Assessing Acceptability of Biodegradable Contraceptive Implants in Kenya and Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contraceptive implants are popular in Africa, but barriers to removal exist. Biodegradable implants (BDIs) offer an alternative to the need for removal. This study explored potential user, provider, and other stakeholder perspectives on 2 BDI prototypes, revealing opportunities and challenges for introduction. METHODS: We conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with women, men, family planning (FP) providers, community influencers, and FP policymakers and program staff in Kenya and Senegal. Characteristics of the 2 BDI prototypes were shared, and participants held and interacted with placebo prototypes. Structural coding was used to analyze the data focused on key product attributes, including biodegradation, removal potential, size, material, insertion site, and duration of effectiveness. RESULTS: We conducted 16 FGDs and 35 IDIs with 106 participants in Kenya and 15 FGDs and 43 IDIs with 102 participants in Senegal. Overall, respondents liked the idea of a BDI, noting the avoidance of pain and scarring and reduced transport and costs as benefits of no removal requirement. Kenyan respondents expressed greater understanding of the biodegradation process than those in Senegal, though potential users in both countries expressed concerns about possible side effects associated with the process. In Senegal, mention of cholesterol in a BDI caused concern, while Kenyan participants responded positively to the same BDI being composed of organic materials. The second BDI product was viewed as more similar to existing implants, which providers preferred. Participants suggested increasing the pregnancy protection duration beyond 18 months. No clear preference between products emerged, and participants liked and disliked some characteristics of both. CONCLUSIONS: Kenyan and Senegalese participants expressed interest in the BDI concept but expressed some reservations related to biodegradation, material, and side effects. BDIs offer the opportunity to expand contraceptive choice. However, messaging around product characteristics will be required for successful introduction and uptake.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".