Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36930610›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Access to public sector family planning services and modern contraceptive methods in South Africa: A qualitative evaluation from community and health care provider perspectives.

Yolandie Kriel, Cecilia Milford, Joanna Paula Cordero, Fatima Suleman, Petrus S Steyn, Jennifer Ann Smit

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. SAHARA J : journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Emergency contraception in primary health care.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Yolandie KrielMRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3910-4045
Cecilia MilfordMRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Joanna Paula CorderoDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Fatima SulemanDiscipline of Pharmaceutical Science, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, South Africa.
Petrus S SteynDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jennifer Ann SmitMRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress has been made to improve access to family planning services and contraceptive methods, yet many women still struggle to access contraception, increasing their risk for unintended pregnancy. This is also true for South Africa, where over fifty per cent of pregnancies are reported as unintended, even though contraception is freely available. There is also stagnation in the fertility rate indicators and contraceptive use data, indicating that there may be challenges to accessing contraception. This paper explores the evaluation of access to contraception from community and health care provider perspectives. This qualitative study explored factors affecting the uptake and use of contraception through focus group discussions (n = 14), in-depth interviews (n = 8), and drawings. Participants included male and female community members (n = 103) between 15 and 49 years of age, health care providers (n = 16), and key stakeholder informants (n = 8), with a total number of 127 participants. Thematic content analysis was used to explore the data using NVivo 10. Emergent themes were elucidated and thematically categorised. The results were categorised according to a priori access components. Overall, the results showed that the greatest obstacle to accessing contraception was the accommodation component. This included the effects of integrated care, long waiting times, and limited operational hours-all of which contributed to the discontinuation of contraception. Community members reported being satisfied with the accessibility and affordability components but less satisfied with the availability of trained providers and a variety of contraceptive methods. The accessibility and affordability themes also revealed the important role that individual agency and choice in service provider plays in accessing contraception. Data from the illustrations showed that adolescent males experienced the most geographic barriers. This study illustrated the importance of examining access as a holistic concept and to assess each component's influence on contraceptive uptake and use.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesPublic SectorAdolescentContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMalePregnancySouth AfricaContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID36930610
PMCPMC10022780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read65
reference markers read8
identifiers read2
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.