Search

We examined where women access modern contraceptives, using recent Demographic and Health Survey data from 36 low- and middle-income countries and disaggregating results by contraceptive method, age, marital status, residence, socioeconomic status, and country income. We used bivariate and multivariate regression analysis to assess how demographic factors are associated with contraceptive source. In pooled analysis across countries analyzed, we found that 34% of users rely on private sources, 63% use public sources, and 3% use other sources. Among private sector users, 41% use pharmacies or drug shops, 11% general shops or markets, 36% private hospitals and clinics, and 12% nongovernmental or faith-based organizations. This analysis demonstrates the importance of the private sector for specific population segments including women in the wealthiest population quintile (odds ratio [OR]: 4.09,iP/ilt;.001 compared with women in the poorest quintile), adolescents (OR: 2.03,iP/ilt;.001 compared with women ages 40-49), never married women (OR 1.55,iP/ilt;.001 compared with ever-married women), and urban women (OR: 1.42,iP/ilt;.001 compared with rural women). The private sector does not only serve these populations, however. On average across countries analyzed, 22% of the poorest contraceptive users and 27% of rural users use private sources. Leveraging both sectors is key to meeting the reproductive needs of women across all sociodemographic groups in low- and middle-income countries.

Task-shifting the provision of pregnancy tests to community health workers (CHWs) in low-resource settings has the potential to reach significantly more underserved women at risk of pregnancy with essential reproductive health services. This study assessed whether an intervention to supply CHWs with home pregnancy tests brought more clients for antenatal care (ANC) counselling. We implemented a randomized controlled trial among CHWs providing reproductive health services to women in Eastern Madagascar. We used ordinary least squares regressions to estimate the effect of the intervention, with district- and month-fixed effects and CHW baseline characteristics as control variables. Our outcomes of interest included whether the intervention increased: (1) the number of women at risk of pregnancy who sought services from CHWs; (2) the number of these women who knew they were pregnant by the end of visit; and (3) the number of these women who received ANC counselling during visit. We found that providing pregnancy tests to CHWs to distribute to their clients for free significantly increased the number of women at risk of pregnancy who sought services from CHWs. At follow-up, treatment-group CHWs provided services to 6.3 clients compared with 4.2 clients among control-group CHWs, which represents a 50% relative increase from the control-group mean. A significantly higher number of these clients knew they were pregnant by the end of the visit, with a mean of 0.95 in treatment compared with 0.10 in control (Coeff. 0.86; 95% CI 0.59–1.13). A significantly higher number of these clients received antenatal counselling at the visit (Coeff. 0.4; 95% CI 0.14–0.64). Introducing free home pregnancy tests as part of community-based health services can improve pregnancy care by attracting more clients at risk of pregnancy to services at the community level, enabling more women to confirm they are pregnant and receive antenatal counselling.