ArticlePloS one2020
Counseling on injectable contraception and HIV risk: Evaluation of a pilot intervention in Tanzania.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Getting Intentional about Intention to Use: A Scoping Review of Person-Centered Measures of Demand.Studies in family planning · 2022Article
- Use of implementation science to advance family planning programs in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In a context of high rates of HIV prevalence, concerns over hormonal contraceptive use and the potential for increased risk of HIV acquisition have led to increased attention to counseling messages, particularly for users of the injectable. However, the consequence of adding additional HIV risk messages to family planning counseling sessions was not well understood. This evaluation assessed the effect of providing revised injectable and HIV risk counseling messages on contraceptive knowledge and behavior during a three month pilot intervention. The pilot intervention was conducted September-November 2018 with all eligible family planning clients in ten healthcare facilities located in the Iringa and Njombe regions of Tanzania. Data collection for the evaluation occurred November-December 2018 and included 471 client exit interviews, 26 healthcare provider interviews, and the extraction of service statistics for 12 months prior to the intervention and three months of the intervention. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to assess quantitative interview data. Thematic qualitative assessment was used to assess qualitative interview data from healthcare providers. Interrupted time series analysis was used to assess changes in the trend of contraceptive uptake. Results indicate that the counseling messages did not cause a decrease in the uptake of injectables (Depo-Provera): 97 percent of interviewed clients received Depo-Provera at their visit; sixty percent reported an intention to use condoms for dual protection. The analysis of service statistics showed no statistical difference in the trend of Depo-Provera uptake between the pre-intervention and intervention periods (p = 0.116). Overall knowledge of counseling messages by clients was good; however only 64.8% of women correctly responded that women at risk of getting HIV can use any method of family planning. Providers' knowledge of the messages was high, though it appears that not all messages were consistently provided during the counseling sessions. The findings from this evaluation provide evidence that complex HIV counseling messages can be implemented in family planning programs in Tanzania, and potentially in other countries that are considering how to better integrate HIV risk messages into family planning counseling.
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.