Original research article| Volume 83, ISSUE 1, P88-93, January 2011

The promise of affordable implants: is cost recovery possible in Kenya?



      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.


      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.


      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.


      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 access
      One-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 to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Raymond E.G.
        Contraceptive implants.
        in: Kowal D. Contraceptive technology. Ardent Media, Inc., New York2008: 145-156
      1. 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.

        • Centers for Disease Control
        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:)
        • Ramchandran D.
        • Upadhyay U.
        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
        • Janowitz B.
        • Kanchanasinith K.
        • Auamkul N.
        • Amornwichet P.
        • Soonthorndhada K.
        • Hanenberg R.
        Introducing the contraceptive implant in Thailand: impact on method use and costs.
        Internat Fam Plann Perspec. 1994; 20: 131-136
        • Hubacher D.
        • Kimani J.
        • Steiner M.J.
        • Solomon M.
        • Ndugga M.B.
        Contraceptive implants in Kenya: current status and future prospects.
        Contraception. 2007; 75: 468-473
        • Reproductive health supplies coalition
        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:)
        • Steiner M.J.
        • Lopez L.M.
        • Grimes D.A.
        • et al.
        Sino-implant (II)���a levonorgestrel-releasing two-rod implant: systematic review of the randomized controlled trials.
        Contraception. 2010; 81: 197-201
        • Steiner M.J.
        • Boler T.
        • Obhai G.
        • Hubacher D.
        Assessment of a disposable trocar for insertion of contraceptive implants.
        Contraception. 2010; 81: 140-142
        • Foreit J.R.
        • Foreit K.G.F.
        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:)
        • Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
        Kenya demographic and health survey. Macro International, Inc., Calverton, MD2003: 2004
        • Janowitz B.
        • Bratt J.
        • Rademacher K.
        • Steiner M.
        Are contraceptive implants finally affordable to programs?.
        in: Oral presentation at the International Conference on Family Planning, Kampala, Uganda2009
        • Bertrand J.T.
        • Escudero G.
        Compendium of indicators for evaluating reproductive health programs, Volumes 1 & 2. In Measure Evaluation Manual Series, 2002.
        (Available from:)
        • Weissman E.
        Reproductive health needs assessment model: user guide. UN Millenium Project, 2005.
        (Available from:)
      2. Caucus on New and Underused Reproductive Health Technologies. Reproductive Health Supplies Coaltion: contraceptive implants; 2009 [Technical Brief]. Available from:,

        • Hardee K.
        • Balogh S.
        • Villinski M.T.
        Three countries' experience with Norplant introduction.
        Health Policy Plan. 1997; 12: 199-213
        • Hubacher D.
        • Lopez L.
        • Steiner M.J.
        • Dorflinger L.
        Menstrual pattern changes from levonorgestrel subdermal implants and DMPA: systematic review and evidence- based comparisons.
        Contraception. 2009; 80: 113-118