Literature DB >> 28885679

PMA2020: Rapid Turn-Around Survey Data to Monitor Family Planning Service and Practice in Ten Countries.

Linnea Zimmerman, Hannah Olson, Amy Tsui, Scott Radloff.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28885679      PMCID: PMC6084342          DOI: 10.1111/sifp.12031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stud Fam Plann        ISSN: 0039-3665


× No keyword cloud information.

CONTENTS

Research Questions for Original Data Collection

In 2012, the London Summit on Family Planning adopted the ambitious goal of increasing access to contraception for 120 million additional women and girls in the world's poorest countries by 2020. Family Planning 2020 (FP2020)1 was established as a coordinating body to monitor progress. In order to monitor country progress and to change course in the event of stagnating or declining use, data were needed more frequently and more quickly than data provided by typical surveys. Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 (PMA2020) was created to provide rapid and frequent estimates of modern contraceptive use in FP2020 priority countries. Currently operational in ten countries (Burkina Faso, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, and Uganda), PMA2020 conducts surveys every six months to one year, providing FP2020, governments, and other stakeholders frequent information on contraceptive use, demand, and supply that can inform policies and programs and identify areas for improvement. PMA2020 recruits women from within or near selected enumerations areas (EAs) and trains them in collecting household and facility‐level data using smartphones and submitting the data to a cloud server. These resident enumerators (REs) are then deployed to collect data on a repeated basis—each round within a six‐week period—with refresher training between each round. Household data include information on household members, as well as assets, livestock ownership, housing construction, and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) conditions. Women aged 15–49 who are either usual members of the household or who slept in the household the night before the interview are eligible for the female interview. The female survey gathers information on sociodemographic characteristics, such as education and marital status, as well as measures of fertility and contraceptive use, including the dates of women's first and two most recent births, age at first sex, age at first marriage, and age and parity at first contraceptive use. Family planning measures include current use of contraception and contraceptive use within 12 months preceding the interview among current non‐users, by method previously used. The data also include reasons for not using or stopping a method of contraception, intention to use contraception in the future among non‐users, autonomy and influences related to contraceptive decision‐making, and the “method information index”—whether she was told about any methods other than the one she chose, whether she received counseling on side effects, and whether she was told what to do if she experienced side effects. Several additional quality and choice indicators can be calculated. Constructed variables in the dataset include wealth quintiles/tertiles, unmet need for family planning, and current use of a modern contraceptive method. While family planning is the focus of the survey, a small number of water and sanitation questions have been added to the household, female, and service delivery point (SDP) questionnaires. The WASH questions that are asked in the household and female surveys are round‐specific and cover topics such as distance to a water source, handling of child waste, diarrhea prevalence among children under 5 years of age, and menstrual hygiene management. The range of topics covered to date demonstrates the flexibility of the PMA platform: once the data collection platform is established, data can be collected to support other areas of health intervention. Such expansions are underway in selected countries with respect to primary health care, maternal and newborn health, schistosomiasis, and nutrition. Data for SDPs are collected using a health facility questionnaire that is fielded concurrently with the household/female data collection. The SDP dataset includes measures of contraceptive availability, stock‐outs, numbers of clients served, outreach through mobile services and community health workers, and integration of family planning with other health services such as HIV, maternal health, and post‐abortion care. The SDP dataset also includes measures of service quality, such as availability of supplies for both insertion and removal of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, storage conditions for contraceptive commodities, and availability of adequate hand‐washing stations for providers. The SDP dataset includes variables that identify the enumeration areas that each SDP serves. These enumeration areas are the same EAs as in the household dataset, which allows for linking at the community level between households and the health service environment.

Sample Selection and Size, including Response Rates and Loss to Follow‐Up

The PMA2020 household and female survey uses a multi‐stage cluster sample design to draw a probability sample of households and eligible females. The indicator used to calculate the female survey sample size is the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) among all women aged 15–49 with a maximum margin of error of ±3 percentage points at the national level and a maximum of ±5 percentage points for urban/rural strata. In some countries sample sizes are sufficient to produce sub‐national estimates, generally at the next lowest administrative level. Country‐specific sampling descriptions specify the level at which estimates are representative. Table 1 summarizes the administrative levels at which the estimates are representative and the associated margins of error.
Table 1

Level at which data are representative and margin of error by country

CountryLevel at which data are representativeMargin of error used for original sample size calculation
GhanaNational<2%
Urban/Rural<3%
DRCKinshasa<2%
Kongo Central<2%
EthiopiaNational<2%
Urban/Rural<3%
5 regionsa 5%
UgandaNational2%
Urban/Rural<3%
KenyaNational<3%
Urban/Rural3%
9 countiesb 5%
Burkina FasoNational2%
Urban/Rural<5%
NigeriaNational<2%
Urban/Rural<2%
7 statesc <2‐3%
NigerNational<2%
Niamey3%
Urban/Rural<3%
IndonesiaNational<2%
Urban/Rural<3%
South Sulawesi<3%
Makassar district5%
IndiaRajasthan2%
Urban/Rural3%

Addis, Amhara, Oromiya, Tigray, and SNNPR

Bungoma, Kericho, Kiambu, Kilifi, Kitui, Nairobi, Nandi, Nyamira, Siaya

Anambra, Kaduna, Kano, Lagos, Nasarawa, Rivers, Taraba

Level at which data are representative and margin of error by country Addis, Amhara, Oromiya, Tigray, and SNNPR Bungoma, Kericho, Kiambu, Kilifi, Kitui, Nairobi, Nandi, Nyamira, Siaya Anambra, Kaduna, Kano, Lagos, Nasarawa, Rivers, Taraba Each EA has approximately 200 households. At the EA level, the RE lists and maps all households and private health facilities. She is assigned a random selection of 33–44 households (depending on the country) and obtains the consent of household and female respondents for interviews. All data collection is approved by country‐specific IRBs. Private SDPs are included in the sample if they fall within the boundaries of the enumeration areas. Up to three randomly chosen private facilities are selected from each EA. Public health facilities are included in the sample if the selected EA falls into the catchment area of the SDP. Implementing partners obtain a list of public health facilities assigned to provide services to residents in the selected EAs; facilities at the lowest level (equivalent to a health post), secondary level (e.g., health center), and tertiary level (e.g., referral hospital) are selected into the sample. The SDP sample thus reflects the services available to a representative population, rather than being representative of all SDPs in the country. If a national frame of SDPs, both public and private, is available, the PMA SDP sample can be weighted to provide measures representative of facilities at the national level. Subsequent survey rounds are conducted in the same EAs, but with a new sample selection of households. SDPs tend to be the same facilities between survey rounds since the public‐sector facilities that serve a particular enumeration area are not likely to change. If there are more than three private facilities within an enumeration area, three are randomly selected in each round. At the fifth round of data collection, new enumeration areas are selected to limit respondent fatigue and possible interview effects in the community. New enumeration areas are generally geographically contiguous to the original EAs and share the same urban/rural designation. Table 2 shows the response rates for each survey and round by household and the complete female sample (both usual household members and visitors). Analyses conducted by PMA2020 include only regular household members. Table 3 shows the rates for the SDP data. Since PMA2020 data are cross‐sectional, there is no follow‐up and thus no loss to follow‐up.
Table 2

Household and Female Response Rates Across PMA2020 Surveys

Country and roundData collection periodHouseholds selectedHouseholds occupiedHouseholds interviewedHousehold response rate (%)Total eligible womenEligible women interviewedEligible women response rate (%)
Ghana Round 1Oct‐Dec 201340723910353690.44191370888.9
Ghana Round 2Jan‐May 201441483802341989.94264397493.5
Ghana Round 3Oct‐Dec 201441644072392796.44806462196.6
Ghana Round 4May‐Jun 201541864142405397.95391523497.5
Ghana Round 5Aug‐Dec 201641824118406298.63860374697.0
DRC/Kinshasa Round 1Nov 2013‐Jan 2014 * * 1777 * 2160213298.7
DRC/Kinshasa Round 2Aug‐Sep 2014 * * 1900 * 3017287795.4
DRC/Kinshasa Round 3May‐Jun 201518441828176896.72841268395.3
DRC/Kinshasa Round 4Nov‐Dec 201519181843177496.32869274196.1
DRC/Kongo Central Round 4Nov‐Dec 201517201688162596.31653157395.4
DRC/Kinshasa Round 5Aug‐Sep 201619141895184197.22733259394.9
DRC/Kongo Central Round 5Aug‐Sep 201617151641157596.01756168896.1
Ethiopia Round 1Jan‐Mar 201469796919677297.96688651497.6
Ethiopia Round 2Sep‐Nov 201469976927681398.46888671397.5
Ethiopia Round 3Apr‐Jun 201577357703764399.27708762899.0
Ethiopia Round 4Mar‐May 201677327695765199.47642753798.6
Uganda Round 1Apr‐Jun 201448024576425793.03987375494.4
Uganda Round 2Jan‐Feb 201548404429414393.53859365494.7
Uganda Round 3Aug‐Oct 201548384671441294.53889370595.3
Uganda Round 4Mar‐Apr 201648394433419194.54044381694.4
Kenya Round 1May‐Jul 201450404859451893.03987379295.7
Kenya Round 2Nov‐Dec 201450384803460495.94470437097.9
Kenya Round 3May‐Jun 201550404958481097.04506443398.4
Kenya Round 4Nov‐Dec 201550394928479297.25025496098.7
Kenya Round 5Nov 2016–Jan 201763436239607397.36050597598.8
Burkina Faso Round 1Nov 2015‐Jan 201618571810176097.22220209494.3
Burkina Faso Round 2Apr‐Jun 201518551778173397.52270215094.7
Burkina Faso Round 3Mar‐Apr 201629062864280397.93493335396.1
Burkina Faso Round 4Nov 2016‐Jan 201729042807275198.03414324595.1
Nigeria/Kaduna Round 1Sep‐Oct 201423092287219495.92637257597.9
Nigeria/Lagos Round 1Sep‐Oct 20141302123397479.086477189.3
Nigeria/Kaduna Round 2Sep‐Oct 201523082288226499.03006294397.9
Nigeria/Lagos Round 2Sep‐Oct 201520801982177789.71617144989.8
Nigeria National Round 3May‐Jul 201610815104361013197.1114631115097.4
Niger/Niamey Round 1Jul‐Aug 201511551143112998.81408135296.0
Niger National Round 2Feb‐Apr 201628942833278798.43193304295.3
Niger/Niamey Round 3Nov‐Dec 201611461127109997.51443141097.7
Indonesia Round 1Jun‐Aug 201512963125371172693.5116181056691.0
India/Rajasthan Round 1May‐Sep 201651165002487097.45741545695.0

*In DRC Rounds 1 and 2, only household forms that were completed were uploaded and saved. It is thus not possible to calculate % of households occupied or non‐response rates for these two rounds.

Table 3

SDP Response Rates Across PMA2020 Surveys

Country and roundSDPs identifiedSDPs completedSDP response rate (%)
Ghana Round 114313896.5
Ghana Round 213212493.9
Ghana Round 324123195.9
Ghana Round 423923397.5
Ghana Round 517615789.2
DRC/Kinshasa Round 2* 25724896.5
DRC/Kinshasa Round 325524897.3
DRC/Kinshasa Round 423922895.4
DRC/Kongo Central Round 412212098.4
DRC/Kinshasa Round 518517393.5
DRC/Kongo Central Round 510510297.1
Ethiopia Round 139738998.0
Ethiopia Round 240739897.8
Ethiopia Round 345344598.2
Ethiopia Round 446145698.9
Uganda Round 2* 37336297.1
Uganda Round 337936395.8
Uganda Round 438435091.1
Kenya Round 127726495.3
Kenya Round 235432491.5
Kenya Round 335934896.9
Kenya Round 435833894.4
Kenya Round 542941095.6
Burkina Faso Round 110710699.1
Burkina Faso Round 210710093.5
Burkina Faso Round 313413298.5
Burkina Faso Round 413513197.0
Nigeria/Kaduna Round 113713598.5
Nigeria/Lagos Round 1948792.6
Nigeria/Kaduna Round 215214897.4
Nigeria/Lagos Round 213212393.2
Nigeria National Round 369466796.1
Niger/Niamey Round 1333193.9
Niger National Round 213813295.7
Niger/Niamey Round 3302790.0
Indonesia Round 194088594.1
India/Rajasthan Round 130829495.6

*No Round 1 SDP survey was conducted in this country/round

Household and Female Response Rates Across PMA2020 Surveys *In DRC Rounds 1 and 2, only household forms that were completed were uploaded and saved. It is thus not possible to calculate % of households occupied or non‐response rates for these two rounds. SDP Response Rates Across PMA2020 Surveys *No Round 1 SDP survey was conducted in this country/round

Data Quality

PMA2020 employs automated checks to monitor and improve data quality. Progress and error reports are run daily by in‐country data managers. These reports track progress in the number of interviews conducted and transmitted to the server, monitor response rates, and identify potential data quality issues, including flagging questions and interviewers with high rates of non‐response, flagging missing or incomplete forms, and using GPS locations to track the geographic distribution of interviews. Additionally, PMA2020 has developed tools called “PMA Analytics” that record how long each question appears on the screen before moving forward. This is a proxy for the amount of time it takes to ask and record each response, which is useful for identifying any falsified or questionable data. Estimates of modern contraceptive use, the key indicator used to determine sample size, have been broadly consistent across countries and rounds. Figure 1 shows mCPR estimates for married women in Ethiopia and Uganda generated by the FPET models used by Track20.2 The PMA estimates are consistent with trends shown by other estimates and indicate increases across rounds, with some variability. There is variability over time in all countries due to sampling error, but overall the estimates for mCPR show consistent increases. New EAs are selected in Round 5 in the event that family planning awareness at the community level has increased as a result of RE interviews. This addition allows further consistency comparisons.
Figure 1

Trends in modern contraceptive prevalence rate among married women in Ethiopia and Uganda

NOTE: Generated using FPET tool on April 10, 2017. Citation: New, JR and Alkema, L (2015). Family Planning Estimation Tool (FPET). Available at http://fpet.track20.org/

Trends in modern contraceptive prevalence rate among married women in Ethiopia and Uganda NOTE: Generated using FPET tool on April 10, 2017. Citation: New, JR and Alkema, L (2015). Family Planning Estimation Tool (FPET). Available at http://fpet.track20.org/ Despite robust data checks, reporting biases and measurement errors may occur. To provide additional information on its design and protocols, PMA is introducing a series of methodological reports, available through the website, that summarize and review data quality issues and the effect these may have on estimates. The first such report, “Response patterns on behavioral outcomes in relation to use of resident enumerators over multiple survey rounds,” reviews the effect of using resident enumerators on response patterns. Future reports will explore such topics as the effect of date misreporting and results from PMA Analytics.

Data Formats

PMA2020 data are available in a variety of formats, including pre‐calculated indicators, interactive tables, and individual and household‐level microdata. Pre‐calculated indicators presented in Snapshot of Indicators (SOI) tables, charts (DataLab), and published briefs are available on the PMA2020 website (www.pma2020.org). Estimates for both DataLab and SOI tables are generated using standard Stata do‐files and cross‐checked between DataLab and SOI tables for consistency prior to being published. After each round of data collection, priority FP indicators and figures are made available in the “Key Family Planning Indicator Briefs,” and detailed analyses of priority indicators disaggregated by standard demographic characteristics are available through the SOI tables and PMA2020 DataLab. Descriptions of the original sample selection and any round‐specific updates to the sampling, round‐specific questionnaires, response rates, and sample error estimates are published on the website, accompanying each SOI table. The PMA website also contains additional memos describing the sampling procedure and assumptions used by PMA, general guidance on the construction of sample weights, and description and definition of key indicators. Sample errors are provided for key indicators in additional tables. Microdata are available in csv, xls, or dta format. While PMA2020 data are cleaned during data collection, very little is done to change the content of the data; that is, missing values are not imputed, and extreme values are not corrected. Content is changed only when a skip pattern necessitates a correction in the data, such as making the date of first birth and the date of most recent birth the same value for women who have had only one child. Otherwise, non‐response and extreme values are left to be corrected at the discretion of the analyst. All observations are provided, including interviews that were not completed, to allow users to reconstruct response rates. All identifying information, including names and sub‐regional geographic identifiers, are deleted prior to release to protect the anonymity of PMA2020 respondents.

How and When Data Were Collected

Since its inception in April 2013, the PMA2020 project, in partnership with country research organizations, has completed 39 nationally or sub‐nationally representative household and health facility surveys in ten low‐ or middle‐income countries. Dates of data collection are provided in Table 2. All interviews with household, female, and SDP respondents are conducted face‐to‐face, and responses are entered into an Android smartphone using Open Data Kit (ODK) software. Following the interview, data are submitted to a secure cloud server, where they are instantly aggregated. Data are monitored daily by in‐country data management and quality assurance teams, with technical assistance provided by the PMA2020 team at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Fieldwork is generally completed within 4–6 weeks, with preliminary cross‐tabulations of the data prepared as charts and tables within another 4–6 weeks. The majority of questions included in the PMA2020 household and female questionnaires replicate wording from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), and many of those used in the SDP survey replicate questions in the Service Provision Assessment (SPA). In terms of measurement reliability, most results from the two types of surveys should be directly comparable. The PMA2020 female and SDP survey questionnaires are designed to measure indicators that are essential to FP2020 and national family planning efforts. This constraint on content keeps the questionnaire focused and brief enough to be administered in a short period.

Data Location and Access

PMA2020 microdata are accessible on request through the project website (http://www.pma2020.org/request-access-to-datasets-new) upon approval by PMA2020's coordinating center at JHU in Baltimore. Datasets are made publicly available approximately six months after data collection is completed. To view publicly available datasets and to obtain online access to PMA2020 datasets, users must create an account and submit a brief description of the research question. Requests can be submitted in either English or French. While the dataset language (variables/value labels) is English, dataset user notes and the codebook are also available in French for DRC, Niger, and Burkina Faso. Users granted access will be linked to a website from which the relevant materials can be downloaded. If a dataset is updated, users who have received approval to download the data will be notified by email. Only one version of each dataset will be available through the website. All datasets are archived and specific datasets can be made available upon request and review.

USE

Estimates in the two‐page family planning briefs are preliminary based on having a minimum of 95 percent of expected interviews submitted; there may be slight variation in those estimates and estimates presented in the DataLab or SOI tables. Estimates provided in the DataLab and SOI tables are based on final datasets that are released publicly and should be consistent between the two sources. The SOI tables will indicate whether estimates are based on small sample sizes; DataLab does not do so. Particularly for SDP indicators, it is recommended that users consult both sources to check adequacy of sample sizes. Although user support for analysis of the microdata is limited, the dataset user notes provide a brief description of the variables that can help identify households, individual females, and SDPs. The notes detail country‐specific variables and other variables of interest, including constructed ones generated for analysis. The notes also include a brief sample description, details on the criteria PMA2020 employs for inclusion in the analytic sample, and explanations of any anomalies in the data. If a dataset has been updated, the user notes will list the variables that were changed and indicate the changes made. It is recommended that users review the dataset notes before analyzing the data. Given the constraints in using ODK software, both the month and year of a date must be entered. If a date is entirely unknown, it is entered as January 1, 2020. If the year is known but the month is not, the default month is set to January. It is recommended that analysts review the distribution of events by month. In‐country partner institutions reserve the right to limit access to selected variables for up to one year if the data collection is funded through partner relationships that require restricted access. It is suggested that publications based on PMA2020 data include the following citation: Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 (PMA2020) Project, [name of the relevant PMA2020 partner institution(s)]. [Survey year]. [Country]. Baltimore, MD: PMA2020, Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The suggested citation is provided with the datasets.

VALUE OF THE DATA

The unique scientific value of PMA2020 survey data lies in the following features: PMA2020 provides nationally representative survey data on family planning indicators with rapid turnaround on an annual or more frequent basis. It collects information directly from facilities that provide family planning services to the sampled households. By combining both facility and household components of the PMA2020 platform, researchers can set up both the supply and demand sides for analysis of the association between family planning service delivery outputs and the population outcomes in a way that few other facility surveys can. This allows for the generation of unique insights and hypothesis‐testing. The selected geographic locations for PMA2020 surveys prioritize the FP2020 pledging countries to serve as a monitoring platform for ensuring that FP2020 goals and commitments are being met. In addition to providing comparable measures of core FP indicators, PMA2020 gathers information on emerging issues in FP and reproductive health that other large‐scale surveys do not capture. PMA has included questions in selected countries on implant removal, menstrual hygiene management, Sayana Press introduction, emergency contraceptive use, abortion, contraceptive acceptability, and program exposure. Enumeration areas and resident enumerators that are included in multiple rounds are masked with the same identifiers across rounds. It is thus possible to link interviews conducted in the same geographic area or conducted by the same interviewer over time, allowing for the investigation of longitudinal change and/or interviewer effects over time.
  6 in total

1.  The value of spatial analysis for tracking supply for family planning: the case of Kinshasa, DRC.

Authors:  Julie H Hernandez; Pierre Akilimali; Patrick Kayembe; Nelly Dikamba; Jane Bertrand
Journal:  Health Policy Plan       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 3.344

2.  Family Planning Supply Environment in Kinshasa, DRC: Survey Findings and Their Value in Advancing Family Planning Programming.

Authors:  Patrick Kayembe; Saleh Babazadeh; Nelly Dikamba; Pierre Akilimali; Julie Hernandez; Arsene Binanga; Jane T Bertrand
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2015-12-17

3.  Expanding Access to a New, More Affordable Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System in Kenya: Service Delivery Costs Compared With Other Contraceptive Methods and Perspectives of Key Opinion Leaders.

Authors:  Kate H Rademacher; Marsden Solomon; Tracey Brett; John H Bratt; Claire Pascual; Jesse Njunguru; Markus J Steiner
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2016-08-18

4.  Ugandan Women's View of the IUD: Generally Favorable but Many Have Misperceptions About Health Risks.

Authors:  Rogers Twesigye; Peter Buyungo; Henry Kaula; Dennis Buwembo
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2016-08-18

5.  Accessible Contraceptive Implant Removal Services: An Essential Element of Quality Service Delivery and Scale-Up.

Authors:  Megan Christofield; Maryjane Lacoste
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2016-09-29

Review 6.  Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?

Authors:  Shannon Harris; Laura Reichenbach; Karen Hardee
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2016-05-26
  6 in total
  56 in total

1.  Perceived likelihood of becoming pregnant and contraceptive use: Findings from population-based surveys in Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and Rajasthan, India.

Authors:  Suzanne O Bell; Alison Gemmill
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  School and work absenteeism due to menstruation in three West African countries: findings from PMA2020 surveys.

Authors:  Julie Hennegan; Funmilola M OlaOlorun; Sani Oumarou; Souleymane Alzouma; Georges Guiella; Elizabeth Omoluabi; Kellogg J Schwab
Journal:  Sex Reprod Health Matters       Date:  2021-12

3.  Evaluating the impact of an intervention to increase uptake of modern contraceptives among adolescent girls (15-19 years) in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Tanzania: the Adolescents 360 quasi-experimental study protocol.

Authors:  Christina Joanne Atchison; Emma Mulhern; Saidi Kapiga; Mussa Kelvin Nsanya; Emily E Crawford; Mohammed Mussa; Christian Bottomley; James R Hargreaves; Aoife Margaret Doyle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Levels, trends and correlates of unmet need for family planning among postpartum women in Indonesia: 2007-2015.

Authors:  Siswanto Agus Wilopo; Althaf Setyawan; Anggriyani Wahyu Pinandari; Titut Prihyugiarto; Flourisa Juliaan; Robert J Magnani
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 2.809

5.  Trends in subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) use in Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.

Authors:  Philip Anglewicz; Pierre Akilimali; Georges Guiella; Patrick Kayembe; Simon P S Kibira; Fredrick Makumbi; Amy Tsui; Scott Radloff
Journal:  Contracept X       Date:  2019-11-09

6.  'I am the master key that opens and locks': Presentation and application of a conceptual framework for women's and girls' empowerment in reproductive health.

Authors:  Celia Karp; Shannon N Wood; Hadiza Galadanci; Simon Peter Sebina Kibira; Fredrick Makumbi; Elizabeth Omoluabi; Solomon Shiferaw; Assefa Seme; Amy Tsui; Caroline Moreau
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  The status of Ghanaian community health workers' supervision and service delivery: descriptive analyses from the 2017 Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 survey.

Authors:  Dan Schwarz; June-Ho Kim; Hannah Ratcliffe; Griffith Bell; John Koku Awoonor-Williams; Belinda Nimako; Easmon Otupiri; Stuart Lipsitz; Lisa Hirschhorn; Asaf Bitton
Journal:  Gates Open Res       Date:  2019-08-23

8.  When Do Nigerian Women of Reproductive Age Initiate and What Factors Influence Their Contraceptive Use? A Contextual Analysis.

Authors:  Michael Ekholuenetale; Samson Olorunju; Kayode R Fowobaje; Adeyinka Onikan; Godson Tudeme; Amadou Barrow
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2021-07-13

9.  Rapid Uptake of the Subcutaneous Injectable in Burkina Faso: Evidence From PMA2020 Cross-Sectional Surveys.

Authors:  Guiella Georges; Turke Shani; Coulibaly Hamadou; Scott Radloff; Choi Yoonjoung
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2018-03-30

10.  The Relationship between Household Sanitation and Women's Experience of Menstrual Hygiene: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Authors:  Julie Hennegan; Linnea Zimmerman; Alexandra K Shannon; Natalie G Exum; Funmilola OlaOlorun; Elizabeth Omoluabi; Kellogg J Schwab
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.