Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28031302›Full record

ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2016

A Review of 10 Years of Vasectomy Programming and Research in Low-Resource Settings.

Dominick Shattuck, Brian Perry, Catherine Packer, Dawn Chin Quee

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health, science and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A baseline audit of post-vasectomy follow-up at three Cape Town district health facilities.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Contraceptive Method Mix: Updates and Implications.Global health, science and practice · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dominick ShattuckGeorgetown University's Institute for Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA. dominickshattuck@gmail.com.
Brian PerryDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Catherine PackerFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.
Dawn Chin QueeFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.
Family Health International 360 · USClinical Research Institute · USGeorgetown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasectomy is a highly effective and safe contraceptive method for couples who want to stop childbearing, but only 2.4% of men around the world use this method. We conducted an extensive review of the vasectomy research literature and programmatic reports, published between April 2005 and April 2015, to synthesize barriers and facilitators to vasectomy adoption. Of the more than 230 documents initially retrieved in our search, we ultimately included 75 documents in our review and synthesized the findings according to the Supply-Enabling Environment-Demand (SEED) Programming Model. Regarding promoting demand for vasectomy services, we found there was a general lack of awareness about the method among both men and women, which often fueled erroneous assumptions about how vasectomy affects men. Several types of programmatic activities directly addressed knowledge gaps and negative misperceptions, including community-based and mass media communications, employer-based promotion, and group counseling. For supply of services, the lack of or inaccurate knowledge about vasectomy was also prevalent among providers, particularly among community-based health workers. Programmatic activities to improve service delivery included the use of evidence-based vasectomy techniques such as no-scalpel vasectomy, whole-site trainings, task shifting, cascade training, and mobile outreach. Finally, programmatic approaches to building a more enabling environment included engagement of governments and other community and religious leaders as well as campaigns with gender transformative messaging that countered common myths and encouraged men's positive engagement in family planning and reproductive health. In summary, a successful vasectomy program is comprised of the mutually reinforcing components of continual demand for services and access to and supply of well-trained providers. In addition, there is an underlying need for enabling policies within the cultural and gender environments that extend beyond vasectomy and include men not just as default partners of female family planning clients but as equal beneficiaries of family planning and reproductive health programs in their own right. Accelerating progress toward meaningful integration of vasectomy into a comprehensive contraceptive method mix is only possible when political and financial will are aligned and support the logistical and promotional activities of a male reproductive health agenda.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesResearchVasectomyAdultFamily Planning ServicesHumansMalePovertyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28031302
PMCPMC5199180
OpenAlexW2563960124

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.