Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34714856›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Using family planning service statistics to inform model-based estimates of modern contraceptive prevalence.

Niamh Cahill, Emily Sonneveldt, Priya Emmart, Jessica Williamson, Robinson Mbu, Airy Barrière Fodjo Yetgang, Isaac Dambula, Gizela Azambuja, Alda Antonio Mahumane Govo, Binod Joshi and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

Niamh CahillDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Kildare, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3086-550X
Emily SonneveldtAvenir Health, Glastonbury, CN, United States of America.
Priya EmmartAvenir Health, Glastonbury, CN, United States of America.
Jessica WilliamsonAvenir Health, Glastonbury, CN, United States of America.
Robinson MbuDepartment of Family Health, Ministry of Public Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Airy Barrière Fodjo YetgangDepartment of Family Health, Ministry of Public Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Isaac DambulaCentral Monitoring and Evaluation Division, Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Gizela AzambujaChild Health Department, Ministry of Health, Maputo, Mozambique.
Alda Antonio Mahumane GovoWomen's Health Division, National Directorate of Public Health, Mozambique.
Binod JoshiDepartment of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Population, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sayinzoga FelixMaternal, Child and Community Health Division, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, Kigali, Rwanda.
Clarisse MakashakaMaternal, Child and Community Health Division, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, Kigali, Rwanda.
Victor NdaruhutseMaternal, Child and Community Health Division, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, Kigali, Rwanda.
Joel SerucacaMaternal, Child and Community Health Division, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, Kigali, Rwanda.
Bernard MadzimaNational AIDS Council, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Brighton MuzavaziMinistry of Health and Child Care, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Leontine AlkemaSchool of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States of America.
Rwanda Biomedical Center · RWAvenir Health · USMinistry of Public Health · CMMinistry of Health · MZMinistry of Health · MWMinistry of Health and Child Welfare · ZWMinistry of Health and Population · NPNational AIDS Council · ZWNational Directorate of Geology · MZNational University of Ireland, Maynooth · IEUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The annual assessment of Family Planning (FP) indicators, such as the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), is a key component of monitoring and evaluating goals of global FP programs and initiatives. To that end, the Family Planning Estimation Model (FPEM) was developed with the aim of producing survey-informed estimates and projections of mCPR and other key FP indictors over time. With large-scale surveys being carried out on average every 3-5 years, data gaps since the most recent survey often exceed one year. As a result, survey-based estimates for the current year from FPEM are often based on projections that carry a larger uncertainty than data informed estimates. In order to bridge recent data gaps we consider the use of a measure, termed Estimated Modern Use (EMU), which has been derived from routinely collected family planning service statistics. However, EMU data come with known limitations, namely measurement errors which result in biases and additional variation with respect to survey-based estimates of mCPR. Here we present a data model for the incorporation of EMU data into FPEM, which accounts for these limitations. Based on known biases, we assume that only changes in EMU can inform FPEM estimates, while also taking inherent variation into account. The addition of this EMU data model to FPEM allows us to provide a secondary data source for informing and reducing uncertainty in current estimates of mCPR. We present model validations using a survey-only model as a baseline comparison and we illustrate the impact of including the EMU data model in FPEM. Results show that the inclusion of EMU data can change point-estimates of mCPR by up to 6.7 percentage points compared to using surveys only. Observed reductions in uncertainty were modest, with the width of uncertainty intervals being reduced by up to 2.7 percentage points.

Indexed as

Contraceptive AgentsModels, StatisticalDatabases as TopicFamily Planning ServicesHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsUncertaintyContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID34714856
PMCPMC8555841
OpenAlexW3209107255

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.