ArticleReproductive health2025
Disruption and recovery of family planning, contraception and other sexual and reproductive health services in Brazil with COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods approach.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic through global partnerships: the case of the HRP Alliance for research capacity strengthening.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Pandemic lessons: protecting sexual and reproductive health during global health emergencies.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Evidence on sexual and reproductive health service delivery during and post COVID-19: a multi-country facility assessment.Reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited scientific evidence is available on the impact of COVID-19 on Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH). Some data shows that severe disruptions in SRH services expose women to preventable health risks. This study has the objective to provide a better understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on family planning and contraception among other SRH services and strengthen policies and services to be more responsive to community needs.
methodsA mixed quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess SRH service availability and readiness, and clients’ and providers’ perceptions in some Brazilian COVID-19-affected areas. Interviews were performed at baseline and 6–9 months later. It was conducted in three cities from the São Paulo state, Campinas, Jundiai, and Santos. The health facility level involved five questionnaires for assessment of infrastructure availability and readiness to provide SRH services and a qualitative survey to elicit health services providers´ perspectives. The qualitative in-depth interviews (IDI) with the participants and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with women and partners were conducted using a semi-structured interview, recorded and transcribed. A thematic content analysis was then performed.
resultsThe settings studied had different characteristics of geographic size, population, and organisation of health services that influenced the way they faced COVID-19. During the baseline interview, the population mentioned fear of seeking health support in the PHU; however, this situation was still observed in Santos in the end-line interview. Antenatal and post-partum care was offered to the population; however, other demands, such as contraception were not. In the interviews, contraception services were considered a priority. The different speeches and behaviours of the government leaders caused discredit to the health measures recommended by the WHO. There is a need for alignment among health managers at municipal, state, and federal levels.
conclusionsThe municipal administration played a key role in the fight against COVID-19 together with the coordinators of the health services. Contraception was not considered a priority during the pandemic. However, participants reported they should be considered essential services in future pandemics. The PHU readiness offered antenatal and post-partum care, while other population needs were not prioritized.
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.