How strong are Malawi’s family planning programs for adolescent and adult women? Results of a national assessment of implementation strength conducted by Malawi’s National Evaluation Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the strength of implementation of family planning programs targeting youth (15-24) in Malawi with a specific focus on youth and the Youth-Friendly Health Services program. METHODS: We conducted 9781 mobile phone interviews with facility in-Charge Nurses and health workers (health facility workers, health surveillance assistants [HSAs] and community-based distribution agent [CBDAs]) who provide family planning (FP) services across the 28 districts. Responses were entered in tablet using Open Data Kit. They were summarized and presented using R, Stata (College Station, TX, USA, StatsReport, JHU, Baltimore, MD, USA) and ArcView GIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). RESULTS: Availability of key products was a challenge across all health worker types as only 39% of health facilities, 29% of HSAs and 45% of CBDAs had all the FP methods they are supposed to provide on the day of the interview. About 50% of health workers were supervised within past 90 days preceding the study. Despite most facilities saying that they provide youth friendly health services, youth-specific FP guidelines or protocols were not available in 43% of facilities that provide these services and only 33% of facilities had special rooms and 58% have special days for youth. CONCLUSIONS: The commodity supply system needs to ensure that all facilities and workers have a consistent supply of all contraceptive methods. Government and program implementers should ensure availability of all FP guidelines and information, education, communication materials at all service delivery points and facilitate creation of special rooms or days for youth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".