ArticleContraception2018
Costs of administering injectable contraceptives through health workers and self-injection: evidence from Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Senegal.
Article in Contraception, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Client Experience of Care Metric to Measure Person-Centered Care for Injectable Contraceptive Clients in Lilongwe, Malawi.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Family planning self-care: From global frameworks to local meaning, perceptions, experiences and opportunities in Niger.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health worker programs on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries (2015-2024): A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Advances in Drug and Vaccine Delivery for Low- and Middle-Income Healthcare Programs-The Case for Replacing Multi-Dose Vials with Prefilled Single-Dose Delivery Systems.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The case for investing in provider-administered subcutaneous DMPA: a costing study.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health: a strategic health systems investment.BMJ global health · 2025Review
- What Distinguishes Women Who Choose to Self-Inject? A Prospective Cohort Study of Subcutaneous Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Users in Ghana.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Cost of providing family planning services & management of pregnancy outcomes at public health facilities in India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights: costs, benefits, and financing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of self-injected DMPA-SC compared with health-worker-injected DMPA-IM in Senegal.Contraception: X · 2019Article
- Is contraceptive self-injection cost-effective compared to contraceptive injections from facility-based health workers? Evidence from Uganda.Contraception · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the 12-month total direct costs (medical and nonmedical) of delivering subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) under three strategies - facility-based administration, community-based administration and self-injection - compared to the costs of delivering intramuscular DMPA (DMPA-IM) via facility- and community-based administration. STUDY
designWe conducted four cross-sectional microcosting studies in three countries from December 2015 to January 2017. We estimated direct medical costs (i.e., costs to health systems) using primary data collected from 95 health facilities on the resources used for injectable contraceptive service delivery. For self-injection, we included both costs of the actual research intervention and adjusted programmatic costs reflecting a lower-cost training aid. Direct nonmedical costs (i.e., client travel and time costs) came from client interviews conducted during injectable continuation studies. All costs were estimated for one couple year of protection. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the largest cost drivers.
resultsTotal costs were lowest for community-based distribution of DMPA-SC (US$7.69) and DMPA-IM ($7.71) in Uganda. Total costs for self-injection before adjustment of the training aid were $9.73 (Uganda) and $10.28 (Senegal). After adjustment, costs decreased to $7.83 (Uganda) and $8.38 (Senegal) and were lower than the costs of facility-based administration of DMPA-IM ($10.12 Uganda, $9.46 Senegal). Costs were highest for facility-based administration of DMPA-SC ($12.14) and DMPA-IM ($11.60) in Burkina Faso. Across all studies, direct nonmedical costs were lowest for self-injecting women.
conclusionsCommunity-based distribution and self-injection may be promising channels for reducing injectable contraception delivery costs. We observed no major differences in costs when administering DMPA-SC and DMPA-IM under the same strategy. IMPLICATIONS: Designing interventions to bring contraceptive service delivery closer to women may reduce barriers to contraceptive access. Community-based distribution of injectable contraception reduces direct costs of service delivery. Compared to facility-based health worker administration, self-injection brings economic benefits for women and health systems, especially with a lower-cost client training aid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.