Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30208913›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Client and provider factors associated with integration of family planning services among maternal and reproductive health clients in Kigoma Region, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study, April-July 2016.

M M Dynes, E Bernstein, D Morof, L Kelly, A Ruiz, W Mongo, P Chaote, R N Bujari, F Serbanescu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

M M DynesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, USA. mdynes@cdc.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5040-6867
E BernsteinCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, USA.
D MorofCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, USA.
L KellyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, USA.
A RuizCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health (CDCF Contractor), Atlanta, USA.
W MongoEngenderHealth, Washington, DC, USA.
P ChaoteRegional Medical Officer, Kigoma, Kigoma Region, Tanzania.
R N BujariAMCA Inter Consult, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
F SerbanescuCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USEngenderHealth · USTanzania Public health Association · TZ

Funding

Bloomberg Family Foundation 41363Fondation H&B Agerup 41363
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegration of family planning (FP) services into non-FP care visits is an essential strategy for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality through reduction of short birth intervals and unplanned pregnancies.

methodsCross-sectional surveys were conducted across 61 facilities in Kigoma Region, Tanzania, April-July 2016. Multilevel, mixed effects logistic regression analyses were conducted on matched data from providers (n = 330) and clients seeking delivery (n = 935), well-baby (n = 272), pregnancy loss (PL; n = 229), and other routine (postnatal, HIV/STI, other; n = 69) services. Outcomes of interest included receipt of FP information and a modern FP method (significance level p < 0.05).

resultsClients had significantly greater odds of receiving FP information if the primary reason for seeking care was for PL versus (vs) any other types of care (aOR 1.97), had four or more pregnancies vs fewer (aOR 1.78), and had had a FP discussion with their partner vs no FP discussion (aOR 1.73). Clients had lower odds of receiving FP information if they were aged 40-49 vs 15-19 (aOR 0.50) and reported attending religious services at least weekly vs less frequently (aOR 0.61). Clients of providers who perceived that in-service training had helped vs had not helped job performance (aOR 2.27), and clients of providers having high vs low recent FP training index scores (aOR 1.58) had greater odds of receiving FP information. Clients had greater odds of receiving a modern method when they received information on two or more vs fewer methods (aOR 7.13), had had a FP discussion with their partner vs no discussion (aOR 5.87), if the primary reason for seeking care was for PL vs any other types of care (aOR 4.08), had zero vs one or more live births (aOR 3.92), made their own FP decisions vs not made own FP decisions (aOR 3.17), received FP information from two or more vs fewer sources (aOR 3.12), and were in the middle or high vs the low wealth tercile (aOR 1.99 and 2.30, respectively). Well-baby care clients, Other routine services clients, and married clients had significantly lower odds of receiving a method (aOR 0.14; aOR 0.08; and aOR 0.41, respectively) compared to their counterparts.

conclusionsStrategies that better integrate FP into routine care visits, encourage women to have FP discussions with their partners and providers, increase FP training among providers, and expand FP options and sources of information may help reduce the unmet need for FP, and ultimately lower maternal and neonatal mortality.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareReproductive HealthAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedPregnancyReferral and ConsultationRural PopulationTanzaniaContraceptionContraceptive methodsFamily planningFamily planning counselingFamily planning integrationMultilevel modelingSub-Saharan AfricaTanzania

Identifiers

PMID30208913
PMCPMC6134585
OpenAlexW2891404085

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.