ArticleCureus2024
Injectable Contraceptives as an Underutilized Option for Women's Reproductive Health: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInjectable contraceptives (IC) provide a highly effective, reversible method of preventing conception, yet discontinuation rates are high. Health workers play a crucial role in the successful implementation of family welfare services. Adding up the basket of choices without knowing the community's needs can lead to poor utilization of services.
objectivesTo explore the facilitators and barriers to the utility of injectable contraceptives among reproductive women from the user's point of view and to understand solutions from the key informants. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted in the field practice areas among reproductive women attending a primary health center in Puducherry. It was an exploratory qualitative study in which in-depth interviews were conducted among 19 IC users using an interview guide. This was followed by a key informant interview with seven service providers, including doctors, staff nurses, auxiliary nurse midwives, and Anganwadi workers, to explore the solutions for the identified barriers. Purposive, convenient sampling was adopted for the selection of study participants, and the sample size was chosen until the point of saturation. Two investigators trained in qualitative research have performed a manual content analysis of transcripts to ensure credibility. Descriptive codes were derived, and similar codes were merged into categories and themes.
resultsThe most common facilitators were awareness from service providers and dissatisfaction with previous methods. Fear of side effects, inadequate information, out-of-pocket expenditure, lack of family support, and sociocultural myths were the most common barriers. Key informants suggested counseling on side effects, incentive-based follow-up, universal health insurance, couple-based counseling, training of service providers, and a positive deviance approach.
conclusionHealth workers are pivotal in the successful delivery of family welfare services. The acceptability of IC could be improved by addressing concerns about side effects and its effective management through various targeted interventions.
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.