MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2516510940 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160683

Comparing Effectiveness of Active and Passive Client Follow-Up Approaches in Sustaining the Continued Use of Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARC) in Rural Punjab: A Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Trial

2016· article· en· W2516510940 sur OpenAlexaff
Waqas Hameed, Syed Khurram Azmat, Moazzam Ali, Muhammad Ishaque, Ghazunfer Abbas, Erik Munroe, Rebecca A. Harrison, Wajahat Hussain Shamsi, Ghulam Mustafa, Omar Khan, Safdar Ali, Aftab Ahmed

Notice bibliographique

RevuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Contraception
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesWorld Health OrganizationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
Mots-clésMedicineDiscontinuationLong-acting reversible contraceptionRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineFamily planningPhysical therapyDemographyPopulationSurgeryEnvironmental healthResearch methodology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods is very low in Pakistan with high discontinuation rates mainly attributed to method-related side effects. Mixed evidence is available on the effectiveness of different client follow-up approaches used to ensure method continuation. We compared the effectiveness of active and passive follow-up approaches in sustaining the use of LARC-and within 'active' follow-up, we further compared a telephone versus home-based approach in rural Punjab, Pakistan. METHODS: This was a 12-month multicentre non-inferiority trial conducted in twenty-two (16 rural- and 6 urban-based) franchised reproductive healthcare facilities in district Chakwal of Punjab province, between November 2013 and December 2014. The study comprised of three groups of LARC clients: a) home-based follow-up, b) telephone-based follow-up, and c) passive or needs-based follow-up. Participants in the first two study groups received counselling on scheduled follow-up from the field workers at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 month post-insertion whereas participants in the third group were asked to contact the health facility if in need of medical assistance relating to LARC method use. Study participants were recruited with equal allocation to each study group, but participants were not randomized. The analyses are based on 1,246 LARC (intra-uterine contraceptive device and implant) users that completed approximately 12-months of follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was kept at five percentage points for the comparison of active and passive follow-up and six percentage points for telephone and home-based approach. The primary outcome was cumulative probability of method continuation at 12-month among LARC users. RESULTS: Women recruited in home-based, telephone-based, and passive groups were 400, 419 and 427, respectively. The cumulative probability of LARC continuation at 12 month was 87.6% (95% CI 83.8 to 90.6) among women who received home-based follow-up; 89.1% (95% CI 85.7, 91.8) who received telephone-based follow-up; and 83.8% (95% CI 79.8 to 87.1) who were in the passive or needs-based follow-up group. The probability of continuation among women who were actively followed-up by field health educators-either through home-based visit or telephone-based follow-up was, 88.3% (95% CI 85.9 to 90.0). An adjusted risk difference of -4.1 (95% CI -7.8 to -0.28; p-value = 0.035) was estimated between active and passive follow-up. Whereas, within the active client follow-up, the telephone-based follow-up was found to be as effective as the home-based follow-up with an adjusted risk difference of 1.8 (95% CI -2.7 to 6.4; p-value = 0.431). CONCLUSION: A passive follow-up approach was 5% inferior to an active follow-up approach; whereas telephone-based follow-up was as effective as the home-based visits in sustaining the use of LARC, and was far more resource efficient. Therefore, active follow-up could improve method continuation especially in the critical post-insertion period.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,069
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,456

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,110
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePLoS ONEMême sujetReproductive Health and ContraceptionTravaux en français237 207