The Effect of Improved Access to Family Planning on Postpartum Women: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that a woman waits at least 24 months after a live birth before getting pregnant again; however, an estimated 25% of birth intervals in low-income countries do not meet this recommendation for adequate birth spacing, and the unmet need for postpartum family planning (PPFP) services is high. Few randomized controlled trials have assessed the causal impact of access to PPFP services, and even fewer evaluations have investigated how such interventions may affect postpartum contraceptive use, birth spacing, and measures of health and well-being. OBJECTIVE: This protocol paper aims to describe a randomized controlled trial that is being conducted to identify the causal impact of an intervention to improve access to PPFP services on contraceptive use, pregnancy, and birth spacing in urban Malawi. The causal effect of the intervention will be determined by comparing outcomes for respondents who are randomly assigned to an intervention arm against outcomes for respondents who are randomly assigned to a control arm. METHODS: Married women aged 18-35 years who were either pregnant or had recently given birth were randomly assigned to either the intervention arm or control arm. Women assigned to the intervention arm received a package of services over a 2-year intervention period. Services included a brochure and up to 6 home visits from trained family planning counselors; free transportation to a high-quality family planning clinic; and financial reimbursement for family planning services, consultations, and referrals for services. Two follow-up surveys were conducted 1 and 2 years after the baseline survey. RESULTS: A total of 2143 women were randomly assigned to either the intervention arm (n=1026) or the control arm (n=1117). Data collection for the first follow-up survey began in August 2017 and was completed in February 2018. A total of 1773 women, or 82.73% of women who were eligible for follow-up, were successfully contacted and reinterviewed at the first follow-up. Data collection for the second follow-up survey began in August 2018 and was completed in February 2019. A total of 1669 women, or 77.88% of women who were eligible for follow-up, were successfully contacted and reinterviewed at the second follow-up. The analysis of the primary outcomes is ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial seek to fill the current knowledge gaps in the effectiveness of family planning interventions on improving fertility and health outcomes. The findings also show that the benefits of improving access to family planning are likely to extend beyond the fertility and health domain by improving other measures of women's well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: American Economics Association Registry Trial Number AEARCTR-0000697; https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/697 Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations (RIDIE) Trial Number RIDIE-STUDY-ID-556784ed86956; https://ridie.3ieimpact.org/index.php?r=search/detailView&id=320. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16697.
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 | 0.069 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.016 |
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".