PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16307960

Revisiting community-based distribution programs: are they still needed?

Ndola Prata·Farnaz Vahidnia·Malcolm Potts·Ingrid Dries-Daffner
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Community-based distribution (CBD) programs are the optimum way of reaching people in rural areas of developing countries where conventional methods of delivery do not exist or fail. This paper reviews findings and experiences from over 30 years of efforts to implement CBD of family planning methods around the world. Although research suggests that community-based service delivery can contribute to contraceptive use, the magnitude of impact is often in doubt or its existence is questionable when compared to alternative family planning delivery services. After the review of more than 30 years of CBD work, we found that these programs are still needed to meet the needs for contraception in rural communities and isolated city neighborhoods in developing countries. Integration with other health outreach programs, effective management, keeping training of agents brief and letting them distribute contraceptives and keeping all or part of the profits instead of paying them salaries are some of the strategies that can make CBD programs more efficient.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFamily Planning ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ndola Prata, Farnaz Vahidnia, Malcolm Potts, Ingrid Dries-Daffner. 2005-08-22. Revisiting community-based distribution programs: are they still needed?. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2005.06.059

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗