ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2023
Knowledge, beliefs and practices of nurses with long-acting reversible contraception, Cape Town.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's knowledge about Intrauterine Device and user satisfaction in Brazil: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Pooled it
- Attitudes and Perceptions of Health Workers Towards Immediate Postpartum Family Planning at Soroti Regional Referral Hospital: A Qualitative Study.Open access journal of contraception · 2026Article
- Inequalities in the health care system utilization for intrauterine device insertion.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Perceived self-efficacy and willingness to teach family planning among nursing and midwifery faculty in higher learning institutions in Rwanda.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplanon and copper intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) are long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) available in public primary health care (PHC) South Africa. These methods are the most effective forms of contraception.
aimTo evaluate the knowledge, beliefs and practices on provision of LARC.
settingPrimary health care facilities within the Khayelitsha Eastern Substructure, Cape Town.
methodsA descriptive survey of all permanent nurses who provided contraception. Data were collected from 72/90 (80% response rate) via a validated questionnaire and evaluated using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
resultsKnowledge of eligibility for LARC was tested. The mean knowledge scores for Implanon were 8.56/11 (s.d. 1.42) for the trained and 7.16/11 (s.d. 2.83) for the untrained (p = 0.007). The mean knowledge scores for IUCD were 10.42/12 (s.d. 1.80) for the trained and 8.03/12 (s.d. 3.70) for the untrained (p = 0.019). Participants believed that inaccessibility to training courses (29%), no skilled person available (24%) and staff shortages (35%) were barriers. Less than 50% of women were routinely counselled for LARC. Forty-one percent of nurses were trained and performed IUCD insertion, and 64% were trained and performed Implanon insertion, while 61% and 45% required further training. Confidence was low, with 32% trained and confident in IUCD and 56% trained and confident in Implanon insertion.
conclusionLack of training, poor confidence and deficient counselling skills were barriers to effective LARC provision. The identified system-specific barriers must be addressed to improve uptake.Contribution: The first study to evaluate knowledge, beliefs and practices on LARC in providers in the Western Cape.
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.