Browsing by Author "Wandabwa, Julius N"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Barriers and enablers to utilisation of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception in Eastern Uganda: a qualitative study
    (BioMed Central, 2024-10) Kamwesigye, Assen; Amanya, Daphine; Nambozo, Brendah; Epuitai, Joshua; Nahurira, Doreck; Wani, Solomon; Nafula, Patience Anna; Oguttu, Faith; Wadinda, Joshua; Nantale, Ritah; Napyo, Agnes; Wandabwa, Julius N; Mukunya, David; Musaba, Milton W; Willcox, Merlin
    In Uganda, although most women wish to delay or prevent future pregnancies, uptake of postpartum family planning (PPFP) is low. We explored behavioural factors influencing the utilisation of postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in Eastern Uganda.INTRODUCTIONIn Uganda, although most women wish to delay or prevent future pregnancies, uptake of postpartum family planning (PPFP) is low. We explored behavioural factors influencing the utilisation of postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in Eastern Uganda.We conducted a qualitative study in two districts of Eastern Uganda. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions with postpartum women, male partners, midwives, and village health team members. We analysed transcripts using framework analysis, based on the COM-B framework.METHODSWe conducted a qualitative study in two districts of Eastern Uganda. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions with postpartum women, male partners, midwives, and village health team members. We analysed transcripts using framework analysis, based on the COM-B framework.The use of immediate postpartum LARC was affected by the capabilities of women in terms of their knowledge and misconceptions. Limited capabilities of health workers to provide counselling and insert IUDs, as well as shortages of implants, reduced the physical opportunites for women to access PPFP. Social opportunities for women were limited because men wanted to be involved in the decision but rarely had time to accompany their partners to health facilities, and health workers often appeared too stressed. Men also feared that PPFP would enable their partners to be unfaithful. Motivation to take up immediate postpartum LARC included the desire to space births, preference for contraceptive implants over intra uterine devices (IUD) at the 6-week postpartum period, resumption of sex and menses, partner support, and perceived effectiveness of postpartum contraception. Participants thought that uptake of immediate postpartum LARC could be improved by health education and outreach visits, male involvement and couples' counselling in antenatal clinic appointments, and enabling switching between family planning methods (in case of side-effects) .RESULTSThe use of immediate postpartum LARC was affected by the capabilities of women in terms of their knowledge and misconceptions. Limited capabilities of health workers to provide counselling and insert IUDs, as well as shortages of implants, reduced the physical opportunites for women to access PPFP. Social opportunities for women were limited because men wanted to be involved in the decision but rarely had time to accompany their partners to health facilities, and health workers often appeared too stressed. Men also feared that PPFP would enable their partners to be unfaithful. Motivation to take up immediate postpartum LARC included the desire to space births, preference for contraceptive implants over intra uterine devices (IUD) at the 6-week postpartum period, resumption of sex and menses, partner support, and perceived effectiveness of postpartum contraception. Participants thought that uptake of immediate postpartum LARC could be improved by health education and outreach visits, male involvement and couples' counselling in antenatal clinic appointments, and enabling switching between family planning methods (in case of side-effects) .Low uptake of PPFP was caused by inadequate knowledge and misconceptions about LARC by women and their partners, insufficient numbers of midwives trained to provide PPFP, stock-outs of PPFP methods, and few social opportunities for couples to be counselled together. These factors could be addressed by scaling up effective, low cost and innovative ways to provide health education (such as films), involving men in decision-making, as well as training more midwives to provide PPFP services, and ensuring that they have sufficient time and supplies.CONCLUSIONLow uptake of PPFP was caused by inadequate knowledge and misconceptions about LARC by women and their partners, insufficient numbers of midwives trained to provide PPFP, stock-outs of PPFP methods, and few social opportunities for couples to be counselled together. These factors could be addressed by scaling up effective, low cost and innovative ways to provide health education (such as films), involving men in decision-making, as well as training more midwives to provide PPFP services, and ensuring that they have sufficient time and supplies. MEDLINE - Academic
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can an integrated intervention package including peer support increase the proportion of health facility births? A cluster randomised controlled trial in Northern Uganda
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group, 2024-02) Nankabirwa, Victoria; Mukunya, David; Ndeezi, Grace; Odongkara, Beatrice; Arach, Agnes A; Achora, Vicentina; Mugenyi, Levi; Sebit, Mohammad Boy; Wandabwa, Julius N; Waako, Paul; Tylleskär, Thorkild; Tumwine, James K
    Abstract ObjectiveTo assess the effect of an integrated intervention package compared with routine government health services on the frequency of health facility births.SettingThree subcounties of Lira district in Northern Uganda.DesignA cluster randomised controlled trial where a total of 30 clusters were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to intervention or standard of care.ParticipantsPregnant women at ≥28 weeks of gestation.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention arm received an integrated intervention package of peer support, mobile phone messaging and birthing kits during pregnancy while those in the control arm received routine government health services (‘standard of care’).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of women giving birth at a health facility in the intervention arm compared with the control arm. Secondary outcomes were perinatal and neonatal deaths.ResultsIn 2018–2019, 995 pregnant women were included in 15 intervention clusters and 882 in 15 control clusters. The primary outcome was ascertained for all except one participant who died before childbirth. In the intervention arm, 754/994 participants (76%) gave birth at a health facility compared with 500/882 (57%) in the control arm. Participants in the intervention arm were 35% more likely to give birth at a health facility compared with participants in the control arm, (risk ratio 1.35 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.51)) and (risk difference 0.20 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.27)). Adjusting for baseline differences generated similar results. There was no difference in secondary outcomes (perinatal or neonatal mortality or number of postnatal visits) between arms. Conclusion The intervention was successful in increasing the proportion of facility-based births but did not reduce perinatal or neonatal mortality.Trial registration numberNCT02605369