Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781681›Full record

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.

Luis Bahamondes, Jose G Cecatti, Aline Munezero, Rachel E Soeiro, Karayna G Fernandes, Samira M Haddad, Silvana Ferreira Bento, Karla S Padua, Vilma Zotareli, Charles M Charles and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

15 authors.

Luis BahamondesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Jose G CecattiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil. cecatti@unicamp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1285-8445
Aline MunezeroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Rachel E SoeiroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Karayna G FernandesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jundiai School of Medicine, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Samira M HaddadSchool of Medicine, University Unoeste, Guarujá, SP, Brazil.
Silvana Ferreira BentoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Karla S PaduaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Vilma ZotareliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Charles M CharlesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Montas LaporteDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas, and Cemicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Caron KimDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
Vanessa BrizuelaDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
Moazzam AliDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
WHO HRP Social Science Research Team

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Health 70918World Health Organization 001World Health Organization CERC.0103A (Brazil)
6 · The paper itself

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

ContraceptionCOVID-19Family Planning ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityReproductive Health ServicesAdultBrazilFemaleHumansMalePandemicsQualitative ResearchReproductive HealthSARS-CoV-2Sexual HealthContraceptionCOVID-19 pandemicFamily planningMixed methods

Identifiers

PMID40781681
PMCPMC12333048

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.