RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods among healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.27.20220434
DO 10.1101/2020.10.27.20220434
A1 Rouncivell, Laura
A1 Takuva, Simbarashe
A1 Ledibane, Neo
A1 Musekiwa, Alfred
A1 Leong, Trudy D
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/28/2020.10.27.20220434.abstract
AB Objective To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods among healthcare workers (HCW’s) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA methodology. Two authors independently searched three electronic databases for studies published between 2000 and January 2020 reporting on the KAP of LARC methods among HCW’s in SSA. Titles and abstracts were screened against eligibility criteria, data were extracted and the included studies were assessed for risk of bias. A meta-analysis of proportions for 11 pre-determined questions relating to LARC KAP was performed. Heterogeneity was explored using the I2-statistic and publication bias investigated using funnel plots and Egger’s tests.Results Twenty-two studies comprising of 11 272 HCW’s from 11 SSA countries were included. Forty-one percent (95% CI: 20%, 61%) of HCW’s had received intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion training while 63% (95% CI: 44%, 81%) expressed a desire for training. Only 27% (95% CI: 18%, 36%) deemed IUCD appropriate for HIV-infected women. Restrictions for IUCD and injectables based on a minimum age were imposed by 56% (95% CI: 33%, 78%) and 60% (95% CI: 36%, 84%), respectively. Minimum parity restrictions were observed among 29% (95% CI: 9%, 50%) of HCW’s for IUCDs and 36% (95% CI: 16%, 56%) for injectable contraceptives. Heterogeneity was high and publication bias was present in two of the 11 questions.Conclusion The systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that unnecessary provider-imposed restrictions may hinder the uptake of LARC methods by women in SSA.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was received for the conduct of this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was received from the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (REC) at the University of Pretoria, School of Health Systems and Public Health. Reference Number: 640/2019All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.ECEmergency contraceptionFPFamily planningHCWHealthcare workerIUCDIntrauterine contraceptive deviceKAPKnowledge, attitudes, and perceptionsLARCLong-acting reversible contraceptivePRISMAPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysesSSAsub-Saharan Africa