Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 2/2013

Open Access 01-06-2013 | Research

Estimating the contribution of a service delivery organisation to the national modern contraceptive prevalence rate: Marie Stopes International's Impact 2 model

Authors: Michelle B Weinberger, Kenzo Fry, Tania Boler, Kristen Hopkins

Published in: BMC Public Health | Special Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Individual family planning service delivery organisations currently rely on service provision data and couple-years of protection as health impact measures. Due to the substitution effect and the continuation of users of long-term methods, these metrics cannot estimate an organisation's contribution to the national modern contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), the standard metric for measuring family planning programme impacts. Increasing CPR is essential for addressing the unmet need for family planning, a recognized global health priority. Current health impact estimation models cannot isolate the impact of an organisation in these efforts. Marie Stopes International designed the Impact 2 model to measure an organisation's contribution to increases in national CPR, as well as resulting health and demographic impacts. This paper aims to describe the methodology for modelling increasing national-level CPR as well as to discuss its benefits and limitations.

Methods

Impact 2 converts service provision data into estimates of the number of family planning users, accounting for continuation among users of long-term methods and addressing the challenges of converting commodity distribution data of short-term methods into user numbers. These estimates, combined with the client profile and data on the organisation's previous year's CPR contribution, enable Impact 2 to estimate which clients maintain an organisation's baseline contribution, which ones fulfil population growth offsets, and ultimately, which ones increase CPR.

Results

Illustrative results from Marie Stopes Madagascar show how Impact 2 can be used to estimate an organisation's contribution to national changes in the CPR.

Conclusions

Impact 2 is a useful tool for service delivery organisations to move beyond cruder output measures to a better understanding of their role in meeting the global unmet need for family planning. By considering health impact from the perspective of an individual organisation, Impact 2 addresses gaps not met by other models for family planning service outcomes. Further, the model helps organisations improve service delivery by demonstrating that increases in the national CPR are not simply about expanding user numbers; rather, the type of user (e.g. adopters, provider changers) must be considered. Impact 2 can be downloaded at http://​www.​mariestopes.​org/​impact-2.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Singh S, Darroch JE: Adding It Up: Costs and Benefits of Contraceptive Services, Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute. 2012 Singh S, Darroch JE: Adding It Up: Costs and Benefits of Contraceptive Services, Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute. 2012
2.
go back to reference Family Planning Summit Metrics Group: Technical Note: Data Sources and Methodology for Calculating the 2012 Baseline, 2020 Objectives, Impacts and Costings. Family Planning Summit. 2012 Family Planning Summit Metrics Group: Technical Note: Data Sources and Methodology for Calculating the 2012 Baseline, 2020 Objectives, Impacts and Costings. Family Planning Summit. 2012
3.
go back to reference United Nations Development Group: Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources. 2003, United Nations United Nations Development Group: Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources. 2003, United Nations
4.
go back to reference Department for International Development: Choices for Women: Planned Pregnancies, Safe Births and Healthy Newborns; The UK's Framework for Results for Improving Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health in the Developing World. 2010, London Department for International Development: Choices for Women: Planned Pregnancies, Safe Births and Healthy Newborns; The UK's Framework for Results for Improving Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health in the Developing World. 2010, London
5.
go back to reference Fry K, Hopkins K, May K: The Global Impact Report 2011 Delivering Choice and Rights for Women: Past, Present and Future. 2012, Marie Stopes International Fry K, Hopkins K, May K: The Global Impact Report 2011 Delivering Choice and Rights for Women: Past, Present and Future. 2012, Marie Stopes International
6.
go back to reference The RESPOND Project: New Developments in the Calculation and Use of Couple-Years of Protection (CYP) and Their Implications for the Evaluation of Family Planning Programs. 2011, The RESPOND Project/EngenderHealth The RESPOND Project: New Developments in the Calculation and Use of Couple-Years of Protection (CYP) and Their Implications for the Evaluation of Family Planning Programs. 2011, The RESPOND Project/EngenderHealth
7.
go back to reference Janowitz B, Suazo M, Fried DB, Bratt JH, Bailey PE: Impact of social marketing on contraceptive prevalence and cost in Honduras. Stud Fam Plann. 1992, 23: 110-117. 10.2307/1966540.CrossRefPubMed Janowitz B, Suazo M, Fried DB, Bratt JH, Bailey PE: Impact of social marketing on contraceptive prevalence and cost in Honduras. Stud Fam Plann. 1992, 23: 110-117. 10.2307/1966540.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Stover J, Heaton L, Ross J, FamPlan: version 4: A Computer Program for Projecting Family Planning Requirements. 2006, The Policy Project/The Futures Group Stover J, Heaton L, Ross J, FamPlan: version 4: A Computer Program for Projecting Family Planning Requirements. 2006, The Policy Project/The Futures Group
9.
go back to reference Project TR. Reality √: A Planning and Advocacy Tool for Strengthening Family Planning Programs. 2010, EngenderHealth Project TR. Reality √: A Planning and Advocacy Tool for Strengthening Family Planning Programs. 2010, EngenderHealth
11.
go back to reference United Nations: World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. 2010, Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat United Nations: World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. 2010, Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat
12.
go back to reference World Health Organization: Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008. 2011, Geneva, 6 World Health Organization: Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008. 2011, Geneva, 6
13.
go back to reference World Health Organization: Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008 Estimates from WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and The World Bank. 2010, Geneva World Health Organization: Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008 Estimates from WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and The World Bank. 2010, Geneva
14.
go back to reference United Nations: Supplementary Tabulation: Age-specific Mortality Rates by Sex, Model Life Table and Level of Life Expectancy. 2010, New York United Nations: Supplementary Tabulation: Age-specific Mortality Rates by Sex, Model Life Table and Level of Life Expectancy. 2010, New York
15.
go back to reference Rutstein S, Rojas G: Guide to DHS Statistics. 2006, Macro International Inc Rutstein S, Rojas G: Guide to DHS Statistics. 2006, Macro International Inc
16.
go back to reference Hammerslough CR: Estimating the probability of spontaneous abortion in the presence of induced abortion and vice versa. Public Health Rep. 1992, 107: 269-277.PubMedCentralPubMed Hammerslough CR: Estimating the probability of spontaneous abortion in the presence of induced abortion and vice versa. Public Health Rep. 1992, 107: 269-277.PubMedCentralPubMed
17.
go back to reference Cousens S, Blencowe H, Stanton C, Chou D, Ahmed S, Steinhardt L, Creanga AA, Tuncalp O, Balsara ZP, Gupta S, et al: National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2009 with trends since 1995: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011, 377: 1319-1330. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62310-0.CrossRefPubMed Cousens S, Blencowe H, Stanton C, Chou D, Ahmed S, Steinhardt L, Creanga AA, Tuncalp O, Balsara ZP, Gupta S, et al: National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2009 with trends since 1995: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011, 377: 1319-1330. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62310-0.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Guttmacher Institute: Special tabulations of data presented in Sedgh G et al., Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet. 2012, 379 (9816): 625-632. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61786-8.CrossRef Guttmacher Institute: Special tabulations of data presented in Sedgh G et al., Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet. 2012, 379 (9816): 625-632. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61786-8.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Stevens W, Jeffries D: Generation of Preceding Birth Interval, Relative Risk, Child Mortality and DALY Coefficients for CYPs, Pregnancies and Births Averted for 198 Countries in the MSI Impact Model. 2011 Stevens W, Jeffries D: Generation of Preceding Birth Interval, Relative Risk, Child Mortality and DALY Coefficients for CYPs, Pregnancies and Births Averted for 198 Countries in the MSI Impact Model. 2011
20.
go back to reference World Health Organization: Global Burden of Disease 2004 Summary Tables. 2008, Geneva World Health Organization: Global Burden of Disease 2004 Summary Tables. 2008, Geneva
21.
go back to reference Weissman E, Saltner J, Friedman H: Reproductive Health Costing Model. 2008, UNFPA Weissman E, Saltner J, Friedman H: Reproductive Health Costing Model. 2008, UNFPA
Metadata
Title
Estimating the contribution of a service delivery organisation to the national modern contraceptive prevalence rate: Marie Stopes International's Impact 2 model
Authors
Michelle B Weinberger
Kenzo Fry
Tania Boler
Kristen Hopkins
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue Special Issue 2/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-S2-S5

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2013

BMC Public Health 2/2013 Go to the issue