ArticleAJOG global reports2022
Facility readiness to remove subdermal contraceptive implants in 6 sub-Saharan African countries.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postpartum Intrauterine Device Removal and Access to Removal in the 18 Months Following an Intervention in Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.Studies in family planning · 2026Trial
- Discontinuation, switching and contraceptive failure patterns of long-acting reversible contraceptive users in Kenya: a quantitative study.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Provider confidence and willingness to insert and remove long-acting reversible contraception methods in Kenyan public facilities.Contraception · 2025Article
- "I felt my rights were violated": Challenges with the discontinuation of provider-dependent contraceptive methods in Eastern Uganda.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring Adolescents' Contraceptive Preferences and Trade-Offs: Findings From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Kenya.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- A comparison of acceptability of contraceptive vaginal rings, pills, and injectables among cisgender women in Kenya and Zimbabwe: protocol for a mixed-methods study.Gates open research · 2025Article
- Keeping the "R" in LARC (long-acting reversible contraception): Measuring client-centered implant removal services in sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Contraceptive Care Visit Objectives and Outcomes: Evidence From Burkina Faso, Pakistan, and Tanzania.Studies in family planning · 2024Article
- Priorities for contraceptive method and service delivery attributes among adolescent girls and young women in Kenya: a qualitative study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
- Perceptions of access to long-acting reversible contraception removal among women in Burkina Faso.Contraception · 2024Article
- Health facility readiness to screen, diagnose and manage substance use disorders in Mbale district, Uganda.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to estimate the proportion of health facilities without the capability to remove contraceptive implants and those that have the capability to insert them and to understand facility-level barriers to implant removal across 6 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. STUDY
designUsing facility data from the Performance Monitoring for Action in Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda from 2020, we examined the extent to which implant-providing facilities (1) lacked necessary supplies to remove implants, (2) did not have a provider trained to remove implants onsite, (3) could not remove deeply placed implants onsite, and (4) reported any of the above barriers to implant removal. We calculated the proportion of facilities that report each barrier, stratifying by facility type.
resultsBetween 31% and 58% of implant-providing facilities reported at least 1 barrier to implant removal in each country (6 sub-Saharan African countries). Lack of trained providers was the least common barrier to implant removal (0%-17% of facilities), whereas lack of supplies (17%-44% of facilities) and the inability to remove a deeply placed implant (16%-42%) represented more common obstacles to removal. Blades and forceps were commonly missing supplies across all 6 countries. Barriers to implant removal were less commonly reported at hospitals than at lower-level facilities in all countries except Burkina Faso.
conclusionThis multicountry analysis showed that facility-level barriers to contraceptive implant removal are widespread among facilities that offer implant insertion. By preventing users from being able to discontinue their implants on request, these barriers pose a threat to contraceptive autonomy and reproductive health.
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.