ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2023
Cost-effectiveness of increased contraceptive coverage using family planning benefits cards compared with the standard of care for young women in Uganda.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preexisting Diabetes and Pregnancy: An Endocrine Society and European Society of Endocrinology Joint Clinical Practice Guideline.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Guideline
- Effects of structured contraceptive counseling in young women: Secondary analyses of a cluster randomized controlled trial (the LOWE trial).Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUganda has a high population growth rate of 3%, partly due to limited access to and low usage of contraception. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the family planning benefits cards (FPBC) program compared to standard of care (SOC). The FPBC program was initiated to increase access to modern contraception among young women in slums in Kampala, Uganda.
methodsWe developed a decision-analytic model (decision tree) and parameterized it using primary intervention data together with previously published data. In the base case, a sexually active woman from an urban slum, aged 18 to 30 years, was modelled over a one-year time horizon from both the modified societal and provider perspectives. The main model outcomes included the probability of unintended conception, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per unwanted pregnancy averted. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the modelling results. All costs were reported in 2022 US dollars, and analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel.
resultsIn the base case analysis, the FPBC was superior to the SOC in outcomes. The probability of conception was lower in the FPBC than in the SOC (0.20 vs. 0.44). The average societal and provider costs were higher in the FPBC than in the SOC, i.e., $195 vs. $164 and $193 vs. $163, respectively. The ICER comparing the FPBC to the SOC was $125 per percentage reduction in the probability of unwanted conception from the societal perspective and $121 from the provider perspective. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.
conclusionGiven Uganda's GDP per capita of $1046 in 2022, the FPBC is highly cost-effective compared to the SOC in reducing unintended pregnancies among young women in low-income settings. It can even get cheaper in the long run due to the low marginal costs of deploying additional FPBCs.
trial registrationMUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered on July 19, 2017.
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.