Abstract
Background
Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective methods of family planning but
remain underutilized due to their relatively high upfront cost. The increasing availability
of a low-cost implant may reduce financial barriers and increase uptake of implants.
The commodity cost of Sino-implant (II) is approximately 60% less than two other widely
available implants, and a direct service delivery cost of approximately US$12 makes
it one of the most cost-effective methods available. This study was conducted to assess
whether implant clients in Kenya are paying as much or more than the direct service
delivery cost of Sino-implant (II).
Study Design
A study was conducted in 22 facilities throughout Kenya, including public (n=8), private for-profit (n=6) and private not-for-profit facilities (n=8). Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 293 current and returning
implant clients after at least 6 months of product use.
Results
The median price for implant insertion paid by clients in the public, private for-profit
and private not-for-profit sectors was US$1.30, US$13.30 and US$20.00, respectively.
Conclusion
Patient fees in both private sectors allow for 100% recovery of the direct cost of
providing Sino-implant (II). Currently in Kenya, all sectors can receive donated commodities
free of charge; Sino-implant (II) has the potential to reduce reliance on donor-supplied
implants and thereby improve contraceptive security.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Contraceptive implants.in: Kowal D. Contraceptive technology. Ardent Media, Inc., New York2008: 145-156
World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (WHO/RHR) and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP), INFO Project. Family planning: a global handbook for providers. Baltimore and Geneva: CCP and WHO; 2008.
- U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Adapted from the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, Appendix C, 4th edition, 2010.(Available from:)
- Implants: the next generation.in: Rinehart W. Population Reports, Series K. Baltimore: INFO Project. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2007: 1-20
- Introducing the contraceptive implant in Thailand: impact on method use and costs.Internat Fam Plann Perspec. 1994; 20: 131-136
- Contraceptive implants in Kenya: current status and future prospects.Contraception. 2007; 75: 468-473
- RH Interchange. The RH Interchange is a free, web-based tool that provides accurate information on past, present, and future supply orders for over 144 countries, 2010.(Available from:)
- Sino-implant (II)���a levonorgestrel-releasing two-rod implant: systematic review of the randomized controlled trials.Contraception. 2010; 81: 197-201
- Assessment of a disposable trocar for insertion of contraceptive implants.Contraception. 2010; 81: 140-142
- Willingness to pay surveys for setting prices for reproductive health products and services: a user's manual.Washington, DC: The Population Council, 2004 (Available from:)
- Kenya demographic and health survey. Macro International, Inc., Calverton, MD2003: 2004
- Are contraceptive implants finally affordable to programs?.in: Oral presentation at the International Conference on Family Planning, Kampala, Uganda2009
- Compendium of indicators for evaluating reproductive health programs, Volumes 1 & 2. In Measure Evaluation Manual Series, 2002.(Available from:)
- Reproductive health needs assessment model: user guide. UN Millenium Project, 2005.(Available from:)
Caucus on New and Underused Reproductive Health Technologies. Reproductive Health Supplies Coaltion: contraceptive implants; 2009 [Technical Brief]. Available from: http://www.rhsupplies.org/working-groups/caucus-on-newunderused-rh-technologies.html, http://www.path.org/files/RH_caucus_new_underused_implant_br.pdf.
- Three countries' experience with Norplant introduction.Health Policy Plan. 1997; 12: 199-213
- Menstrual pattern changes from levonorgestrel subdermal implants and DMPA: systematic review and evidence- based comparisons.Contraception. 2009; 80: 113-118
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 08, 2010
Accepted:
June 29,
2010
Received in revised form:
June 24,
2010
Received:
May 27,
2010
Footnotes
���Financial assistance for this study was provided by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement GPO-A-00-05-00022-0, the Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Technologies Research and Utilization (CRTU) Program, and by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of FHI, USAID or BMGF.
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
