Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9253672

Implementing family planning programs in developing countries: lessons and reflections from four decades of Population Council experience.

Abstract

Over the last three decades, contraceptive prevalence has risen from about 10% to nearly 60% in developing countries, but still about 1 in 4 births in developing countries (outside China) is unwanted. More than 120 million women in these countries who do not want to become pregnant do not use contraceptives. Nearly 600,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related causes, between 67,000 and 204,000 of them from unsafe abortions. At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, delegates endorsed the view long advocated by the Population Council: the primary purpose of family planning programs should be to help women avoid unwanted pregnancy and achieve their fertility goals safely. That means, at the very least, that programs should address those reproductive health issues that are directly related to fertility regulation. To meet the Cairo challenge, progress is needed simultaneously on several levels. We need more and better contraceptive technologies that meet the needs of different groups; higher-quality family planning services; more outreach to underserved groups (such as men and adolescents); programs tailored to local cultures; and measures to address all the factors that prevent women who do not want to become pregnant from using contraceptives. The call for a client-centered, reproductive health approach to family planning constitutes a critique of programs driven by demographic goals. The new family planning paradigm puts a premium on 'quality of care'. Unfortunately, many family planning programs still fall substantially short of offering clients reproductive choice and supporting their reproductive health. The Population Council takes the view that contraceptive research and development is an essential component of a multilevel strategy to reduce unwanted fertility safely. New products, used ethically and provided with quality, would be of tremendous benefit to women and men throughout the world. The Population Council has developed, registered, and licensed seven products, including some of the most widely used contraceptives in the world. The Council is also one of the world centers for research on male reproductive physiology and male contraception. New contraceptive methods are only as good as the context in which they are offered. To accelerate the pace of overall fertility decline, governments must adopt policies that reduce the economic and social risks associated with having smaller families, and policies that promote later and planned childbearing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Catley-Carlson. 1997. Implementing family planning programs in developing countries: lessons and reflections from four decades of Population Council experience.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7292(97)02858-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗