Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38589048›Full record

ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2024

Couple-Years of Protection Indicator: New Global Guidance for Updating Existing Methods and Adding New Methods.

Elena Lebetkin, Markus J Steiner, Emily Sonneveldt, Amani Selim, Bamikale Feyisetan, Baker Maggwa Ndugga, A Wezi Munthali, Morrisa Malkin, Fatou Jallow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health, science and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

9 authors.

Elena LebetkinFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA. elebetkin@fhi360.org.
Markus J SteinerFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.
Emily SonneveldtAvenir Health, Glastonbury, CT, USA.
Amani SelimPublic Health Institute Contractors with USAID Global Health Training, Advisory and Support Contract, Washington, DC, USA.
Bamikale FeyisetanPublic Health Institute Contractors with USAID Global Health Training, Advisory and Support Contract, Washington, DC, USA.
Baker Maggwa NduggaPublic Health Institute Contractors with USAID Global Health Training, Advisory and Support Contract, Washington, DC, USA.
A Wezi MunthaliPublic Health Institute Contractors with USAID Global Health Training, Advisory and Support Contract, Washington, DC, USA.
Morrisa MalkinFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.
Fatou JallowNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCouple-years of protection (CYP) is an indicator that allows for monitoring and evaluating of family planning (FP) program performance through simple calculations. The CYP for each contraceptive method is calculated by multiplying the number of contraceptive commodity units distributed to clients over a 1-year period by a conversion factor that quantifies the duration of contraceptive protection provided per unit distributed. CYP calculations across methods were previously updated in 2000 and 2011, resulting in changes in methodology, factor inclusion, and specific methods. Since the 2011 update, changes and additions to the modern contraceptive method mix required new CYP conversion factors for 4 methods of contraception: Levoplant implant, progestin-only pills (POPs), Caya diaphragm, and the hormonal intrauterine device.

methodsWe conducted literature reviews of both published and gray literature and consulted with experts to identify updated data on continuation rates, duration of efficacy, and method effectiveness for the 4 methods. New CYP conversion factors were calculated for the 4 methods either by using the same calculation used previously for the method considering new data or, for new methods, using calculations for similar methods.

resultsNew CYP conversion factors were assigned to the 4 methods of contraception covered in this update: Levoplant, 2.5 CYP per implant inserted; POPs, 0.0833 CYP per pack (i.e., 12 cycles per CYP); Caya diaphragm, 1 CYP per device, and hormonal intrauterine device, 4.8 CYP per device inserted.

conclusionsCYP is an important indicator for FP programs. As new methods of contraception are developed and new evidence is generated for current methods, the indicator may need to be updated. A standard process for updating and documenting future CYP updates is recommended.

Indexed as

ContraceptionFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansIntrauterine Devices

Identifiers

PMID38589048
PMCPMC11057804

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.