ArticleJournal of global health2022
Does abolishing user fees for family planning increase contraception use? An impact evaluation of the national policy in Burkina Faso.
Article in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Downplaying reality: is the UN population fund forgetting population growth and family planning?Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Modern contraceptive use, associated factors and reasons for non-use among young lactating mothers in the context of free family planning services in the Kaya municipality setting, Burkina Faso.Journal of public health in Africa · 2026Article
- Free but declining: the paradox of contraceptive uptake in Burkina Faso.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- A Tale as Old as Time: Contraception Concerns in the 21st Century.Open access journal of contraception · 2026Article
- Inequalities in contraceptive prevalence among married women of reproductive age in Sierra Leone, 2008-2019.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of targeted financial aid on disability welfare for the ageing population in China: A quasi-experiment study.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 and its effects on food producers: panel data evidence from Burkina Faso.BMC nutrition · 2024Article
- National Policy Influences of Contraceptive Prevalence and Method Mix Strategy: A Longitudinal Analysis of 59 Low- and Middle-Income Countries, 2010-2021.Global health, science and practice · 2024Article
- Vaccination coverage in rural Burkina Faso under the effects of COVID-19: evidence from a panel study in eight districts.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unmet needs for contraception constitute a major public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Several mechanisms have been tested to reduce the financial barrier and facilitate access to family planning services, with inconclusive results. Based on the positive impacts following the introduction of free health care for pregnant women, Burkina Faso decided to extend its national policy and abolished direct payment for family planning services. This study aims to evaluate the impact of this policy on contraceptive use and unmet needs for contraception among women of reproductive age (WRA) in Burkina Faso. Methods: This study uses two different study designs to examine the impact of a user fee removal policy on contraceptive use across a panel of 1400 households randomly selected across eight health districts. Data were collected using a standardized socio-demographic questionnaire at three different time points during the pilot and scale-up phases of the fee abolition program. The questionnaire was administered six months after the launch of the pilot fee abolition program in four health districts. For the remaining four health districts, the survey was conducted one year prior to and six months after the implementation of the program in those areas. All WRA in the households were eligible to participate. A cross-sectional study design was used to determine the association between knowledge of the fee abolition policy among WRA and actual use of contraceptives by WRA six months after the policy's implementation and across all eight districts. Additionally, a pre-post study with a non-randomized, reflexive control group was designed using repeated surveys in four health districts. Hierarchical logistic mixed effects models were adjusted for a set of time-variant individual variables; the impact was assessed by a difference-in-differences approach that compared pre-post changes in contraception use in women who knew about the new policy and those who did not. Results: Of the 1471 WRA surveyed six months after the removal of user fees for family planning services, 56% were aware of the policy's existence. Knowledge of the fee abolition policy was associated with a 46% increase probability of contraceptive use among WRA six months after the policy's implementation. Among the subset of the participants who were surveyed twice (n = 507), 65% knew about the fee removal policy six months after its introduction and constitute the intervention group. Pre-post changes in contraceptive use differed significantly between the intervention (n = 327) and control groups (n = 180). Removing user fees for family planning led to an 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.49, 1.31) increase in the likelihood of using contraception. In the study area, the policy reduced the prevalence of unmet needs for contraception by 13 percentage points. Conclusions: Removing user fees for family planning services is a promising strategy to increase access to, and reduce unmet needs for, contraception. A broader dissemination of the policy's existence will likely increase its impact on the overall population.
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.