| Literature DB >> 28655314 |
Peter Mudiope1, Ezra Musingye2, Carolyne Onyango Makumbi3, Danstan Bagenda4,5, Jaco Homsy3, Mai Nakitende3, Mike Mubiru3, Linda Barlow Mosha3, Mike Kagawa6, Zikulah Namukwaya3, Mary Glenn Fowler7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2012, Makerere University Johns - Hopkins University, and Mulago National Referral Hospital, with support from the National Institute of Health (under Grant number: NOT AI-01-023) undertook operational research at Mulago National Hospital PMTCT/PNC clinics. The study employed Peer Family Planning Champions to offer health education, counselling, and triage aimed at increasing the identification, referral and family planning (FP) uptake among HIV positive mothers attending the clinic.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28655314 PMCID: PMC5488413 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2386-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Weekly average number of HIV-infected mothers not-using, referred and took up FP during the study
| Indicator | Pre intervention, mean(SD) | Intervention, mean(SD) | Post-Intervention, mean(SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mothers attending PMTCT/PNC | 475(129) | 448(115) | 454(35) |
| Mothers not using FP | 168(43) | 99(42) | 93(14) |
| Mothers not using and in need of FP | 121(31) | 73(30) | 65(12) |
| Mothers not using, in need & referred for FP | 63(19) | 58(14) | 45(9) |
| Mothers not using, in need, referred for and took up FP | 54(16) | 56(14) | 42(9) |
Data are presented as weekly means with standard deviations in parentheses
Time-series analysis for weekly FP services utilization by HIV-infected mothers during the study
| Pre-Intervention | Intervention | Post Intervention | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | Base level, β0 |
| Base trend, β1 |
| Change in level, β2 |
| Change in trend, β3 |
| Change in level, β4 |
| Change in trend, β5 |
|
| (i) Proportion (%) of FP usage among mothers attending PNC/PMTCT | 64.2 | <0.001 | 0.1 | 0.784 | 4.2 | 0.389 | 0.4 | 0.351 | −5.4 | 0.01 | −0.2 | 0.603 |
| (ii) Proportion (%) of referrals among mothers not using and in need FP | 74.7 | <0.001 | −3.0 | 0.005 | 48.7 | <0.001 | 2.9 | 0.077 | 8.3 | 0.701 | −1.5 | 0.375 |
| (iii) Proportion(%) of FP uptake among mothers referred,not using and in need of FP | 61.0 | <0.001 | −1.5 | 0.110 | 29.4 | 0.006 | 1.9 | 0.176 | 5.2 | 0.773 | −1.9 | 0.338 |
| (iv) Proportion(%) of FP refills among mothers receiving FP | 45.2 | <0.001 | −1.7 | 0.002 | 11.9 | 0.020 | 1.5 | 0.010 | 9.2 | 0.015 | 0.1 | 0.860 |
Segmented regression of interrupted time-series models were fitted with an autoregressive term of one to measure the changes in levels and trends across the study phases. Positive coefficients represent increasing % whereas negative coefficients represent declining %. β is the proportion at the onset of the pre-intervention phase
β is the change in rate(trend) of the proportion during the pre-intervention phase. β is the change in proportion at the onset of the intervention phase. β is the change in rate(trend) of the proportion as compared to the rate (β ), in the pre-intervention phase. β is the change in proportion at the onset of the post-intervention phase. β is the change in rate(trend) of proportion as compared to the rate (β ) in the intervention phase. p- values correspond to the statistical significance level for the corresponding adjacent coefficient
Average level (marginal effects) for referral, uptake and FP refills during the study phasesℓ
| Indicator | Pre-intervention (average level) | Intervention (average level) | Post-Intervention (average level) | Effect of the Intervention vs. Pre-intervention (Intervention - Pre-intervention) | Effect of the Post Intervention vs. intervention (Post-Intervention - intervention) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (i) Proportion (%) of FP usage among mothers attending PMTCT/PNC | 64.9% | 77.5% |
| 12.5%* |
|
| (ii) Proportion of mothers referred among those not using and in need FP | 52.7% | 83.2% | 72.4% | 30.4%** | −10.8%* |
| (iii) Proportion of FP uptake among mothers referred not using and in need of FP | 47.2% | 78.5% | 67.7% | 31.3%** | −10.8%* |
| (iv) Proportion(%) of FP refills among mothers receiving FP | 33.5% | 33.2% | 39.5% | −0.3% | 6.3%* |
ℓMarginal effects were calculated using Segmented regression of interrupted time-series models shown in Table 2
*significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.001;
Fig. 1Title Family Planning service taken up by HIV infected women (N = 4328). “*implanon ,jadelle.norplant are aggregated together ** vasectomy and male condoms were FP methods taken up by partners of the HIV infected women”