Cited by 71Reproductive Health and ContraceptionGlobal Maternal and Child HealthGlobal Health Workforce Issues

Task shifting provision of contraceptive implants to community health extension workers: results of operations research in northern Nigeria

Open access
Charyeva, Zulfiya, Oguntunde, Olugbenga, Orobaton, Nosa, Otolorin, Emmanuel, Inuwa, Fatima, Alalade, Olubisi, Abegunde, Dele, Danladi, Saba’atu·2015·Global Health: Science and Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contraceptive use remains low in Nigeria, with only 11% of women reporting use of any modern method. Access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) is constrained by a severe shortage of human resources. To assess feasibility of task shifting provision of implants, we trained community health extension workers (CHEWs) to insert and remove contraceptive implants in rural communities of Bauchi and Sokoto states in northern Nigeria. METHODS: We conducted 2- to 3-week training sessions for 166 selected CHEWs from 82 facilities in Sokoto state (September 2013) and 84 health facilities in Bauchi state (December 2013). To assess feasibility of the task shifting approach, we conducted operations research using a pretest-posttest design using multiple sources of information, including surveys with 151 trained CHEWs (9% were lost to follow-up) and with 150 family planning clients; facility observations using supply checklists (N = 149); direct observation of counseling provided by CHEWs (N = 144) and of their clinical (N = 113) skills; as well as a review of service statistics (N = 151 health facilities). The endline assessment was conducted 6 months after the training in each state. RESULTS: CHEWs inserted a total of 3,588 implants in 151 health facilities over a period of 6 months, generating 10,088 couple-years of protection (CYP). After practicing on anatomic arm models, most CHEWs achieved competency in implant insertions after insertions with 4-5 actual clients. Clinical observations revealed that CHEWs performed implant insertion tasks correctly 90% of the time or more for nearly all checklist items. The amount of information that CHEWs provided clients increased between baseline and endline, and over 95% of surveyed clients reported being satisfied with CHEWs' services in both surveys. The study found that supervisors not only observed and corrected insertion skills, as needed, during supervisory visits but also encouraged CHEWs to conduct more community mobilization to generate client demand, thereby promoting access to quality services. CHEWs identified a lack of demand in the communities as the major barrier for providing services. CONCLUSION: With adequate training and supportive supervision, CHEWs in northern Nigeria can provide high-quality implant insertion services. If more CHEWs are trained to provide implants and greater community outreach is conducted to generate demand, uptake of LARCs in Nigeria may increase.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.9745/ghsp-d-15-00129

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Jhpiego Training skills for health care providers: reference manual. 3rd ed. Baltimore (MD): Jhpiego; 2010 Available from: http://reprolineplus.org/resources/training-skills-health-care-providers-third-edition-reference-manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charyeva, Z., Oguntunde, O., Orobaton, N., Otolorin, E., Inuwa, F., Alalade, O., Abegunde, D., & Danladi, S.
Affiliations
  • Futures Group (United States) (US)
  • United States Army (US)
  • Jhpiego (US)
Corresponding author
Charyeva, Zulfiya
Venue
Global Health: Science and Practice
Published
2015-09-10
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
382-394
ISSN
2169-575X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2261999120
Cited by
71
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Global Health Science and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
United States Agency for International Development (620-A-00-09-00014-00)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Global Health Workforce Issues
Keywords
contraceptive implants, task shifting, community health extension workers, long-acting reversible contraception, family planning services, health professions education, supportive supervision, community mobilization, contraceptive uptake, rural health care, Northern Nigeria, Bauchi State, Sokoto State, client satisfaction
MeSH terms
Community Health Workers, Community Health Services, Contraception Behavior, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Family Planning Services, Female, Humans, Nigeria, Operations Research, Rural Population

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review