ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2020
Routine Family Planning Data in the Low- and Middle-Income Country Context: A Synthesis of Findings From 17 Small Research Grants.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of a facility-based digital intervention on district-level data quality in rural Burkina Faso.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Capturing Family Planning Community Service Data into National Health Management Information Systems: A Five-Country Review of Tools for Community Health Workers and Pharmacies and Drug Shops.Gates open research · 2026Review
- Assessing the availability and scope of routine data on post-pregnancy family planning: A cross-sectional review of registers and reporting tools in 18 low- and middle-income countries.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Digitalization of routine health information systems: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022Observational
- Transitioning to Digital Systems: The Role of World Health Organization's Digital Adaptation Kits in Operationalizing Recommendations and Interoperability Standards.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health information systems rely on high-quality data to measure, track, and inform decision making. Currently, the quality, uptake, and use of family planning data in routine health information systems is limited, presenting an opportunity for improvement on many levels. The current synthesis assessed findings from 17 small grants that MEASURE Evaluation issued to low- and middle-income country research teams between 2015 and 2019. Main findings from that research were collaboratively categorized in 4 major themes: (1) the enabling environment for managing and using family planning information; (2) barriers to integration of family planning in routine health information systems; (3) gaps in the analysis, interpretation, and use of routine family planning data; and (4) family planning data use in management, programmatic, and budgetary decisions. Data quality at the systemic, organizational, technical, and output levels was a crosscutting theme. Collectively, the findings outline barriers to and opportunities for improved integration of family planning data and subsequent strengthening of routine health information systems.
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.