Keywords
Family planning, COVID-19, national composite index of family planning, NCIFP
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic fears of severe disruptions to family planning (FP) and access to services abounded. This paper uses a unique data source, a special Supplement added to the 2021 round of the National Composite Index for Family Planning (NCIFP), to assess in depth the resilience of FP programs in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic across 70 countries spanning six regions.
The 2021 NCIFP included 961 key informants who were asked questions to assess interference in the countries’ ability to achieve objectives, ability to maintain commitment to FP, and availability of information and services. Open ended responses added context.
All programs were affected; the magnitude of effects varies by region and country. While the average resilience score, at 47 out of 100, implies middling levels of resilience, further analysis showed that despite interference in many components of programming, with some exceptions, the COVID-19 pandemic generally did not diminish government commitment to FP and programs remained resilient in providing access to services. Common themes mentioned by 178 respondents (18.5% of respondents) included: fear of infection; disruption of services / difficulty with lockdown and travel restrictions; staff / facilities diverted to COVID-19; access to reproductive health services and contraceptive methods affected; shifts in services / outreach; interference with logistics & supplies, training & supervision, and M&E; lack of attention to FP/sexual reproductive health; financing reduced or diverted; and effects on existing partnerships. A strong enabling environment for FP, which the NCIFP is designed to measure, was positively correlated with continued government commitment and access to contraceptive methods during COVID-19.
These findings are instructive for programming: it will face challenges and ‘interference’ when unanticipated shocks like COVID-19 occur, with strong FP programs best prepared to exhibit resilience.
Family planning, COVID-19, national composite index of family planning, NCIFP
This version of the paper includes more detail on the purpose, methodology, and limitations of the analysis in the paper.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Philip Anglewicz
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nadia Diamond-Smith
In 2020, when the global COVID-19 pandemic was unfolding and was taking a toll on health systems, communities and individuals, questions arose about how family planning programs and contraceptive services would fare in the face of COVID-19 (Brunie et al., 2022; GEH et al., 2021; UNFPA, 2021). One estimate suggested that 15 million unintended pregnancies over a year could result from a 10 percent reduction in use of contraception in lower- and middle-income countries (Riley et al., 2020), raising dire warnings of strong negative consequences associated with anticipated disruption of access to contraceptives. WHO conducted pulse surveys on disruptions to essential sexual reproductive maternal neonatal children and adolescent health services, once in mid-2020 and twice in 2021. These pulse surveys show widespread disruptions to family planning services early in the pandemic, diminishing over time (WHO, 2021b). In the first pulse survey in May-July, 2020, 68 percent of the 102 states that responded noted disruptions in family planning and contraceptive services, compared to 44 percent of the 104 countries responding in January-March 2021 (WHO, 2020; WHO, 2021a). By November-December 2021, 35 percent of the countries responding noted disruptions (WHO, 2021b). A multi-country study of COVID-19 and resilience of health systems found large declines in family planning services in two countries (Chile and Mexico), a small decline in one country (Nepal) and no decline in four countries (Haiti, Lao PDR, Ethiopia and Ghana) (Arsenault et al., 2022). Country respondents reported that most effects to the health systems, including related to family planning, had been addressed by the end of 2020, with more lasting effects in Chile and Mexico.
Evidence from country-level studies suggest mixed findings on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on contraceptive use (Bietsch et al., 2022; Brunie et al., 2022; Karp et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2021). A voice response survey to gain insight into women’s contraceptive access and use in Malawi, Nepal, Niger, and Uganda one year into the pandemic, found less reported use of contraception than before the pandemic in three of the four countries (Niger was the exception) (Brunie et al., 2022). The sample in the Brunie et al. study was primarily younger women ages 18 to 24. Temporary service closures, product shortages, and fear of COVID-19 infections were reported to affect access and use. Using multiple rounds of Performance Monitoring and Action (PMA) data from Kenya, Burkina Faso, Lagos State Nigeria and Kinshasa, DRC, Wood et al. (2021) reported some increases in women’s need for contraception. However, results also showed continued increases in contraceptive use. Assessing contraceptive use in 15 countries using service statistics data from 2019 and 2020, Bietsch et al. (2022) found that contraceptive use was higher in 12 of the countries in 2020 than in 2019.
Most studies that have asked about family planning program disruptions have not delved deeply into what aspects of the program have been disrupted (e.g., the WHO pulse surveys ask only one question), and the more in-depth evidence that is available covers a handful of the countries around the world, or is summarized without specific country information (Global Health Supply Chain Program, n.d.). This paper uses a unique data source, a special Supplement added to the 2021 round of the National Composite Index for Family Planning (NCIFP), to assess in depth the resilience of family planning programs in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic across 70 countries spanning six regions: Francophone sub-Saharan Africa; Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa; Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; Middle East and North Africa, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
In this paper, we first explain the NCIFP then present findings from the Supplement added to assess the effects of COVID-19 and thus the resilience of the family planning program during COVID-19, set in the context of the findings of the general NCIFP in 2021. Results are intended to serve as a starting point for policy and program managers to delve deeper into the root causes of resiliency in their respective countries and for researchers to gain a more nuanced picture of resiliency of family planning programing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Building on the Family Planning Program Effort Score measured since the 1970s (Kuang & Brodsky, 2016; Lapham & Mauldin, 1984; Mauldin & Ross, 1991; Ross & Stover, 2001), the NCIFP was developed after 2012 to support FP2020’s efforts to improve the enabling policy and program environment for family planning, by examining the levels and types of effort for a range of family planning policy and programmatic indicators, including indicators to measure rights-based programming.
The NCIFP includes 41 items related to five dimensions of family planning programs, namely, Strategy, Data, Quality, Equity and Accountability, with scores summing to a total possible score of 1001 (Box 1). For more information about development of the NCIFP, see Weinberger & Ross (2016). Three rounds of the NCIFP have been completed: 2014, 2017 and 2021. To see scores from the first three rounds of the NCIFP, or to compare country scores over time, see Rosenberg (2020) or visit the Track20 website at Track20.org.
■ Strategy: Includes questions on topics such as what plans are in place, whether they include important elements (e.g. quantified objectives), government support for family planning, etc.
■ Data: Focuses on both data collection (service statistics, monitoring sub-groups, etc.), and data use to inform decisions.
■ Quality: Measures whether services meet WHO standards, whether quality of care indicators are monitored, whether there are structures are in place to support quality services.
■ Equity: Focuses on policies and programs related to discrimination, efforts to reach under-served groups, and wide-spread access to contraceptive methods.
■ Accountability: Focuses on monitoring and addressing issues related to informed choice, lack of coercion and absence of denial of services.
■ COVID-19 Supplement (questions included in the 2021 round): Asks to what extent COVID-19 affected various components of the family planning program.
A ‘COVID-19 Supplement’ was added to the 2021 round, which includes results from 70 countries in six regions (Rosenberg et al., 2022). The regional representativeness of the sample for 2021 is 64 percent of countries for both Anglophone and Francophone sub-Saharan Africa regions (SSAF-A and SSAF-F), 52 percent of countries for Asia, 18 percent of countries for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), 21 percent of countries for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and 53 percent of countries for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA). The total number of respondents in 2021 was 961.
The NCIFP is administered through a key informant approach, with the key informants comprising 10–15 respondents in each country who know the family planning program, from the public sector and private sectors; from civil society and nongovernmental organizations; from academic/research organizations; and from development and implementation partners. Country-level NCIFP data collection was managed by either Track20 monitoring and evaluation officers (MEO) assigned to work with the MOH or by a consultant selected based on familiarity with the FP/RH policy and program environment. The MEO or consultant selected respondents who are known to have at least 5 years’ experience with the family planning program, ensuring at least two respondents from each of the categories listed above. While the same respondents were identified for the 2021 round that had participated in the 2017 round, their inclusion was not always possible given turnover in relevant positions.
The approach uses a rating system based on opinion of “the extent to which” with 1–10 as responses (1 = non-existent; 10 = extremely strong effort) for each item in the NCIFP. The 2021 round was administered in eight languages online using Google Form, with an offline option available. The questionnaire included informed consent for respondents.
While the NCIFP does not measure how women were actually impacted by the pandemic with regards to contraceptive access and use, NCIFP country managers (selected because of their known familiarity of the FP environment in their own countries) were instructed to ensure inclusion of FP advocates, gender-oriented NGOs, women’s groups working on FP/RH—who are likely to get feedback from constituents about problems accessing FP during the pandemic. We have included qualitative comments from respondents about key barriers in each country.
The Supplemental questions on COVID-19 came at the end of the regular NCIFP questionnaire and respondents were told that this final set of questions was unique to the 2021 NCIFP and was meant to capture the resiliency of the health system. The questions on COVID-19, shown in Box 2, covered four main aspects of family planning program resiliency: 1) the extent to which COVID-19 interfered with the country’s ability to achieve its objectives related to seven issues (shown in Box 2), with space to add additional issues; 2) the extent to which the government maintained commitment to family planning; 3) the extent to which the family planning program was able to maintain availability of contraceptive information and services; and 4) extent to which clients were able to access contraceptive counseling and methods during lockdowns associated with COVID-19. Taken together, these results give an indication of the resiliency of family planning programs in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of stakeholders who know the programs well.
Extent to which COVID-19 interfered with the country's ability to reach its family planning objectives. (1 = not at all; 10 = extremely interfered)
• Financing for family planning
• Advocacy or community mobilization efforts
• Supply of contraceptives, including transport and logistics systems
• Recording and reporting of services (routine data)
• Restrictions to movement/transport that interfered with the population’s access to short-term FP methods (STM)
• Restrictions to movement/transport that interfered with the population’s access to long-term and permanent family planning methods (LAPM)
• Other (please specify)
Extent to which the government maintained its commitment to family planning during COVID-19. (1 = not at all; 10 = maintained commitment)
Extent to which the family planning program was able to maintain availability of contraceptive information and services, including contraceptive methods during COVID-19. (1 = not at all; 10 = availability maintained)
Extent to which clients were able to access contraceptive counseling and methods during lockdowns associated with COVID-19. (1 = no access; 10 = easy access)
Data from the google forms questionnaires were exported to Excel for analysis. The authors, led by RR, calculated scores for each item by averaging across individual items in each dimension of the NCIFP and across the COVID-19 Supplement questions. Total scores are an average across all 41 items in the NCIFP. Dimension scores are an average of the individual items in each dimension. Country scores were generated by taking the average for all respondents within that country and converting to a score from 1-100. Regional scores are the average of all country scores within that region. Scoring on responses to COVID-19 questions about ‘interference’ was reversed for analysis for consistency with scoring of the five dimensions of the NCIFP. Thus, a high score indicates little interference to the program from COVID-19 and thus higher resilience of the program and a low score indicates a great deal of interference and lower resilience.
Analysis also included correlations between the NCIFP total score (an average of the five dimensions (excluding the COVID-19 Supplement) and three COVID-19 Supplement indicators: 1) the total Supplement score; 2) the Supplement item on whether government commitment was maintained; and 3) the Supplement item on whether access to contraception was maintained.
Respondents had the opportunity to provide a short answer to ‘COVID Other’ following the questions about COVID-19 interference. The authors, led by KH, analyzed the responses to this open-ended question to highlight common and unique themes across the regions. We started with a list of all of the open-ended responses, grouped by country and region. Starting with the themes represented by the items in the COVID-19 Supplement, we let the comments ‘speak for themselves’ and represent the voices of the respondents in terms of themes that emerged.
Since the first round in 2014, the NCIFP has been conducted within a monitoring and evaluation framework focused on family planning programs, rather than under a research protocol. Still, written informed consent was obtained to take part in the NCIFP and all data has been anonymized.
Regions show variations in the resilience of their family planning programs during the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1). Keeping in mind that a high score indicates higher resilience and a low score indicates lower reliance, the average score across all 70 countries was 47 out of 100. SSAF-F had the highest score (55), indicating that that region’s family planning programs were affected by COVID-19, but still may have been most resilient during the pandemic. LAC has the lowest overall score (35), meaning that COVID-19 was considered to affect family planning programs to a greater extent in that region. Figure 1 also shows that respondents gave higher scores overall for the five standard dimensions of the NCIFP in 2021 (described in Box 1) compared to their assessments of the resilience of the program in the face of COVID-19.
No region or country was immune to effects of COVID-19 on the family planning program. Regions showed variation in the resilience of their programs, ranging from a high of 55 in Francophone sub-Saharan Africa (out of 100 indicating fully resilient) to a low of 35 in Latin America and the Caribbean, with an average across the six regions of 47.
Turning to the components of resilience of the family planning program to COVID-19 (Box 2 and Figure 2), respondents in four of the six regions were positive about their governments’ continued commitment to family planning and ability to maintain access to contraceptives in the face of COVID-19. LAC (yellow line) and EECA (green line) were the exceptions, with less positive views on government commitment and access to contraceptives during COVID-19 (Figure 2). Regarding interference, across the regions, COVID-19 was considered to have the most effect on advocacy and community mobilization efforts and on supply and logistics. Restrictions to movement and/or transport were considered to have had more effect on access to long acting and permanent methods (LAPM) than on access to short term methods (STM) across all regions except SSAF-F (orange line). SSAF-F had equal levels of interference to access to both types of methods related to restrictions to movement and/or transport.
Respondents in four of six regions were positive about government commitment to family planning and access to contraceptives during COVID-19 although all regions reported interference with logistics and supply and, relatedly, access to both types of methods due to restrictions on movement and/or transportation.
Country scores for resilience vary widely, with Turkmenistan reporting the highest resilience (78) and Bolivia the lowest (22) (Figure 3). Within regions, there is considerable variation in the country scores for resilience. The largest difference is 52 points in EECA, from the high of 78 for Turkmenistan and a low of 26 for Armenia. The smallest difference is 19 points in MENA (from a high of 54 in Djibouti to a low of 35 in Palestine. Table 1 provides the component scores for the items in the COVID-19 Supplement for each country, grouped within regions. The scores across countries reinforce that for most countries, with some exceptions, while the government maintained commitment to family planning, the programs faced interference. Among the 70 countries, around half (36) had similar scores related to the government maintaining commitment to family planning and the country maintaining availability of contraceptives (scores for those two items were within 5 points of each other in those 36 countries). In eight countries, the scores for those items differed by 10 or more points.
COVID-19 interfered with… | Government maintained commitment to FP | Maintained availability of contraceptives | Access during lockdowns | Average score | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region and Country | financing | advocacy | logistics and supply | routine data | access to STMs | access to LAPM | ||||
SSAF-F | 40 | 38 | 46 | 55 | 52 | 53 | 71 | 73 | 65 | 55 |
Mozambique | 26 | 24 | 24 | 47 | 29 | 31 | 67 | 64 | 61 | 42 |
Sao Tome and Principe | 16 | 17 | 29 | 31 | 33 | 36 | 79 | 86 | 64 | 44 |
Madagascar | 32 | 29 | 38 | 43 | 44 | 46 | 50 | 76 | 71 | 48 |
Cameroon | 36 | 30 | 38 | 56 | 46 | 50 | 61 | 63 | 53 | 48 |
Tchad | 42 | 40 | 44 | 44 | 53 | 56 | 47 | 58 | 48 | 48 |
Togo | 40 | 35 | 39 | 55 | 48 | 45 | 73 | 75 | 58 | 52 |
DRC | 46 | 51 | 44 | 61 | 52 | 54 | 56 | 65 | 45 | 53 |
Guinea | 44 | 44 | 46 | 58 | 51 | 50 | 74 | 69 | 64 | 56 |
Mali | 36 | 26 | 52 | 54 | 58 | 55 | 82 | 81 | 76 | 58 |
Burkina Faso | 48 | 44 | 50 | 59 | 57 | 53 | 79 | 79 | 70 | 60 |
Niger | 33 | 37 | 59 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 78 | 77 | 69 | 61 |
Cote d'Ivoire | 51 | 42 | 50 | 63 | 63 | 63 | 78 | 71 | 70 | 61 |
Guinea-Bissau | 56 | 52 | 67 | 69 | 61 | 62 | 81 | 84 | 79 | 68 |
Burundi | 58 | 51 | 56 | 70 | 67 | 67 | 84 | 79 | 79 | 68 |
SSAF-A | 33 | 30 | 33 | 47 | 41 | 40 | 65 | 63 | 47 | 45 |
Eswatini | 12 | 16 | 22 | 39 | 15 | 21 | 60 | 47 | 21 | 28 |
Lesotho | 21 | 30 | 30 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 42 | 49 | 32 | 34 |
Liberia | 21 | 22 | 24 | 31 | 27 | 29 | 61 | 57 | 41 | 35 |
Botswana | 24 | 22 | 20 | 37 | 28 | 30 | 76 | 58 | 43 | 38 |
Nigeria | 31 | 29 | 32 | 42 | 36 | 33 | 50 | 55 | 41 | 39 |
The Gambia | 20 | 22 | 26 | 37 | 27 | 29 | 67 | 74 | 49 | 39 |
Somalia | 35 | 32 | 27 | 50 | 57 | 54 | 38 | 41 | 29 | 40 |
Malawi | 28 | 32 | 27 | 51 | 40 | 36 | 60 | 61 | 45 | 42 |
Zimbabwe | 35 | 31 | 31 | 43 | 29 | 25 | 86 | 81 | 57 | 47 |
Kenya* | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 62 | 60 | 41 | 47 |
Sierra Leone | 34 | 36 | 36 | 49 | 41 | 42 | 69 | 71 | 45 | 47 |
Uganda | 41 | 32 | 33 | 55 | 44 | 41 | 75 | 63 | 45 | 48 |
South Africa | 43 | 33 | 42 | 46 | 44 | 36 | 66 | 69 | 52 | 48 |
Zambia | 46 | 32 | 48 | 46 | 32 | 45 | 69 | 54 | 61 | 48 |
Ghana | 32 | 33 | 43 | 61 | 50 | 49 | 67 | 60 | 46 | 49 |
Ethiopia | 32 | 31 | 33 | 54 | 52 | 43 | 83 | 82 | 66 | 53 |
South Sudan | 48 | 33 | 43 | 57 | 74 | 66 | 67 | 74 | 60 | 58 |
Tanzania | 52 | 46 | 44 | 72 | 73 | 67 | 80 | 79 | 75 | 65 |
Asia | 42 | 37 | 42 | 49 | 43 | 37 | 68 | 65 | 49 | 48 |
Philippines | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 8 | 71 | 66 | 53 | 34 |
Papua New Guinea | 27 | 25 | 31 | 52 | 31 | 31 | 38 | 44 | 38 | 35 |
Malaysia | 36 | 29 | 42 | 51 | 33 | 34 | 51 | 54 | 43 | 41 |
Indonesia | 31 | 30 | 29 | 34 | 31 | 26 | 79 | 74 | 66 | 44 |
India | 58 | 46 | 46 | 44 | 42 | 35 | 57 | 45 | 35 | 45 |
Viet Nam | 23 | 28 | 36 | 39 | 42 | 38 | 78 | 73 | 65 | 47 |
Lao PDR | 34 | 35 | 30 | 33 | 48 | 47 | 73 | 66 | 56 | 47 |
Nepal | 43 | 33 | 39 | 54 | 44 | 31 | 69 | 68 | 52 | 48 |
Pakistan | 42 | 52 | 36 | 55 | 44 | 34 | 73 | 57 | 44 | 49 |
Mongolia | 49 | 57 | 34 | 58 | 47 | 50 | 53 | 59 | 48 | 51 |
Cambodia | 41 | 36 | 52 | 67 | 52 | 43 | 69 | 68 | 35 | 51 |
Bhutan | 49 | 27 | 50 | 56 | 44 | 37 | 87 | 79 | 57 | 54 |
Bangladesh | 56 | 43 | 69 | 59 | 52 | 43 | 77 | 66 | 44 | 57 |
China | 59 | 46 | 57 | 65 | 59 | 47 | 72 | 75 | 48 | 59 |
Timor-Leste | 60 | 50 | 59 | 50 | 52 | 47 | 81 | 75 | 52 | 58 |
LAC | 33 | 25 | 28 | 39 | 30 | 28 | 48 | 47 | 37 | 35 |
Bolivia | 16 | 14 | 15 | 37 | 16 | 18 | 27 | 31 | 25 | 22 |
Peru | 22 | 10 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 49 | 40 | 24 | 24 |
Ecuador | 18 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 21 | 36 | 37 | 27 | 26 |
El Salvador | 29 | 31 | 30 | 34 | 27 | 25 | 29 | 35 | 28 | 30 |
Dominican Republic | 32 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 17 | 16 | 64 | 48 | 35 | 30 |
Guatemala | 46 | 19 | 21 | 41 | 10 | 11 | 41 | 44 | 38 | 30 |
Honduras | 28 | 22 | 24 | 45 | 30 | 28 | 52 | 54 | 40 | 36 |
Haiti | 48 | 47 | 55 | 63 | 63 | 59 | 55 | 61 | 47 | 55 |
Jamaica | 53 | 53 | 54 | 63 | 60 | 56 | 84 | 76 | 64 | 62 |
MENA | 46 | 38 | 43 | 47 | 41 | 40 | 61 | 62 | 43 | 47 |
Palestine | 35 | 37 | 29 | 31 | 26 | 26 | 47 | 45 | 37 | 35 |
Jordan | 39 | 34 | 46 | 54 | 40 | 27 | 47 | 57 | 31 | 41 |
Morocco | 45 | 39 | 50 | 41 | 40 | 42 | 71 | 73 | 44 | 49 |
Egypt | 62 | 39 | 41 | 58 | 43 | 46 | 72 | 70 | 52 | 54 |
Djibouti | 48 | 42 | 47 | 49 | 59 | 57 | 70 | 66 | 50 | 54 |
EECA | 42 | 42 | 46 | 56 | 49 | 44 | 49 | 49 | 43 | 47 |
Armenia | 13 | 19 | 16 | 29 | 38 | 38 | 26 | 30 | 28 | 26 |
Kyrgyz Republic | 18 | 21 | 24 | 28 | 20 | 20 | 46 | 37 | 33 | 27 |
Romania | 42 | 30 | 51 | 62 | 39 | 29 | 18 | 32 | 27 | 37 |
Georgia | 38 | 42 | 49 | 54 | 42 | 39 | 27 | 36 | 29 | 39 |
Uzbekistan | 35 | 37 | 33 | 51 | 42 | 36 | 47 | 50 | 37 | 41 |
Azerbaijan | 38 | 51 | 40 | 47 | 53 | 52 | 56 | 47 | 47 | 48 |
Kazakhstan | 33 | 36 | 60 | 57 | 51 | 49 | 66 | 65 | 60 | 53 |
Tajikistan | 68 | 67 | 64 | 79 | 76 | 63 | 73 | 73 | 66 | 70 |
Turkmenistan | 87 | 80 | 77 | 94 | 81 | 73 | 78 | 75 | 62 | 78 |
Country scores for resilience vary widely, with Turkmenistan reporting the highest resilience (78 out of 100) and Bolivia the lowest (22). Even within regions, countries show considerable variation in their resilience score, and in the components of resilience that affect each country.
To assess links between the strength of the overall enabling environment for family planning in programs and resilience to COVID-19, we measured correlations between total scores on the five dimensions of the NCIFP (Strategy, Data, Quality, Accountability and Equity) and the Total COVID-19 Supplement score. The connection was positive with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.26 (Figure 4). The correlation between the total NCIFP Score and the Supplement item on whether government commitment was maintained was R2= 0.59 (Figure 5) compared to R2= 0.50 for the Supplement item on whether access was maintained (Figure 6). The relationships for government commitment and access were strong, implying that maintaining government commitment to family planning and access to contraceptives during COVID-19 were both bolstered by a robust overall enabling environment for family planning.
Family planning programs with a strong enabling environment, as measured by the NCIFP, were more likely than those with weaker enabling environments to exhibit continued government commitment and access to contraceptive methods during COVID-19.
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide open-ended responses about the effects of COVID-19 on family planning programming. Comments from 178 respondents from 63 of the 70 countries, representing around 18.5% of all respondents, provide a narrative snapshot and reinforcement of the challenges that family planning programs faced in the context of COVID-19 across the regions (Table 2). Comments can be grouped into seven themes. Fear of infection was mentioned in 5 of 6 regions, disruption of services / difficulty with lockdown and travel restrictions was mentioned in all six regions and staff / facilities diverted to COVID-19 was mentioned in 4 of 6 regions. Five of six regions mentioned: access to reproductive health services and contraceptive methods affected; shifts in services / outreach affected; interfered with logistics & supplies, training & supervision, and M&E; and lack of attention to FP/SRH, financing reduced or diverted, and partnerships affected.
*Summary includes analysis of 178 responses from 63 countries (15 responses from 7 countries in EECA; 27 responses from 12 countries in Asia; 32 responses from 9 countries in LAC, 12 comments from 5 countries in MENA; 41 comments from 13 countries in SSA-F; and 51 responses from 17 countries in SSA-A). No comments were received from 7 countries. Numbers in parenthesis indicate multiple respondents gave the same/similar responses.
A respondent from Morocco reaffirmed the diversion of providers, saying,
“Access to FP services has been affected due to the mobilization of FP health professionals in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic” (Morocco)
A respondent from Bangladesh explained,
“Long national lockdown had a role in receiving services from facilities. This created challenges in travel and provider contact mostly. Discontinuation of advocacy and counseling made disruption of services and increased the threat of unwanted pregnancy” (Bangladesh)
Also in Asia, a respondent from Pakistan reflected,
“Lock downs and smart lock downs have had its toll on both the providers and the users besides interrupted supply chain” (Pakistan)
In line with findings shown in Table 1, the comments mostly indicated more issues with long acting and permanent methods than with short term methods. A respondent in Eswatini noted that,
“Procurement of family planning commodities was greatly affected which led to serious shortages of all methods, due to international lockdowns which affected the supply chain” (Eswatini)
Another respondent from Eswatini added that the shortages especially affected rural areas.
The comments showed varying views, even within regions and countries, on how severe and how long-lasting the effects of COVID-19 were and the interactions of COVID-19 with other underlying issues affecting the family planning program. For example, one respondent from Uganda said,
“The COVID-19 impact on FP services was most severe in April-May 2020 but the program recovered from June 2020 onwards quite well, due to a deliberate initiative to continue essential health service delivery” (Uganda)
In contrast, another respondent from Uganda described the situation differently, saying,
“Lock down exacerbated the challenges related to access to contraception in Uganda for almost 2 years” (Uganda)
A respondent from Burkina Faso noted the effect of COVID-19 on partnerships that were implementing programming, explaining that the pandemic interacted with other stressors to affect family planning:
“With COVID, many partnerships have been suspended, jeopardizing the progress of community interventions, especially in the context of insecurity with restrictions on movement in certain localities and the massive internal displacement of populations” (Burkina Faso)
A respondent from El Salvador explained that family planning got lost with COVID-19, saying,
“The priority of the government has been almost absolutely to care for COVID and a new maternal and childcare program which has been much publicized, but that leaves the family planning program abandoned” (El Salvador)
A respondent from Vietnam reflected on issues of equity, noting that,
“Those most affected by the COVID pandemic are those living in isolation and lockdown…through… the end of the third quarter of 2021 due to the Government’s Zero COVID strategy….Nearly half of the provinces live in a state of social distancing. The supply of essential goods is greatly affected because the list of essential goods is not clear…. in mountainous areas, economic conditions are difficult, the point of providing contraceptives is also limited compared to urban areas, they have fewer opportunities and choices” (Vietnam)
Not all respondents thought COVID-19 had adversely affected contraceptive use, although they did say that the family planning program had adapted to the pandemic conditions. A respondent from Tajikistan said,
“There was no decrease in contraceptive use during the Corona virus pandemic. More work was possibly done on the side of the healthcare professionals such as home delivery to patients who had COVID, etc., as well as provision of consultation remotely.”
Likewise, a respondent from Guinea explained that the effect was short-lived, saying,
“The COVID - 19 pandemic has hardly affected the use of FP services in Guinea. A 10% drop in use was recorded during the first month after the outbreak of the pandemic and immediately after, with the measures taken to maintain essential services including FP, usage gradually increased continuously and stabilized.”
Comments across the regions paint a picture of fear of COVID-19, along with lockdowns of varying durations, keeping people from accessing services, along with providers being diverted to COVID-19 services or being out sick themselves with COVID-19.
These findings from the 2021 NCIFP and its Supplement on COVID-19 provide a broad view from 70 counties across six regions of the resilience of family planning programs during COVID-19 into the second year of the pandemic. Our analysis shows that programs in all regions were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The magnitude of the effects varies by region and country, and by component of resilience. Comments across the regions paint a picture of fear of infection, with lockdowns of varying durations, travel restrictions keeping people from accessing services, and providers being diverted to COVID-19 services or being out sick themselves with COVID-19. While comments mostly implied that the effects were strongest early in the pandemic, that view was not uniform, with some respondents noting long periods of lockdown, for example, related to zero-COVID-19 policies. Similarly, respondents across four countries in a study by Brunie et al. (2022) reported that temporary service closures, product shortages, and fear of COVID-19 infections affected their access to and use of contraception. The comments in our study show differing views on the effects of COVID-19 for the same country, with respondents in one country reporting ‘no effect’ to a ‘lasting effect’. These comments illustrate the uncertainty based on the unknown with COVID-19: how long it would last; how severely it would affect different countries; and what services, including family planning and reproductive health, would be deemed essential and thus maintained throughout the pandemic.
While the average score for resilience, at 47 out of 100, implies middling levels of resilience, further analysis suggests that, for the most part, family planning programs were able to maintain government commitment and provide access to contraception despite facing challenges to financing; advocacy and community mobilization efforts; supply of contraceptives; routine data recording and reporting; and restrictions to movement/transport that interfered with the population’s access to short term methods and to long acting and permanent methods. Programs in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa appeared to have been the most resilient, while programs in Latin America and the Caribbean appeared to have been most severely affected by, and thus least resilient to, COVID-19. Arsenault et al. (2022) found large declines in family planning services in the two LAC countries included in their study. The differences between LAC and SSAF-F may be due to the relatively high use of contraception in LAC compared to SSAF-F, with less government focus on family planning programming in countries in LAC than in SSAF-F, which was possibly shored up by more donor funding. Across the regions, COVID-19 had the largest negative impact on advocacy and community mobilization efforts. This could have been due partly to lockdowns that restricted external movements, shifting attention to COVID-19 related behaviors including wearing masks, keeping distance, and washing hands, among others.
This paper finds that despite ‘interference’ in many components of family planning programming, with some exceptions, respondents said that the COVID-19 pandemic generally did not diminish government commitment to family planning. Overall, programs remained resilient in providing access to services. Strong global attention to commodities and related supplies likely bolstered countries’ ability to provide access to services (Weinberger et al., 2023). Some countries that did not score highly on resilience reported indifferent commitment from governments even before COVID-19. This paper shows that a strong enabling environment for family planning, which the NCIFP is designed to measure, was positively correlated with continued government commitment and access to contraceptive methods during COVID-19, despite noted disruptions to services. This finding is supported by evidence from 15 countries that contraceptive use mostly increased over the years of the pandemic (Bietsch et al., 2022), and from analysis of successive waves of PMA (https://www.pmadata.org/) data from four countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Wood et al., 2021).
This paper has limitations in that the findings from the countries are based on self-reports from respondents on their perceptions of the effects of COVID-19 on the family planning program. Still, the findings represent expert opinion from respondents in each country who were familiar with the family planning program and were in a unique position to observe program features and effects. The questions on COVID-19 were added as a Supplement to take advantage of the timing of the 2021 NCIFP, which limited the number of questions that could be added. That is, the respondents answered the questions on COVID-19 in the context of earlier items on the enabling environment for family planning. While a strength of the data is that they were collected in late 2021 and thus provide a broad perspective over the period of the pandemic from 70 countries across six regions, they do not capture any periodicity of the effects (e.g., effects of lockdowns with easing over time). The qualitative findings do indicate a gradation of effect, with the most intensive effects early in the pandemic.
Furthermore, characteristics of the family planning program before the onset of COVID-19 may have impacted resilience of the program including the strength of the health system, presence of donor support and funding, and socio-cultural factors. Beyond different levels of contraceptive use, method mix could also have an impact on resilience as countries with higher levels of long-acting method use may have had less interruption, since women wouldn’t have to come to the facility regularly for resupply. Many factors may impact a country’s resiliency, and to varying degrees. The purpose of this analysis was to present the findings from the COVID-19 Supplement of the 2021 NCIFP and to provide a broad overview of the impacts of COVID-19 on national FP programs. Additional analyses exploring these and other factors would add to our understanding of FP program resilience and the characteristics that may lead to more or less reliance in the face of widespread disruptions. An in-depth analysis of these causes for individual countries is beyond the scope of this paper, however, we urge others to undertake further analysis. Further in-depth studies to examine the challenges faced by the programs and how they were overcome, or not, would add to our understanding of the resilience of family planning programs.
The 2021 round of the NCIFP provides a unique view of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on family planning programming in 70 countries across six regions over two years of the pandemic. The questions added as a ‘COVID-19 Supplement’ to the standard questions in the NCIFP, an ongoing survey on the enabling environment for family planning, gauged both interference with various components of family planning and the extent to which governments maintained their program commitments and public access to services. Together, the questions measured the resilience of family planning programs in the face of COVID-19. The findings in this paper are instructive for family planning programming moving forward: it will face challenges and ‘interference’ when unanticipated shocks like COVID-19 occur, and strong programs will be best prepared to exhibit resilience during unexpected times.
Zenodo: 2021 National Composite Index for Family Planning (NCIFP): Data File and Questionnaire. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8264220 (Rosenberg et al., 2022)
This project contains the following underlying data:
2021 Questionnaire_English.pdf (The questionnaire is the full questionnaire for the 2021 round of the NCIFP, in English).
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
1 NCIFP data, reports, and country briefs are available at: http://www.track20.org/pages/data_analysis/policy/NCIFP.php
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
Gates Open Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Demography, family planning, survey methods.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Charles CM, Munezero A, Bahamondes LG, Pacagnella RC: Comparison of contraceptive sales before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2022; 27 (2): 115-120 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Contraception
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Demography, family planning, survey methods.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: reproductive and maternal health, demography
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 2 (revision) 25 Mar 24 |
read | ||
Version 1 28 Sep 23 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with Gates Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
If you are a previous or current Gates grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Gates Open Research.
We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Gates Open Research
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)