ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Keeping the "R" in LARC (long-acting reversible contraception): Measuring client-centered implant removal services in sub-Saharan Africa.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction: Keeping the "R" in LARC (long-acting reversible contraception): Measuring client-centered implant removal services in sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As the use of subdermal contraceptive implants increases across sub-Saharan Africa, the need for person-centered removal services is more critical than ever to safeguard reproductive autonomy. In 2016, Christofield and Lacoste proposed eight conditions for client-centered implant removal, yet the extent to which these conditions have been assessed in large-scale surveys remains unexamined. Our mapping exercise collates survey information from three large data collection platforms fielded in sub-Saharan Africa, including the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA), and the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA), utilizing questionnaire tools implemented among women, health facilities, providers, and clients to map existing data sources against these conditions. Our findings reveal that four of the eight conditions are fully captured, three are partially captured, and one is entirely absent within current population or facility-based surveys. Specifically, among the six facility-based conditions: the three conditions completely captured include the availability of supplies (condition 2), systems for managing difficult removals (condition 3), and the provision of counseling and reinsertion options (condition 5); two conditions partially captured include competent and confident providers (condition 1) and affordability for clients (condition 7), and the one condition that remained absent was measurement systems for monitoring of removal data (condition 8). Among the two individual-level conditions, timely and proximate service (condition 4) was partially captured and knowledge and awareness of where to go for removal (condition 6) was fully captured. Nearly a decade after Christofield and Lacoste proposed these client-centered conditions, the lack of consistent measures for client-centered implant removal poses significant barriers to understanding service accessibility and women's reproductive experiences. To protect the reproductive autonomy of individuals who use long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods and desire timely discontinuation, it is imperative to develop and implement standardized metrics for their removal.
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.