Dataset Information

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Subdermal Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers Versus Nurses and Midwives in Nigeria: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental, Noninferiority Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As part of its Family Planning 2020 commitment, the Nigerian government is aiming for a contraceptive prevalence rate of 36% by 2018, and in 2014, approved a policy to allow community health extension workers (CHEWs), in addition to doctors, nurses, and midwives, to provide contraceptive subdermal implants. There is a lack of rigorous evidence on the safety of long-acting reversible contraceptive provision, such as implants, among lower cadres of health providers. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare implant provision by CHEWs versus nurses and midwives up to 14 days post insertion. METHODS:The quasi-experimental, noninferiority study will take place in public sector facilities in Kaduna and Ondo States. In each state, we will select 60 facilities, and from these, we will select a total of 30 nurses and midwives and 30 CHEWs to participate. Selected providers will be trained to provide implant services. Once trained, providers will recruit a minimum of 8125 women aged between 18 and 49 years who request and are eligible for an implant, following comprehensive family planning counseling. During implant insertion, providers will record data about the process and any adverse events, and 14 days post insertion, providers will ask 4410 clients about adverse events arising from the implant. Supervisors will observe 792 implant insertions to assess service provision quality and ask clients about their satisfaction with the procedure. We will conclude noninferiority if the CI for the difference in the proportion of adverse events between CHEWs and nurses and midwives on the day of insertion or 14 days post insertion lies to the right of -2%. RESULTS:In September and October 2015, we trained 60 CHEWs and a total of 60 nurses and midwives from 12 local government areas (LGAs) in Kaduna and 23 LGAs in Ondo. Recruitment took place between November 2015 and December 2016. Data analysis is being finalized, and results are expected in March 2018. CONCLUSIONS:The strength of this study is having a standard care (nurse and midwife provision) group with which CHEW provision can be compared. The intervention builds on existing training and supervision procedures, which increases the sustainability and scalability of CHEW implant provision. Important limitations include the lack of randomization due to nurses and midwives in Nigeria working in separate types of health care facilities compared with CHEWs, and that providers self-assess their own practices. It is unfeasible to observe all procedures independently, and observation may change practice. Although providers will be trained to conduct implant removals, the study time will be too short to reach the sample size required to make noninferiority comparisons for removals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03088722; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03088722 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xIHImWvu).

SUBMITTER: Reiss K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5856922 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Subdermal Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers Versus Nurses and Midwives in Nigeria: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental, Noninferiority Study.

Reiss Kate K Penfold Suzanne S Alabi Olalere O Ali Moazzam M Hopkins Kristen K Ngo Thoai Dinh TD Odogwu Kingsley K Douthwaite Megan M Ezire Onoriode O Udoh Uko U Effiom Effiom E Munroe Erik S ES

JMIR research protocols 20180302 3

<h4>Background</h4>As part of its Family Planning 2020 commitment, the Nigerian government is aiming for a contraceptive prevalence rate of 36% by 2018, and in 2014, approved a policy to allow community health extension workers (CHEWs), in addition to doctors, nurses, and midwives, to provide contraceptive subdermal implants. There is a lack of rigorous evidence on the safety of long-acting reversible contraceptive provision, such as implants, among lower cadres of health providers.<h4>Objective ...[more]

PMID: 29500162

Similar Datasets

Project description:Preventing new HIV infections, especially amongst young women, is key to ending the HIV epidemic especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Potent antiretroviral (ARV) drugs used as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are currently being formulated as long-acting implantable devices, or nanosuspension injectables that release drug at a sustained rate providing protection from acquiring HIV. PrEP as implants (PrEP Implants) offers an innovative and novel approach, expanding the HIV prevention toolbox. Feedback from providers and future users in the early clinical product development stages may identify modifiable characteristics which can improve acceptability and uptake of new technologies. Healthcare workers (HCWs) perspectives and lessons learned during the rollout of contraceptive implants will allow us to understand what factors may impact the roll-out of PrEP implants. We conducted eighteen interviews with HCWs (9 Nurses and 9 Community Healthcare Workers) in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. HCWs listed the long-acting nature of the contraceptive implant as a key benefit, helping to overcome healthcare system barriers like heavy workloads and understaffing. However, challenges like side effects, migration of the implant, stakeholder buy-in and inconsistent training on insertion and removal hampered the roll-out of the contraceptive implant. For PrEP implants, HCWs preferred long-acting products that were palpable and biodegradable. Our findings highlighted that the characteristics of PrEP implants that are perceived to be beneficial by HCWs may not align with that of potential users, potentially impacting the acceptability and uptake of PrEP implants. Further our data highlight the need for sustained and multi-pronged approaches to training HCWs and introducing new health technologies into communities. Finding a balance between the needs of HCWs that accommodate their heavy workloads, limited resources at points of delivery of care and the needs and preferences of potential users need to be carefully considered in the development of PrEP implants.

Project description:ObjectiveSino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant that had a commodity price one-third of the competing products a decade ago. To make Sino-implant (II) more widely available, we conducted a trial to collect safety and efficacy data required for World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification, a quality standard allowing global donors to procure a pharmaceutical product.Study designThis was a randomized controlled trial allocating 650 participants to either Sino-implant (II) or Jadelle®. Participants were seen at 1 and 6 months, and then semiannually. The primary efficacy measure was the pregnancy Pearl Index [number of pregnancies per 100 women-years (WY) of follow-up] in the Sino-implant (II) group during up to 4 years of implant use.ResultsFor the primary outcome, Sino-implant (II) had a 4-year Pearl Index of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.37) compared to 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.04) for Jadelle®. The Sino-implant (II) pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the fourth year (3.54 per 100 WY) than in the first 3 years combined (0.18 per 100 WY; p <.001). Total levonorgestrel concentrations were equivalent between groups at month 12, but were 19%, 22% and 32% lower in the Sino-implant (II) group at months 24, 36 and 48, respectively (p <.001 at each time point). Safety and acceptability of the two products were similar, while providers documented significantly higher breakage rates during removal of Sino-implant (II) (16.3% vs. 3.1%; p <.001).ConclusionBased on these results, WHO prequalified Sino-Implant (II) with a 3-year use label in June 2017, 2 years shorter than the 5-year duration of Jadelle®.ImplicationsWHO prequalification allows global donors to procure Sino-implant (II), which means women in many low resource countries will have greater access to highly effective and acceptable contraceptive implants. Our study noted important clinical differences, including shorter duration of high effectiveness with Sino-implant (II) when compared to the other available two-rod system, Jadelle®. Introduction strategies should include appropriate training on these differences.

Project description:Is a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users? In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal. An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world's first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product. From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique. We randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons. We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique. We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology. The study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique. Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors' institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS. NCT04120337. 9 October 2019. 23 December 2019.

Dataset Information

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Subdermal Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers Versus Nurses and Midwives in Nigeria: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental, Noninferiority Study.

Publications

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Subdermal Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers Versus Nurses and Midwives in Nigeria: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental, Noninferiority Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets