Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32033980›Full record

ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2020

Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis.

Julianne Weis, Mario Festin

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health, science and practice, 2020. 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
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Julianne WeisUnited States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, USA. jweis@usaid.gov.
Mario FestinWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Standard Days Method (SDM), a modern fertility awareness-based family planning method, has been introduced in 30 countries since its development in 2001. It is still unclear to what extent the SDM was mainstreamed within the family planning method mix, particularly in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where the SDM had been introduced by donors and implementing partners. This review of implementation science publications on the SDM in LMICs first looked at community pilot studies of the SDM to determine the acceptability of the method; correct use and efficacy rates; demographics of users; and changes to contraceptive prevalence rates and family planning behaviors, especially among men and couples. Then, we examined the status of the SDM in the 16 countries that had attempted to scale up the method within national family planning protocols, training, and service delivery. At the community level, evidence demonstrated a high level of acceptability of the method; efficacy rates comparable to the initial clinical trials; diversity in demographic characteristics of users, including first-time or recently discontinued users of family planning; increased male engagement in family planning; and improved couple's communication. Nationally, few countries had scaled up the SDM due to uneven stakeholder engagement, lackluster political will, and competing resource priorities. Results of this review could help policy makers determine the added value of the SDM in the contraceptive method mix and identify potential barriers to its implementation moving forward.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesImplementation ScienceStakeholder ParticipationFamily Planning PolicyFamily Planning ServicesHumansNatural Family Planning MethodsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SatisfactionPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID32033980
PMCPMC7108942
OpenAlexW3004834975

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.