ReviewGates open research2026
Capturing Family Planning Community Service Data into National Health Management Information Systems: A Five-Country Review of Tools for Community Health Workers and Pharmacies and Drug Shops.
Review in Gates open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Inclusion of data on services provided by community health workers (CHWs) and pharmacies and drug shops (PDS) in national health management information systems (HMIS) is important for planning and decision-making related to these family planning high impact practices (HIPs) and to family planning programming more broadly. Yet little is known on the extent to which information on CHW and PDS family planning activities effectively feeds into HMIS. Methods: We conducted a review of HMIS tools in Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria and Uganda to examine availability of family planning data elements on CHWs and PDS. Participatory discussions held as part of a subsequent webinar generated considerations for advancing measurement of these two HIPs through national HMIS. Results: CHW registers and reporting forms include data elements on method provision and referrals in four of the five countries, but only include data elements on counseling in one country. Data flows vary substantially across countries. There is very limited integration of PDS data into the HMIS. Participatory discussions coalesced around a recommendation to capture information on CHW method provision and for leaving additional indicators on counseling and referrals at the discretion of countries. For PDS, discussions centered on challenges and experiences with enabling private sector reporting. Conclusion: The review and discussions highlight the value and complexities of integrating data on community sources into the HMIS and the need for context-specific solutions. Interest and opportunities exist to align CHW indicators across settings. For PDS, more discussion on how to incentivize reporting and on feasible reporting platforms and processes is needed.
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.