ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Family planning service disruptions in the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from health facilities in seven low- and middle-income countries.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on access to family planning and HIV services among women in Lilongwe, Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Disruption and recovery of family planning, contraception and other sexual and reproductive health services in Brazil with COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods approach.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of layered behavioral, socio-economic and school-based interventions on selected behavioral and biomarker indicators among adolescent girls and young women in Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many speculated that COVID-19 would severely restrict the delivery of essential health services, including family planning (FP), but evidence of this impact is limited, partly due to data limitations. We use cross-sectional data collected from regional and national samples of health facilities (n = 2,610) offering FP across seven low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) between 2019 and 2021, with longitudinal data from four geographies, to examine reported disruptions to the FP service environment during COVID-19, assess how these disruptions varied according to health system characteristics, and evaluate how disruptions evolved throughout the first two years of the pandemic, relative to a pre-pandemic period. Findings show significant variation in the impact of COVID-19 on facility-based FP services across LMICs, with the largest disruptions to services occurring in Rajasthan, India, where COVID-19 cases were highest among geographies sampled, while in most sub-Saharan African settings there were limited disruptions impacting FP service availability, method provision, and contraceptive supplies. Facility-reported disruptions to care were not reflected in observed changes to the number of FP clients or types of stockouts experienced in the first two years of the pandemic. Public and higher-level facilities were generally less likely to experience COVID-19-related disruptions to FP services, suggesting policy mitigation measures-particularly those implemented among government-operated health facilities-may have been critical to ensuring sustained delivery of reproductive healthcare during the pandemic.
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.