareness, generate referrals, conduct follow-up visits and distribute vouchers for the short-term and long-term methods to eligible women, identified through poverty scale. |
| 3 | Branding (only for intervention 1 group: | Mid-level providers in intervention areas are branded as |
| 4 | Voucher for short-term and long-term contraceptive method | Vouchers are for short-term and long-term methods, and are distributed by FHE to eligible women, identified through poverty scale. They can be redeemed at any project provider. Later, the reimbursement is sent to the provider against her claim. Femplant cannot be inserted by mid-level providers as per the national health policy. Femplant clients from |
Description of intervention and comparison arms
| Rural | Peri-urban | Urban | Rural, peri-urban and urban | |
| Mid-level private providers (e.g. physicians, nurses, midwives, lady health visitors (LHVs)) | Public providers (e.g. basic health unit (BHU), population welfare department (PWD) doctors | Private providers (e.g. doctors) | Private and public doctors and mid-level providers | |
| Selection, training and accreditation | Selection, training, and post-training evaluation | Selection, training, and post-training evaluation | Selection, training and post-training evaluation | |
| Branding, marketing: IEC material, wall chalking etc. | - | - | - | |
| Field worker mobilisation | Field worker mobilisation | Field worker mobilisation | - | |
| Free vouchers short-term and long-term (IUD only*) methods | Free vouchers short- term and long-term methods | Free vouchers short-term and long-term methods | - | |
*According to Pakistan health policy, only qualified doctors can insert Femplant.
Comparability of intervention and comparison districts
| 1 | Est. district population 2011 (in thousands) | 1376 | 1342 | 1335 | |
| 2 | % of pop. who are female age 15-49 | 25 | 23 | 22.0 | 22.3 |
| 3 | Contraceptive prevalence rate (combined) | 28 | 20 | 20 | 32 |
| 4 | % of modern contraceptive user | 23 | 16 | 17.3 | 25.1 |
| 5 | % of traditional contraceptive user | 5.5 | 3.7 | 2.7 | 7.1 |
| 6 | % of women who are literate | 56.7 | 42.8 | 51.3 | 46.6 |
| 7 | Unemployment rate | 12.4 | 4.9 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| 8 | Infant mortality | 60 | 78 | 82 | 77 |
| 9 | % of household with electricity | 94 | 86 | 90.0 | 92.5 |
Data collection tools, its description and evidence to be derived
| 1 | • Structured questionnaire for married women of reproductive age 15–49 (household survey) | Small-sample household survey with married women of reproductive age (15–49) (conducted at baseline and endline) | Population-level effectiveness |
| 2 | • Service provider assessment tool | 1. Records and registers maintained by FP providers in order to generate routine monitoring by FP providers; routine service delivery statistics | Service-level effectiveness |
| • Daily register for routine tracking by service providers | |||
| • Monthly reporting format (to be submitted by service providers to MSS) | 2. Government of Pakistan routine statistics (e.g. provider-level HMIS data) | ||
| 3 | • External voucher validation survey | 1. Voucher validation reports | Efficiency and process issues |
| Data quality assurance checklists (to be used during routine field supervision visits) | 2. Financial records (from private | ||
| 3. Service provider assessment (conducted at baseline and endline) | |||
| 4. Field monitoring officers (will use monitoring checklist) |
Research activity schedule and description
| 0-3 | Identification of private providers; Service provider assessment (baseline); Recruitment and training of project field staff; Field-testing and finalisation of all research and monitoring tools developed for the project | |
| 4-5 | Small-sample population-based household survey | |
| 5-31 | Provision of family planning services; routine collection, prospective client follow-up, reporting and use of service delivery statistics; data quality assessments; external voucher validation survey (each year); and special qualitative studies with clients, providers and project staff. | |
| 31-34 | Small-sample household survey; Service provider assessment (endline); collection/verification of financial data for the cost-effectiveness analysis; data entry and cleaning. | |
| 34-36 | In-depth comparative analysis of baseline and endline data; triangulation with qualitative special studies and services data | |
| 35-36 | Research reports; peer-reviewed publications; flyers; briefs; presentation at different forums; other topical dissemination products |