Skip to main content
Download PDF

Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning, a mixed-methods systematic review

BMC Women's Health volume 23, Article number: 379 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Post pregnancy family planning includes both postpartum and post-abortion periods. Post pregnancy women remain one of the most vulnerable groups with high unmet need for family planning. This review aimed to describe and assess the quality of the evidence on implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning.

Methods

Electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Global Index Medicus) were searched from inception to October 2022 for primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method reports on scaling up post pregnancy family planning. Abstracts, titles, and full-text papers were assessed according to the inclusion criteria to select studies regardless of country, language, publication status, or methodological limitations. Data were extracted and methodological quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The convergent integrated approach and a deductive thematic synthesis were used to identify themes and sub-themes of strategies to scale up post pregnancy family planning. The health system building blocks were used to summarize barriers and facilitators. GRADE-CERQual was used to assess our confidence in the findings.

Results

Twenty-nine reports (published 2005–2022) were included: 19 quantitative, 7 qualitative, and 3 mixed methods. Seven were from high-income countries, and twenty-two from LMIC settings. Sixty percent of studies had an unclear risk of bias. The included reports used either separate or bundled strategies for scaling-up post pregnancy family planning. These included strategies for healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and people at the point of care. Strategies that target the point of care (women and / or their partners) contributed to 89.66% (26/29) of the reports either independently or as part of a bundle. Point of care strategies increase adoption and coverage of post pregnancy contraceptive methods.

Conclusion

Post pregnancy family planning scaling up strategies, representing a range of styles and settings, were associated with improved post pregnancy contraceptive use. Factors that influence the success of implementing these strategies include issues related to counselling, integration in postnatal or post-abortion care, and religious and social norms.

Trial registration

Center for Open Science, OSF.IO/EDAKM

Plain English Summary

Family planning could prevent one third of maternal deaths by allowing women to delay motherhood, avoid unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions. Post pregnancy family planning includes both postpartum and post-abortion periods. Post pregnancy women remain one of the most vulnerable groups with high unmet need for family planning. Scaling up post pregnancy family planning is essential for achieving universal access to reproductive health-care services. Reports of strategies to scale up post pregnancy family planning were systematically reviewed and summarized. These included strategies for healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and people at the point of care. Strategies that target the point of care (women and/or their partners) contributed to 89.66% (26/29) of the reports either independently or as part of a bundle. Point of care strategies increase adoption and coverage of post pregnancy contraceptive methods. Certain factors influence the success of implementing these strategies, including issues related to counselling, integration in postnatal or post-abortion care, and religious and social norms.

Peer Review reports

Background

Post pregnancy women have a high unmet need for family planning (FP). Post pregnancy family planning (PPFP) includes both postpartum and post-abortion periods. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends spacing pregnancies by two years or more following the delivery of a newborn, and at least six months after receiving post-abortion care [1]. This recommendation is based on evidence that PPFP reduces the burden of maternal and perinatal adverse events [2].

Despite this, there are still major missed opportunities for FP among postpartum women in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and many post-abortion clients still leave the facility without a contraceptive method [3, 4].

Therefore, scaling up PPFP is important to allow women to delay motherhood, avoid unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions, and consequently preventing maternal morbidity and mortality [5, 6]. Investing in scaling up PPFP can accelerate achievement across Sustainable Development Goal [7].

Scaling up is defined as deliberate efforts to increase the impact of health service innovations successfully tested in pilot or experimental projects to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis [8,9,10].

The WHO has commissioned this systematic review of scaling up of post pregnancy family planning. The overall aim of the review is to describe and assess the quality of the evidence on implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning. The review has the following objectives:

  • to identify, appraise and synthesize research evidence regarding the approaches or strategies to scaling up PPFP for improving coverage and sustainability.

  • to identify, appraise and synthesize research evidence on the barriers to and facilitators of scaling up of PPFP.

Methods

This systematic review followed the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSR) [11] and methods suggested by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Review Group [12]. The protocol, available as a preprint [13], was registered in the Center for Open Science platform (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EDAKM). The full review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [14].

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Reports of primary studies, either quantitative, qualitative, process evaluation, policy analysis, and case studies were considered eligible. Mixed method studies were considered if data from the quantitative or qualitative components can be clearly extracted. Editorials, commentaries, proposals, conference abstracts and systematic reviews were excluded. Reports that lacked a clear methodology section were also excluded if clarification could not be obtained from the authors. There were no restrictions on length of study follow-up, language of publication, or country of origin.

Types of participants

Study participants were the targets of strategies that would scale up PPFP, whether individuals (recipients of care, providers of care, other stakeholders), organizations, or systems.

Types of scaling up strategies

Approaches or strategies of scaling-up [9, 15,16,17] healthcare infrastructure-related (e.g., providing medical equipment or changing linkages within a health system), policy and regulation-related (e.g., revising policy to allow widespread community-based case management of a disease), financing-related (e.g., changing payment mechanisms), human resource-related (e.g., training and deployment of health care providers, changing roles of administrators), and patient-related (e.g., involving patients/public in recruitment or promotion).

Types of outcome measures

Implementation research outcomes mainly adoption (the intention, initial decision, or action to try to employ a new intervention; also known as Uptake, Utilization, Intention to try), coverage (the degree to which the population that is eligible to benefit from an intervention actually receives it.), and sustainability (the extent to which an intervention is maintained or institutionalized in a given setting; also known as maintenance, continuation) [18, 19].

Barriers to and facilitators (Factors that influence scaling up of PPFP)

The approach to the factors affecting scaling up was based on Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) framework [20], namely factors related to recipients of care, providers of care, other stakeholders (including other healthcare providers, community health committees, community leaders, program managers, donors, policymakers, and opinion leaders), health system constraints, and social and political constraints (Supplementary file 1).

Factors were grouped by the categories of health system building blocks (HSBB). HSBB is an analytical framework used by WHO to describe health systems, disaggregating them into 6 core components with the people in the center: (i) service delivery, (ii) health workforce, (iii) health information systems, (iv) Medical products, vaccines, and technologies (access to essential medicines), (v) financing, and (vi) leadership and governance [21].

Literature search

Sources

Bibliographic databases were searched for peer reviewed publications as well as grey literature. We performed the search strategy to identify published studies in the following electronic bibliographic databases (from inception to October 2022): MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Global Index Medicus, World Health Organization (www.globalindexmedicus.net). Search also included gray literature using the search engines and websites of relevant organizations. The reference list of all included reports was screened for additional studies.

Search strategy

The search terms were developed a priori. We followed recommendations of a previous review about terms to use for scaling up [22]. The search strategy was first developed in Pubmed format and was adapted to the other databases. The full search strategies for various platforms are available in an open access repository [23]. For unpublished studies, the review authors contacted global experts in family planning to identify possible reports. The email was sent through 3 major mailing lists maintained by relevant international organizations in the field of family planning.

The search strategies utilized the following terms (“Implementation Science” [MeSH Terms] OR scaling-up [Text Word] OR Scalability [Text Word] OR Scale-up [Text Word]) AND (“Family Planning Services” [MeSH Terms] OR contraception [MeSH Terms] OR contracept*[Text Word] OR “family planning” [Text Word]). The search aimed at sensitivity rather than precision since we opt to minimize false negative results.

Management of search results

All search results were imported into Jabref v5. Duplicate search results were identified by the software and were eliminated using a method that enables retaining unique citations without accidentally excluding false duplicates.

Data collection

Study selection

After removal of duplicates, two review authors (EI, NA) independently piloted the study selection form with a small random sample of studies to assess understanding of eligibility criteria and ease of use of the form. Two review authors (NW, NM) independently screened all titles/abstracts and full text to identify the relevant studies. Discrepancies between review authors regarding study eligibility was resolved by consensus or, when required, with a third party (AN). PRISMA flowchart was used to describe the process of study selection.

Data extraction

Two review authors (NW, NM) used a data extraction form (Supplementary file 2) adapted from JBI Mixed Methods Data Extraction Form following a Convergent Integrated Approach [11], to independently extract characteristics from the included studies: study title, first author, year of publication, country of study, the country’s economic status (low-, middle-, or high-income), funding source, study setting, facility type, study type (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies). Data extraction included the components of scaling-up strategies mentioned in each study, the target of the scale up activity, the time frame of the scaling-up process, implementation outcome evaluated in each study, and barriers and facilitators. Any disagreement in the data collection process was resolved through discussion and consensus between the two reviewers and, if needed, with a third party (AN).

Quality assessment

For each included study, the methodological quality was described using the corresponding Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) criteria (Supplementary file 3). [24, 25] Two independent reviewers (NW, NM) assessed the quality of included studies using MMAT, with a third independent reviewer (AN) to be used in case of any discrepancies. Studies were not excluded based on methodological limitations, but rather used to assess the confidence in the findings.

Data synthesis

A convergent integrated approach was used. This involved transformation into textual descriptions or narrative interpretation of the quantitative results in a way that answers the review questions. Articles were first grouped according to component(s) of scaling up, as defined above. A deductive thematic synthesis used the SURE framework and the health system building blocks to synthesize the factors affecting implementation (barriers and facilitators).

Appraisal of confidence in the review findings

GRADE‐CERQual was used to assess the confidence that can be placed in each review finding [26]. GRADE‐CERQual approach assesses confidence in the evidence based on four components: methodological limitations of included studies, coherence of the review findings, adequacy of the data contributing to a review finding, and relevance of the included studies to the review question.

After assessing each of the four components, a judgement about the overall confidence in the evidence supporting each review finding was made. The judgment of confidence was either high, moderate, low, or very low. The final assessment was based on consensus among the review authors. Summaries of the findings and the assessments of confidence in these findings were presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Researchers’ reflexivity

We maintained a reflexive stance throughout the stages of the review process, from study selection to data synthesis, as detailed in the review protocol [13].

Results

Study selection

The flow of identification, screening, and including 29 reports is depicted in Fig. 1

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA Flowchart

Full size image

Findings of the review

Characteristics of included studies

The 29 included studies [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] (Table 1) used quantitative (19/29; 65.52%), qualitative (7/29; 24.14%), and mixed methods (3/29; 10.34%). The studies were all published between 2005 and 2022. The studies werereported from 37 countries, from all regions, and from LMIC and High-income countries. Eight studies were reported from the USA [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]; four from Tanzania [35,36,37,38], two from Sri Lanka [39, 40], Nigeria [41, 42], Nepal [43, 44], Rwanda [45, 46], Bangladesh [38, 47], and one study from Benin [48], Bolivia [49], Burkina Faso [50], Chad [48], Côte d’Ivoire [48], Democratic Republic of Congo [50], Guatemala [51], India [52], Liberia [53], Mexico [49], Niger [48], Pakistan [54], Senegal [48], Togo [48], and Turkey [55].

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Methodological quality

Most of the included reports (17/29; 58.62%) had unclear risk of bias, with 9/29 (31.03%) were judged to be at high risk if bias.

Strategies of scaling-up post pregnancy family planning

The included 29 reports [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] described unique yet interrelated strategies of scaling-up post pregnancy family planning including healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and recipient of care. Most reports (19/29; 65.52%) utilized a combination of these strategies, Table 2.

Table 2 A matrix of reported scaling up strategies
Full size table

Effect of strategies for scaling up post pregnancy family planning

Strategies that target the point of care (women and / or their partners) contributed to 89.66% (26/29) of the reports either independently (Table 3) or as part of a bundle (Table 4) to scale up post pregnancy FP. Point of care, financial, and health resources strategies improved adoption and coverage of post pregnancy contraceptive methods (moderate certainty evidence).

Table 3 Summary of the reports of unique post pregnancy family planning scaling up strategies
Full size table
Table 4 Summary of the reports of multifaceted post pregnancy family planning scaling up strategies
Full size table

Factors influencing scaling up of PPFP

The health system building blocks framework was used to allow synthesis of factors that influence the scaling up of PPFP, Table 5. The most notable barriers to scaling up PPFP included failure to provide effective counselling, lack of integration of PPFP in postnatal or post-abortion care, and negative religious and traditional norms.

Table 5 Factors that influence the scaling up of post pregnancy family planning
Full size table

Discussion

Summary of the evidence

The review identified unique yet interrelated strategies of scaling-up post pregnancy family planning including healthcare infrastructure, policy and regulation, financing, human resource, and recipient of care. Most reports (19/29; 65.52%) utilized a combination of these strategies. Results show that point of care strategies, financing strategies, human resource strategies increase the use of post pregnancy contraceptive methods.

The review highlighted core components of strategies for scaling up post pregnancy family planning. The results agree with and update previously published reviews [56]. These components include training or continuing education and ongoing technical assistance at the health care provider level; provision of low- or no-cost contraception, grants for contraceptive equipment or supplies, and quality improvement and monitoring at the health facility level; public awareness campaigns and stakeholder engagement at the community level; and legislation or other policy changes at the public policy level. Implementation of these intervention components is interrelated and represents a theory-based, systems change approach wherein multiple interventions are implemented across levels to maximize effects across diverse and often fragmented systems of care in different countries.

The results of the current review agree with a previous review [57] that suggested that offering modern contraception services as part of care provided during childbirth or abortion increases post pregnancy contraceptive use and is likely to reduce both unintended pregnancies and pregnancies that are too closely spaced. Evidence for sustainability is insufficient and this remains an important issue to maintain a reduction in unmet needs for postpartum or post abortion periods. The need for integration with health system is critical for family planning to be institutionalized and therefore sustainable [58].

Improving the effectiveness of family planning programs is critical for empowering women and adolescent girls, improving human capital, reducing dependency ratios, reducing maternal and child mortality, and achieving demographic dividends particularly in low- and middle-income countries [59].

The current review critically summarized the factors that affect the success of scaling up of PPFP. The most apparent factors influencing the success of implementing these strategies include factors related to effective counselling and challenges in the integration of PPFP in postnatal or post-abortion care. These factors should be carefully considered by policymakers and family planning service planners in the development of guidance document and programmatic tools for planning and implementing strategies to scale up PPFP.

Limitations

First, although a comprehensive literature search was conducted and a meticulous screening process was performed, yet the possibility of unpublished work always exists. Second, the adoption of clear criteria for what constitutes a standalone scaling up strategy was a major challenge. Each theme of scaling up PPFP contains a diversity of possible processes, content, and operational environments. Because these variables are often not controlled across studies, it is difficult to rigorously determine the situations in which specific strategies work best. Finally, information regarding the processes of scaling up strategies were not described in sufficiently informative details.

Conclusions

Post pregnancy family planning can be scaled up using different strategies across a range of settings. This scale up appears to improve the uptake and utilization of post pregnancy contraceptive use. Programs striving to achieve a high impact need to overcome the most critical identified barriers namely those related to counselling and those related to integrating PPFP with postpartum or post-abortion care.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

CERQual:

Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research

EPOC:

Effective Practice and Organization of Care

FP:

Family Planning

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

HSBB:

Health System Building Blocks

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

LMIC:

Low- and middle-income countries

MMAT:

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool

MMSR:

Mixed methods systematic reviews

PPFP:

Post Pregnancy Family Planning

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SURE:

Supporting the Use of Research Evidence

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organization. Report of a WHO technical consultation on birth spacing: Geneva, Switzerland 13–15 June 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/69855.

  2. Makins A, Cameron S. Post pregnancy contraception. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;66:41–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moore Z, Pfitzer A, Gubin R, Charurat E, Elliott L, Croft T. Missed opportunities for family planning: an analysis of pregnancy risk and contraceptive method use among postpartum women in 21 low- and middle-income countries. Contraception. 2015;92:31–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shah IH, Santhya KG, Cleland J. Postpartum and post-abortion contraception: From research to programs. Stud Fam Plann. 2015;46:343–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJL, Group CRAC. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet (London, England). 2002;360:1347–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chola L, McGee S, Tugendhaft A, Buchmann E, Hofman K. Scaling up family planning to reduce maternal and child mortality: the potential costs and benefits of modern contraceptive use in South Africa. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0130077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Starbird E, Norton M, Marcus R. Investing in family planning: key to achieving the sustainable development goals. Global Health Sci Pract. 2016;4:191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Simmons R, Fajans P, Ghiron L. Scaling up health service delivery: From pilot innovations to policies and programmes. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. Practical guidance for scaling up health service innovations. World Health Organization; 2009. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44180.

  10. World Health Organization and ExpandNet. Nine steps for developing a scaling-up strategy. World Health Organization; 2010. p. vi, 35 p. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44432.

  11. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P, Loveday H. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-09.

  12. Glenton C, Bohren MA, Downe S, Paulsen EJ, Lewin S, on behalf of Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Qualitative Evidence Syntheses: Protocol and review template v1.3. EPOC Resources for review authors. 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5973704.

  13. Nabhan A, Kabra R, Kiarie J. Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning, a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2388545/v2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Barker PM, Reid A, Schall MW. A framework for scaling up health interventions: Lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in africa. Implement Sci. 2015;11(1):12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milat A, Newson R, King L, Rissel C, Wolfenden L, Bauman A, et al. A guide to scaling up population health interventions. Public Health Res Pract. 2016;26(1, 1):e2611604.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben Charif A, Zomahoun HTV, LeBlanc A, Langlois L, Wolfenden L, Yoong SL, et al. Effective strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: A systematic review. Vol. 12, Implementation science: IS. Health; Social Services Systems, Knowledge Translation; Implementation component of the Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.; 2017. p. 139. Available from: https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5700621?pdf=render.

  18. Peters D, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ (Clin Research Ed). 2013;347:f6753.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Peters D, Tran N, Adam T. Implementation research in health: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/91758.

    Google Scholar 

  20. The SURE Collaboration. SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs: 5. Identifying and addressing barriers to implementing policy options. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011]. The SURE Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.evipnet.org/sure.

  21. Savigny D de, Adam T, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research & World Health Organization. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Edited by Don de Savigny and Taghreed Adam. World Health Organization; 2009. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44204.

  22. Milat AJ, Bauman A, Redman S. Narrative review of models and success factors for scaling up public health interventions. Implement Sci. 2015;10:113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nabhan A. Search strategy: Post pregnancy family planning. figshare. 2022; Available from: https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Search_strategy_post_pregnancy_family_planning/21746852.

  24. Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:529–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. 2018;1148552(10):1–10.

  26. Lewin CAMK Simon AND Glenton. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLOS Med. 2015;12(10):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. DeSisto CL, Kroelinger CD, Estrich C, Velonis A, Uesugi K, Goodman DA, et al. Application of an implementation science framework to policies on immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Public Health Rep (Washington, DC : 1974). 2019;134:189–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koch SK, Paul R, Addante AN, Brubaker A, Kelly JC, Raghuraman N, et al. Medicaid reimbursement program for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception improves uptake regardless of insurance status. Contraception. 2022;113:57–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lacy MM, McMurtry Baird S, Scott TA, Barker B, Zite NB. Statewide quality improvement initiative to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(S910):e1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Palm HC, Degnan JH, Biefeld SD, Reese AL, Espey E, Hofler LG. An initiative to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception in rural New Mexico. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(S911):e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Simmons KB, Edelman AB, Li H, Yanit KE, Jensen JT. Personalized contraceptive assistance and uptake of long-acting, reversible contraceptives by postpartum women: a randomized, controlled trial. Contraception. 2013;88:45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tang JH, Dominik RC, Zerden ML, Verbiest SB, Brody SC, Stuart GS. Effect of an educational script on postpartum contraceptive use: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2014;90:162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilkinson B, Ascha M, Verbus E, Montague M, Morris J, Mercer B, et al. Medicaid and receipt of interval postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2019;99(1):32–5. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782418304268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zerden ML, Tang JH, Stuart GS, Norton DR, Verbiest SB, Brody S. Barriers to receiving long-acting reversible contraception in the postpartum period. Women’s Health Issues. 2015;25:616–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pearson E, Senderowicz L, Pradhan E, Francis J, Muganyizi P, Shah I, et al. Effect of a postpartum family planning intervention on postpartum intrauterine device counseling and choice: Evidence from a cluster-randomized trial in tanzania. BMC Women’s Health. 2020;20:102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rasch V, Yambesi F, Kipingili R. Scaling up postabortion contraceptive service–results from a study conducted among women having unwanted pregnancies in urban and rural tanzania. Contraception. 2005;72:377–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stephens B, Mwandalima IJ, Samma A, Lyatuu J, Mimno K, Komwihangiro J. Reducing barriers to postabortion contraception: the role of expanding coverage of postabortion care in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Global Health Sci Pract. 2019;7:S258–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yahner M. Promising directions and missed opportunities for reaching first-time mothers with reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health services: findings from formative assessments in two countries. Save the Children US. 2022; Available from: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/promising-directions-and-missed-opportunities-for-reaching-first-time-mother-with-reproductive-maternal-newborn-and-children-health-services-findings-from-formative-in-two-countries/.

  39. de Silva R, Huber-Krum S, Samarasekera A, Karra M, Pearson E, Senanayake H, et al. Provider perspectives in implementing the postpartum intrauterine device initiative in sri lanka: a qualitative study. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021;47:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Karra M, Pearson E, Pradhan E, de Silva R, Samarasekera A, Canning D, et al. The effect of a postpartum IUD intervention on counseling and choice: Evidence from a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge trial in sri lanka. Trials. 2019;20:407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Eluwa GI, Atamewalen R, Odogwu K, Ahonsi B. Success providing postpartum intrauterine devices in private-sector health care facilities in nigeria: factors associated with uptake. Global Health Sci Pract. 2016;4:276–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sodje JDK, Enaruna NO, Ehigiegba AE, Aromeh CO, Atamewalen M. Feasibility, acceptability, and uptake of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices in southern nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135:149–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pradhan E, Canning D, Shah IH, Puri M, Pearson E, Thapa K, et al. Integrating postpartum contraceptive counseling and IUD insertion services into maternity care in nepal: Results from stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. Reprod Health. 2019;16:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu WJ, Tiwari A, Choudhury N, Basnett I, Bhatt R, Citrin D, et al. Community-based postpartum contraceptive counselling in rural Nepal: a mixed-methods evaluation. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(MEDLINE:32546070, 2):1765646.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Espey J, Ingabire R, Nyombayire J, Hoagland A, Da Costa V, Mazzei A, et al. Postpartum long-acting contraception uptake and service delivery outcomes after a multilevel intervention in Kigali, Rwanda. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021;47:173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ingabire R, Nyombayire J, Hoagland A, Da Costa V, Mazzei A, Haddad L, et al. Evaluation of a multi-level intervention to improve postpartum intrauterine device services in Rwanda. Gates Open Res. 2018;2:38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cooper CM, Ahmed S, Winch PJ, Pfitzer A, McKaig C, Baqui AH. Findings from the use of a narrative story and leaflet to influence shifts along the behavior change continuum toward postpartum contraceptive uptake in sylhet district, bangladesh. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97:376–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pleah T, Hyjazi Y, Austin S, Diallo A, Dao B, Waxman R, et al. Increasing use of postpartum family planning and the postpartum IUD: early experiences in West and Central Africa. Global Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(Suppl 2):S140–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Billings DL, Crane BB, Benson J, Solo J, Fetters T. Scaling-up a public health innovation: a comparative study of post-abortion care in Bolivia and Mexico. Soc Sci Med (1982). 2007;64:2210–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tran NT, Yameogo WME, Langwana F, Gaffield ME, Seuc A, Cuzin-Kihl A, et al. Participatory action research to identify a package of interventions to promote postpartum family planning in Burkina Faso and the democratic republic of Congo. BMC Women’s Health. 2018;18(MEDLINE:29976182, 1):122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kestler E, Valencia L, Del Valle V, Silva A. Scaling up post-abortion care in guatemala: Initial successes at national level. Reprod Health Matters. 2006;14:138–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sebastian MP, Khan ME, Kumari K, Idnani R. Increasing postpartum contraception in rural India: evaluation of a community-based behavior change communication intervention. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;38:68–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nelson AR, Cooper CM, Kamara S, Taylor ND, Zikeh T, Kanneh-Kesselly C, et al. Operationalizing integrated immunization and family planning services in rural Liberia: lessons learned from evaluating service quality and utilization. Global Health Sci Pract. 2019;7:418–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Saeed GA, Fakhar S, Rahim F, Tabassum S. Change in trend of contraceptive uptake–effect of educational leaflets and counseling. Contraception. 2008;77:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Akman M, Tüzün S, Uzuner A, Başgul A, Kavak Z. The influence of prenatal counselling on postpartum contraceptive choice. J Int Med Res. 2010;38:1243–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Belaid L, Dumont A, Chaillet N, Zertal A, De Brouwere V, Hounton S, et al. Effectiveness of demand generation interventions on use of modern contraceptives in low- and middle-income countries. Trop Med Int Health. 2016;21:1240–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bongaarts J. The impact of family planning programs on unmet need and demand for contraception. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45:247–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. SebertKuhlmann A, Gavin L, Galavotti C. The integration of family planning with other health services: a literature review. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2010;36(04):189–96. https://doi.org/10.1363/3618910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sferrazza C, editor. Family planning, women’s empowerment, and population and societal impacts. National Academies Press; 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/26023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Consortium Name: Family Planning Research Collaborators

Ashraf Nabhan1, Rita Kabra2, Nahed Allam3, Eman Ibrahim3, Norhan Abdelmonem4, Nouran Wagih5, Nourhan Mostafa5, James Kiarie2, Ahmed Zenhom1, Alyaa Ashraf5, Amal Alshabrawy1, Emry Atwa5, Fatma Elghamry5, Mai Abouelnaga5, Mariam Kodsy5, Marwa Elgendi1, Marwa Snosi 1, Menna Kamel5, Mohamed Salama1, Nada Makram5, Noha Sakna1, Salma Eltayeb5, Samhaa bahnasy5, Sara Galal5, Shorouk Taha5.

Funding

This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO) (WHO-SRH/HRP-CFC grant number 2022/1240770–0).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Ramses Street, Cairo, Egypt

    Ashraf Nabhan

  2. Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health Including UNDP/UNFPA/ UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Rita Kabra & James Kiarie

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

    Nahed Allam & Eman Ibrahim

  4. Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr el-Sheikh, Egypt

    Norhan Abd-Elmonem

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Nouran Wagih & Nourhan Mostafa

Authors
  1. Ashraf Nabhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita Kabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nahed Allam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eman Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Norhan Abd-Elmonem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nouran Wagih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nourhan Mostafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James Kiarie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Family Planning Research Collaborators

  • Ashraf Nabhan
  • , Rita Kabra
  • , Nahed Allam
  • , Eman Ibrahim
  • , Norhan Abd-Elmonem
  • , Nouran Wagih
  • , Nourhan Mostafa
  • , James Kiarie
  • , Ahmed Zenhom
  • , Alyaa Ashraf
  • , Amal Alshabrawy
  • , Emry Atwa
  • , Fatma Elghamry
  • , Mai Abouelnaga
  • , Mariam Kodsy
  • , Marwa Elgendi
  • , Marwa Snosi
  • , Menna Kamel
  • , Mohamed Salama
  • , Nada Makram
  • , Noha Sakna
  • , Salma Eltayeb
  • , Samhaa bahnasy
  • , Sara Galal
  •  & Shorouk Taha

Contributions

AN, RK, JK conceived the idea for this review and designed the systematic review methods. AN, RK, NA, EI, NAE, NW, NM, JK collaborated in conducting the review. All authors (members of the Consortium “Family Planning Research Collaborators”) collaborated in screening of studies and data extraction and the evidence synthesis. AN, RK, JK collaborated in writing the first draft of this review. All authors provided critical input to the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of the World Health Organization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashraf Nabhan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Supplementary File 1. The SURE Framework. Supplementary File 2. Data extraction form: Scaling up post pregnancy FP. Supplementary File 3. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nabhan, A., Kabra, R., Allam, N. et al. Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining post pregnancy family planning, a mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Women's Health 23, 379 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02518-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02518-6

Keywords

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us