Study protocol: incentives for increased access to comprehensive family planning for urban youth using a benefits card in Uganda. A quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of contraception is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions and has the potential to prevent about 30% of maternal and 10% of child deaths in developing countries. Voucher-based initiatives for family planning are an effective and viable means of increasing contraceptive use. In this paper, we present a protocol for a pilot study of a novel incentive, a family planning benefits card (FPBC) program to increase uptake of family planning services among urban poor youth in Uganda while leveraging private sector funding. METHODS: The study employs both impact and health economic evaluation methods to assess the effect of the FPBC program. We propose a quasi-experimental study design with two separate pre- and post-samples to measure program effectiveness. The main outcome of the impact evaluation is the percentage change in the prevalence of modern contraceptive use and unmet need for contraception. We will also conduct model-based incremental cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. The main outcomes of the economic evaluation are the cost per enrolled youth and cost per pregnancy averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. We will also pilot a corporate social responsibility model of sponsorship for the FPBC program in partnership with local corporations. Budget impact analysis will examine the potential affordability of scaling up the FPBC program and the fiscal implications of this scale up to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) budgets of partner corporations, the government, and the individual taxpayer. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose an impact and economic evaluation to establish the proof concept of using a FPBC program to increase uptake of family planning services among urban poor youth in Uganda. The results of this study will present stakeholders in Uganda and internationally with a potentially viable option for corporate-sponsored access to family planning in urban poor communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered 19th July 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".