Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38180911›Full record

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.

Celia Karp, Kelsey Williams, Shannon N Wood, Funmilola M OlaOlorun, Pierre Akilimali, Georges Guiella, Peter Gichangi, Rosine Mosso, Frederick Makumbi, Philip A Anglewicz and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Celia KarpDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4050-7602
Kelsey WilliamsDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Shannon N WoodDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Funmilola M OlaOlorunDepartment of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5544-2875
Pierre AkilimaliPatrick Kayembe Research Center, Kinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Georges GuiellaInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP/University Joseph Ki-Zerbo), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Peter GichangiInternational Centre for Reproductive Health-Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rosine MossoÉcole Nationale Supérieure de Statistique et d'Economie Appliquee (ENSEA) of Abidjan, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.
Frederick MakumbiMakerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Philip A AnglewiczDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Caroline MoreauDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38180911
PMCPMC10769091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.