ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2023
Assessing the sustainability of two independent voucher-based family planning programs in Pakistan: a 24-months post-intervention evaluation.
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.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does health voucher intervention increase antenatal consultations and skilled birth attendances in Cameroon? Results from an interrupted time series analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Financing for equity for women's, children's and adolescents' health in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
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
introductionFamily planning vouchers have emerged as a promising approach to improve coverage of underserved groups or underutilized services. The current study was designed to measure the residual/longer-term impact of two-independent FP voucher programs on women's practices beyond the program's life program.
methodsA cross-sectional survey conducted, as part of the two-independent larger mixed-method studies, approximately 24 months after the close-down of Marie Stopes Society and Greenstar Social Marketing family planning voucher intervention programs in Punjab, Pakistan. Following necessary ethics approvals, 338 voucher MSS clients & 324 voucher GSM clients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire at the household level.
resultsCompared with end-line data, a significant decrease in the modern contraceptive uptake in both MSS (90% at endline to current (or post-endline) 52%) and GSM (from 84% to current 56%) intervention sites among the voucher clients was noted. Among MSS voucher clients, the highest decline in use was observed in IUCD (54% at endline versus to current 13%); however no change between the surveys was noted among GSM clients. In both projects, following closure of voucher intervention 34% of the discontinued users in MSS and 29% in GSM sites adopted/switched to a new modern contraceptive again. In the post-intervention survey, wealth-based inequality in GSM data depicts more pro-rich utility for modern methods, indicating pro-rich inequality, in contrast, the post-intervention survey in MSS found mixed results such as pro-poor inequality for any method and modern method use.
conclusionsThe prevalence for contraception in two-independent study sites, following closure of voucher intervention remained high than national average. This study provides evidence that family planning vouchers can bring about an enduring positive change in clients' behaviours in using modern contraceptive methods among poor populations among both intervention models. These results are useful to design family planning programs that will sustain when the donor funding terminates.
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.