| Literature DB >> 34780507 |
Anooj Pattnaik1, Diwakar Mohan1, Amy Tsui2, Sam Chipokosa3, Hans Katengeza4, Jameson Ndawala3, Melissa A Marx1.
Abstract
To explore the association between the strength of implementation of family planning (FP) programs on the use of modern contraceptives. Specifically, how strongly these programs are being implemented across a health facility's catchment area in Malawi and the odds of a woman in that catchment area is using modern contraceptives. This information can be used to assess whether the combined impact of multiple large-scale FP programs is leading to change in the health outcomes they aim to improve. We used data from the 2017 Implementation Strength Assessment (ISA) that quantified how much of family planning programs at the health facility and community health worker levels were being implemented across every district of Malawi. We used a summary measure developed in a previous study that employs quantitative methods to combine data across FP domains and health system levels. We tested the association of this summary measure for implementation strength with household data from the 2015 Malawi Demographic Health Survey (DHS). We found that areas with stronger implementation of FP programs had higher odds of women using modern contraceptives compared with areas with weaker implementation. The association of ISA with use of modern contraception was different by education, marital status, and geography. After controlling for these factors, we found that the adjusted odds of using a modern contraceptive was three times higher in catchment areas with high implementation strength compared to those with lower strength. Metrics that summarize how strongly FP programs are being implemented were used to show a statistically significantly positive relationship between increasing implementation strength and higher rates of modern contraceptive use. Decisionmakers at the various levels of health authority can use this type of summary measure to better understand the combined impact of their diverse FP programming and inform future programmatic and policy decisions. The findings also reinforce the idea that having a well-supported and supplied cadre of community health workers supplementing FP provision at the health facility can be an important health systems mechanism, especially in rural settings and to target youth populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34780507 PMCID: PMC8592450 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Indicators per implementation strength domain and health worker type.
| IS Domain | Indicator | HW Type |
|---|---|---|
|
| Appropriately trained in FP | HFW, HSA, CBDA |
| Ever trained in YFHS | HFW, HSA, CBDA | |
|
| Supervised for FP in last 3 months | HFW, HSA, CBDA |
| Last supervision covered youth FP topics | HSA, CBDA | |
| HF has received supervision that included FP from someone external to the facility in previous 3 reporting months | IC | |
| HFs whose supervision checklist of HWs includes Youth FP | IC | |
|
| Provides range of FP methods appropriate to type | IC, HSA, CBDA |
| Appropriate FP method available on day of interview | IC, HSA, CBDA | |
| Has FP guidelines and job aids | IC, HSA, CBDA | |
| Has youth FP guidelines | IC, HSA, CBDA | |
| HF provides FP methods branded with social marketing | IC | |
| HF has FP pamphlets | IC | |
|
| Conducted youth event in last 3 months | IC, HSA, CBDA |
| Conducted SRH talks in last 3 months | HSA, CBDA | |
| Conducted youth spaces in last 3 months | IC, HSA, CBDA | |
| Conducted community meetings in last 3 months | IC, HSA, CBDA | |
| HF has peer educators for FP | IC | |
|
| Ensures privacy during FP consultations | IC, HSA, CBDA |
| Provides FP at least more than 12 hours per week | HSA, CBDA | |
| Provides FP at least more than 24 hours per week | IC | |
| HF has private room for FP consultations | IC | |
| HF has space designated for youth consultations & activities | IC | |
| HF has conducted mobile outreach since Jan 2017 | IC |
*Pertains to whether the HW is appropriately trained out of the choices of counseling, condoms, OCPs, injectables, and implants. HFWs should be trained in all, HSAs on all except implants, and CBDAs on all except injectables and implants
**Same as appropriate training. Provision and availability of method type is based on HW type.
Fig 1Steps to link health facility catchment area and population-level data via GIS.
Background characteristics of rural health facilities.
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Total number of health facilities retained | 497 |
| Proportion of facilities that are health centers | 455 (91.5) |
| Managing authority of health facility | |
| MoH | 362 (72.8) |
| CHAM | 120 (24.1) |
| Other | 15 (3.0) |
| Region (%) | |
| North | 84 (16.9) |
| Central | 191 (38.4) |
| South | 222 (44.7) |
| Number of health workers per facility catchment area (median) | |
| Health Facility Worker | 2 |
| Community Health Worker (HSA | 11 |
*CHAM: Christian Health Association of Malawi.
**NGO, police, or tea estate facilities.
***has: Health Surveillance Agent.
****CBDA: Community-Based Distribution Agent.
Fig 2Heat map of IS scores within each DHS cluster across Malawi.
Background trait of women in rural DHS clusters and associated modern contraceptive use for each trait.
| Characteristic | n (%) | Proportion of women using modern contraceptive |
|---|---|---|
|
| 19,261 | 46.0 |
|
| ||
| 15–19 | 4141 (21.5) | 15.8 |
| 20–24 | 3969 (20.6) | 48.0 |
| 25–29 | 2994 (15.5) | 58.8 |
| 30–34 | 2824 (14.7) | 58.7 |
| 35–39 | 2391 (12.4) | 60.1 |
| 40–44 | 1646 (8.5) | 52.8 |
| 45–49 | 1296 (6.7) | 42.4 |
|
| ||
| No education | 2555 (13.3) | 47.1 |
| Primary | 12920 (67.1) | 47.0 |
| Secondary | 3581 (18.6) | 41.4 |
| Higher | 205 (1.1) | 37.1 |
|
| ||
| Currently married | 12862 (66.8) | 58.2 |
| Formerly married | 2640 (13.7) | 37.7 |
| Never married | 3759 (19.5) | 9.5 |
|
| ||
| Central | 6582 (34.2) | 47.5 |
| North | 3673 (19.1) | 45.8 |
| South | 9006 (46.8) | 44.7 |
|
| ||
| Catholic | 3433 (17.8) | 47.3 |
| Other Christian | 13544 (70.3) | 47.1 |
| Muslim | 2155 (11.2) | 36.1 |
| Other/No religion | 129 (0.7) | 44.9 |
Association between rural women’s use of modern contraceptives and implementation strength score, adjusted model with random effects.
| Response–Modern contraceptive use among women aged 15–49 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Adjusted Model | |
| AOR | CI | |
|
| ||
|
| 5.32 | 1.88–15.07 |
|
| ||
| 15–19 | 0.35 | 0.31–0.41 |
| 20–24 | 0.78 | 0.70–0.87 |
| 25–29 | 1.04 | 0.87–1.07 |
| 30–34 (ref) | na | na |
| 35–39 | 1.11 | 0.88–1.09 |
| 40–44 | 0.83 | 0.73–0.94 |
| 45–49 | 0.55 | 0.47–0.63 |
|
| ||
| No education (ref) | na | na |
| Primary | 1.19 | 1.08–1.31 |
| Secondary | 1.13 | 0.99–1.29 |
| Higher | 0.76 | 0.54–1.07 |
|
| ||
| Married (ref) | na | na |
| Formerly married | 0.42 | 0.38–0.46 |
| Never Married | 0.12 | 0.11–0.14 |
|
| ||
| Central (ref) | na | na |
| North | 0.76 | 0.65–0.88 |
| South | 0.91 | 0.82–1.00 |
|
| ||
| Catholic (ref) | na | na |
| Other Christian | 0.91 | 0.83–0.99 |
| Muslim | 0.58 | 0.51–0.68 |
| No religion/Other | 0.73 | 0.50–1.08 |
|
| ||
| Poorest (ref) | na | na |
| Poorer | 1.18 | 1.06–1.31 |
| Middle | 1.21 | 1.09–1.34 |
| Richer | 1.16 | 1.05–1.30 |
| Richest | 1.18 | 1.06–1.33 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Variance | 0.14 | |
| No of Clusters | 675 | |
| No. of Observations | 19,261 | |
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
***p<.001.
Notes: ref = reference group. na = not applicable.
Fig 3Relationship between implementation strength summary measure and modern contraceptive use among rural women, by age group.