Evaluating contraceptive choice through the method-mix approach: An Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Task Force Study

Contraception

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 113-119

  Baveja, R ^a   Buckshee, K ^b   Das, K ^c   Das, S K ^d   Hazra, M N ^e   Gopalan, S ^f   Goswami, A ^g   Kodkany, B S ^h   Sujaya Kumari, C N ⁱ   Zaveri, K ^j   Roy, M ^k   Datey, S ^k   Gaur, L N ^k   Gupta, N K ^k   Gupta, R N ^k   Saxena, N C ^k   Singh, R ^k   Kumar, Shiv ^k   Yadav, S C ^k   Saxena, B N ^k  

^a MLN MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

^b ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (India)

^c KING GEORGE'S MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (India)

^d SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL   (India)

^e Baroda Medical College   (India)

^f POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

^g Medical College   (India)

^h J L N MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

ⁱ Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology   (India)

^j SIR J J GROUP OF HOSPITALS   (India)

^k Indian Cncl Med Res Ansari Nagar   (India)

more..

Author keywords

Balanced information; Informed contraceptive choice; Method mix approach; Providers clients choice; Relative acceptability

Indexed keywords

COPPER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE; CUT 200; LEVONORGESTREL; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ARTICLE; CONDOM; CONTRACEPTION; DRUG IMPLANTATION; EVALUATION; FEMALE STERILIZATION; HUMAN; MALE STERILIZATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDOMS; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS, FEMALE; CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL; COPPER; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIA; INTRAUTERINE DEVICES; LEVONORGESTREL; MALE; PARITY; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIAL CLASS; STERILIZATION, TUBAL; URBAN POPULATION; VASECTOMY;

EID: 0034011203     PISSN: 00107824     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00089-5     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS). National Family Health Survey, MCH and Family Planning (India) 1992-93. Bombay, 1995.
2. Spicehandler J., Simmons R. Expanding Family Planning Options. Contraceptive Introduction Reconsidered A Review and Conceptual Framework. Research on Introduction and Transfer of Technologies for Fertility Regulation . 1994;World Health Organization, Geneva.
3. Population Reports. Family Planning Programs. Series J (35), 1987.
4. OutLook, Volume 10, November 1, July 1992.
5. Westoff C.F., Moreno L., Goldman N. The demographic impact of changes in contraceptive practice in third world population. Popul Develop Rev. 15:1989;91-106.
6. Ross JA, Rich M, Molzon J. Management strategies for family planning programs. New York: Centre for Population and Family Health, Columbia University, 1989.
7. Phillips J.F., Hossain M.B., Huque A.A.Z., Akbar J. A case study of contraceptive introduction domiciliary depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate services in rural Bangladesh . Segal S., Tsui A.O., Rogers S.M. Demographic and Programmatic Consequences of Contraceptive Innovations. 1989;227-248 Plenum Press, New York.
8. Freedman R., Berelson B. The record of family planning programs. Stud Fam Plann. 7:1976;1-40.
9. Jain A.K. Fertility reduction and the quality of family planning services. Stud Fam Plann. 20:1989;1-16.
10. Contraceptive method-mix guidelines for policy and service delivery. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1994.
11. User preferences for contraceptive methods in India Korea, the Philippines and Turkey. Stud Fam Plann. 11:1980;267-273.
12. Program for the Introduction and Adaptation of Contraceptive Technology (PIACT). Use of Focus Group Discussion Research: Looking at the Acceptability of Norplant Implants in Four Countries to Improve Product Introduction Effort. Washington, DC: PIACT 1987; July 15:48.
13. Counseling Makes a Difference. Family Planning Programs. Population Reports, Series J, Number 35, November 1987.
14. Mitra S. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 1993-94. Dhaka,1994.
15. Ross JA, Frankenberg E. Findings From Two Decades of Family Planning Research. New York: The Population Council,1993.
16. Bratako DS, Rodjak A, Sulaiman S. The 1992 Indonesia Norplant® Use Dynamics Study: Final Report. National Family Planning Coordinating Board, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1993.
17. Chamratrithirong A., Stephen E.H. Determinants of contraceptive methods choice in Thailand. Bulatao R.A., et al. Choosing a contraceptive. 1989;152-167 Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
18. DaVanzo J., Ann T.B., Othman R. Determinants of contraceptive choice in Peninsular Malaysia, 1961-75. Bulatao R.A., et al. Choosing a contraceptive. 1989;126-151 Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
19. Rele S.R., Kapoor P.N., Khan M.E. Determinants and consequences of method choice in India. Bulatao R.A., et al. Choosing a contraceptive. 1989;191-211 Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
20. do Lago T.D.G., Barboso R.M., Kalckmann S., Villela W.V., Gohiman S. Acceptability of the diaphragm among low income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plann Perspect. 21:1995;114-118.
21. Finger WR. Method Choice Involves Many Factors. Network FHI 1994;15:14-7.
22. Severy L.J. Physicians' perceptions of contraceptive methods cultural comprasions . Bulatao R.A., et al. Choosing a Contraceptive. 1989;40-56 Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
23. Pariani S., Heer D.M., Arsdol M.D. Jr. Does choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from East Java. Stud Fam Plann. 22:1991;384-390.