ArticleBMJ open2024
Protocol to assess bottlenecks inhibiting the scaling up of evidence-based family planning practices in low-income and middle-income countries using mixed methods.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Effectiveness of the Family Recovery Programme for Serious Mental Illness: An Exploratory Study.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScaling up evidence-based practices (EBPs) in family planning (FP), as recommended by the WHO, has increasingly been accepted by global health actors as core to their mission, goals and activities. National policies, strategies, guidance, training materials, political commitment and donor support exist in many countries to adopt and scale up a range of EBPs, including postpregnancy FP, task sharing for FP and the promotion of social and behaviour change (SBC) for FP. While there has been some success in implementing these practices, coverage remains inadequate in many countries. To gain a better understanding of the factors that may be hindering the sustained scale-up of these interventions, WHO has developed an assessment protocol to systematically identify the health systems' 'bottlenecks' to implementation and to then identify solutions and develop strategies to address them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed method approach that includes document review, secondary data analysis (from surveys, service delivery data and case studies) and key informant interviews with policymakers, programme managers, health providers and community groups will be used to identify bottlenecks. This will be followed by a workshop to prioritise bottlenecks and characterise their root causes. Finally, solutions for the root causes of prioritised bottlenecks will be proposed. The protocol is structured in a modular format, with separate modules on postpregnancy FP, task sharing and SBC. Assessment themes and questions are informed by a wide body of literature on the three programmatic components, as well as studies on health policy implementation and scale-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was exempt from ethical review by the WHO ethics committee. The findings of the bottleneck analysis will be presented at local, national and international conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and webinars.
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.