Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26420571›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

Protocol for a systematic review on the effect of demand generation interventions on uptake and use of modern contraceptives in LMIC.

Loubna Belaid, Alexandre Dumont, Nils Chaillet, Vincent De Brouwere, Amel Zertal, Sennen Hounton, Valéry Ridde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Loubna BelaidMaternal and Reproductive Health Unit, Public Health Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine, 155 Nationalestraat, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium. Belaid.loubna@gmail.com.
Alexandre DumontUMR 216 IRD-Université Paris Descartes, 4 Avenue de l'Observatoire, 75 006, Paris, France. alexandre.dumont@ird.fr.
Nils ChailletDépartement d'obstétrique et gynécologie et département de Médecine de famille et médecine d'urgence, Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé, Centre de recherche du CHUS: Axe Santé: populations, organisation, pratiques, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. Nils.Chaillet@usherbrooke.ca.
Vincent De BrouwereMaternal and Reproductive Health Unit, Public Health Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine, 155 Nationalestraat, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium. vdbrouwere@itg.be.
Amel ZertalCentre de recherche du CHUM, Axe Évaluation, Systèmes de soins et services, Université de Montréal, 850, rue Saint Denis-Tour S, Local S03-814, Montréal, QC, H2X 0A9, Canada. amel.zertal.chum@ssss.gouv.qc.ca.
Sennen HountonCommodity Security Branch, Technical Division, United Nations Population Fund, 605 3rd Avenue, New York, NY, 10158, USA. hounton@unfpa.org.
Valéry RiddeInstitut de recherche en santé publique de l'Université de Montréal (IRSPUM), 7101 Avenue du Parc, bureau 3187-03, Montréal, Québec, H3N1X9, Canada. Valery.ridde@umontreal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a global increase in contraception use, its prevalence remains low in low- and middle-income countries. One strategy to improve uptake and use of contraception, as an essential complement to policies and supply-side interventions, is demand generation. Demand generation interventions have reportedly produced positive effects on uptake and use of family planning services, but the evidence base remains poorly documented. To reduce this knowledge gap, we will conduct a systematic review on the impact of demand generation interventions on the use of modern contraception. The objectives of the review will be as follows: (1) to synthesize evidence on the impacts and costs of family planning demand generation interventions and on their effectiveness in improving modern contraceptive use and (2) to identify the indicators used to assess effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and impacts of demand generation interventions. METHODS/

designWe will systematically review the public health and health promotion literature in several databases (e.g., CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE) as well as gray literature. We will select articles from 1970 to 2015, in French and in English. The review will include studies that assess the impact of family planning programs or interventions on changes in contraception use. The studied interventions will be those with a demand generation component, even if a supply component is implemented. Two members of the team will independently search, screen, extract data, and assess the quality of the studies selected. Different tools will be used to assess the quality of the studies depending on the study design. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The analysis will involve comparing odd ratios (OR) DISCUSSION: The systematic review results will be disseminated to United Nations Population Fund program countries and will contribute to the development of a guidance document and programmatic tools for planning, implementing, and evaluating demand generation interventions in family planning. Improving the effectiveness of family planning programs is critical for empowering women and adolescent girls, improving human capital, reducing dependency ratios, reducing maternal and child mortality, and achieving demographic dividends in low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42015017549).

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorDeveloping CountriesHealth EducationContraceptive AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisFamily Planning ServicesHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareProgram EvaluationResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicUnited NationsContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID26420571
PMCPMC4589108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.