What happens to contraceptive use after injectables are introduced? An analysis of 13 countries

International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 202-208

  Sutherland, Elizabeth G ^a   Otterness, Conrad ^b   Janowitz, Barbara ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL   (United States)

^b FHI 360   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

CONTRACEPTIVE USE; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; FAMILY PLANNING; HEALTH SURVEY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BOLIVIA; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG IMPLANT; EGYPT; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE; HAITI; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INDONESIA; KENYA; MALAWI; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NICARAGUA; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERU; PREVALENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICS; TANZANIA; ZAMBIA; ZIMBABWE;

ADULT; BOLIVIA; CONTRACEPTION BEHAVIOR; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS, FEMALE; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG IMPLANTS; EGYPT; FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES; FEMALE; HAITI; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INDONESIA; KENYA; MALAWI; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NICARAGUA; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PERU; PREVALENCE; TANZANIA; ZAMBIA; ZIMBABWE;

EID: 84858632371     PISSN: 19440391     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1363/3720211     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Jain AK, Fertility reduction and the quality of family planning services, Studies in Family Planning, 1989, 20(1):1-16.
2. Gray AL et al., Systematic Review of Contraceptive Medicines: Does Choice Make a Difference? Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand, 2006, , Nov. 15, 2011.
3. Lande R and Richey C, Expanding services for injectables, Population Reports, 2006, Series K, No. 6.
4. Adetunji J, Rising popularity of injectable contraception in Sub-Saharan Africa, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Mar. 30-Apr. 1, 2010, Los Angeles, CA.
5. Stanback J, Odhiambo O and Omundo D, Why Has Intrauterine Device Use Slowed in Kenya? Part A. Qualitative Assessment of Intrauterine Device Service Delivery in Kenya, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: Family Health International, 1995.
6. Malarcher S et al., Provision of DMPA by community health workers: what the evidence shows, Contraception, 2011, 83(6):495-503.
7. Trussell J et al., The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods, American Journal of Public Health, 1995, 85(4):494-503.
8. Sullivan TM et al., Skewed contraceptive method mix: why it happens, why it matters, Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006, 38(4):501-521.
9. Seiber EE, Bertrand JT and Sullivan T, Changes in contraceptive method mix in developing countries, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2007, 33(3):117-123.
10. Tumlinson K et al., Promise of affordable implants: Is cost recovery possible in Kenya? Contraception, 2011, 83(1):88-93.
11. Kols A, Reducing unmet need for family planning: evidence-based strategies and approaches, Outlook, 2008, 25(1):1-8.