Evaluating two models of postpartum family planning counseling on contraceptive uptake: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study in Ghana

Evaluating two models of postpartum family planning counseling on contraceptive uptake: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study in Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluating two models of postpartum family planning counseling on contraceptive uptake: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study in Ghana Sarah Eustis-Guthrie, Ben Williamson, Alhassan Mohammed Awal, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Integrating family planning programming into postpartum care is widely established as an effective approach to improve access to family planning. We conducted a pilot in 6 hospitals in northern Ghana to evaluate the effectiveness of two approaches at improving contraceptive uptake. These approaches were: 1) family planning counseling during postnatal care (PNC) appointments and; 2) family planning messaging and referrals during immunization/child welfare clinic (CWC) sessions in the first year postpartum. Methods This study used a two-arm non-randomized repeated cross-sectional design. We surveyed 205 women pre-intervention and 226 women post-intervention. Results We observed no statistically significant effects on actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm at immediate surveying. Results from two-week phone surveying (n = 202) suggest a 22% increase in contraceptive use ( p < .01) and a 25.3% increase in intended use ( p <.05) post-intervention in the PNC arm and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm; however, this data is only suggestive due to its small sample size. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence suggest that the majority surveyed were not at high risk of pregnancy irrespective of modern contraceptive use. Conclusions While the relatively small sample size and non-randomized study design limit the generalizability of the findings, the results suggest that contraceptive counseling at CWC may have limited effect on contraceptive uptake, while counseling at PNC is more promising yet still mixed. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence suggest that changes in contraceptive uptake in the first year postpartum in similar contexts may have a reduced effect on unintended pregnancies; this supports similar recent findings in the literature. Trial registration Not applicable. postpartum family planning contraception family planning access postnatal care Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background The Case for Family Planning Interventions Pregnancy-related health outcomes are a leading cause of preventable death among both mothers and children. In 2020, 287,000 women and girls died due to either pregnancy or childbirth ( 1 ). While a variety of approaches are necessary to combat this issue, comprehensive access to contraception could avert more than 30% of maternal deaths and 10% of child mortality globally ( 2 , 3 ). Contraceptive access provides a wide range of other potential benefits. The most significant of these may be increasing reproductive autonomy for women who want to space or limit births and currently have limited options for doing so. Increasing women’s reproductive autonomy has been linked to increased income, educational attainment, and subjective well-being ( 4 , 5 ). More than this, increasing autonomy represents a worthy and important goal in and of itself ( 6 ). The maternal and infant mortality risks from short birth spacing make the postpartum period potentially a particularly valuable time for increased contraceptive access ( 7 – 9 ). Kozuki and Walker’s analysis of Demographic and Health Service (DHS) data across 47 countries suggests an 18% increase in neonatal mortality and a 21% increase in child mortality from short-spaced births ( 10 ). Changes in maternal mortality are more difficult to measure due to the lower incidence of maternal deaths but may be as significant as a 32% increase in mortality risk ( 11 ). Programming targeting Sub-Saharan Africa may be particularly worthwhile given that contraceptive rates across the region are less than half of the global average while over half of young women with unmet need for family planning will live in the region by 2030 ( 12 , 13 ). Additionally, the risks of short birth spacing are likely intensified in the region due to more fragile healthcare systems and additional financial and location constraints on accessing care ( 14 , 15 ). Previous studies in other contexts have shown that integrating family planning guidance into postnatal care or child immunization appointments can be an effective way of increasing contraceptive uptake and reducing unmet need ( 16 – 21 ). These studies have adopted a variety of approaches to increasing contraceptive uptake in the postpartum period. The strongest increases in uptake appear to be associated with immediate postpartum family planning, particularly in programs with a focus on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) delivery in the first 48 hours after birth. This model of programming was not selected for this study due to concerns about freedom of choice and reproductive decision-making when information on certain methods is prioritized. Concerns around “LARC-first” programming have been discussed extensively, but nevertheless appear relatively under-addressed ( 22 – 25 ). These concerns are supported by studies highlighting broader issues with unintentional coercion in family planning programming due to biased counseling, provider reluctance to remove LARCs, and an excess emphasis on uptake targets ( 26 – 28 ). In response to these concerns, the design of counseling materials and counseling approach in this study avoided any prioritization of methods and focused on centering client preferences when selecting methods. Intervention Rationale This study was delivered in Ghana, one of several countries in West Africa where increases in contraceptive uptake have lagged behind global trends. Ghana had an average contraceptive uptake of 27% in 2018 ( 29 ), significantly lower than the global average of 48.5% ( 30 ). In addition, recent data suggests that 30% of women in Ghana have an unmet need for contraception, meaning many women would like to space or limit their births but are not using contraception ( 31 ). This study took place in the Northern region of Ghana, which has among the lowest uptake of modern contraceptives in the country, at 17% ( 32 ). One potential barrier to higher rates of family planning is insufficient counseling quality ( 33 ). It is the official policy of the Ghana Health Service that all postnatal care should include family planning counseling and services ( 34 ). However, prior research has indicated that the consistency and quality of family planning services in the postpartum period varies in practice ( 35 ). Based on this perceived gap, our study aimed to test the impact on family planning acceptor rates in the Northern Region of two models integrating consistent, high-quality family planning counseling into routine care. These models were: 1) the provision of one-to-one family planning counseling during routine postnatal care (PNC) appointments; 2) the implementation of short family planning messaging and a referral system as part of normal child welfare clinic (CWC) sessions. In Ghana, postnatal care sessions are one-to-one appointments between a provider and the mother delivered from 0–6 weeks post-birth. Child welfare clinics are group sessions focused on child weighing and immunization delivered from 6 weeks to 2 years after birth. See Fig. 1 . This study provided high-quality training to frontline staff who deliver either postnatal care appointments or child immunization sessions. In doing so, the study sought to replicate results from Asah-Opoku et al. and Dulli et al. ( 21 , 31 ). These studies showed increased consistency of family planning counseling and increased contraceptive uptake after training public healthcare staff in integrating counseling into routine care. As part of the training, providers were given materials and instruction on a system of counseling designed to be integrated into the routine care offered during Ghana Health Service appointments. Evidence for Intervention Models The two intervention models were selected based on an extensive review of the evidence supporting different approaches to increasing contraceptive knowledge and uptake. Both approaches are supported by numerous randomized control trials. In a prior study in Ghana, Asah-Opoku et al. found that contraceptive uptake was 12.6% for clients who received group counseling and 51% for those who received individual counseling in postnatal care ( 31 ). We based the design of the PNC intervention package in this study on Asah-Opoku et al.’s work. We aimed to reproduce their results through a streamlined intervention package suitable for scale-up through the Ghana Health Service. Dulli et al. delivered a randomized control trial in Rwanda that integrated family planning into child immunization services ( 21 ). This study found a 15% greater uptake of contraception in the intervention group in comparison to the control group, without any negative impact on child immunization rates. Similar models in Egypt, Malawi, and Liberia have also reported positive outcomes ( 36 – 38 ). However, a previous study that attempted to integrate family planning into immunizations in Ghana encountered significant implementation challenges and did not find any increases in uptake ( 39 ). We designed the CWC intervention package for this study to replicate the work of Dulli et al. in a manner that would overcome the implementation challenges encountered by Vance et al. ( 21 , 39 ). Methods Study Design and Sampling This study used a two-arm non-randomized repeated cross-sectional design to evaluate the two intervention packages. We surveyed 205 women receiving routine care prior to the implementation of the intervention: 100 in the PNC arm and 105 in the CWC arm. We subsequently surveyed 226 women receiving the intervention package post-intervention: 106 in the PNC arm and 120 in the CWC arm. See Figure 2. This study design was selected to reduce the possibility of contamination between the control and treatment groups; furthermore, as only approximately 3 months elapsed between the collection of treatment and control data, changes in contraceptive uptake due to exogenous factors were minimized. This study took place at six hospitals in the Northern Region of Ghana. At the time of the study, there were 15 district hospitals across the Northern Region of Ghana. The sample of six facilities selected across six districts - with a mix of urban, peri-urban and more rural hospitals - aimed to provide a representative sample of care at hospitals across the Northern Region. District hospitals were selected as the primary sampling unit due to higher anticipated client flow that would ease data collection and maximize the number of clients reached by each trained provider. Facilities were divided between the two intervention packages to ensure a comparable geographic spread. The following hospitals were allocated to the postnatal care package: Bimbilla, Gushegu, and Yendi Hospital. The following hospitals were allocated to the child immunization package: Karaga, Kpandai, and Zabzugu. Sampling The sample size for clients was selected to exceed the baseline number of participants needed to do a regression analysis according to the principles set forth by (40). See Table 1. The inclusion criteria for clients participating in the study were that they had: Delivered a live birth in the last 12 months Attended a child immunization or postnatal care at one of the targeted facilities on the day of surveying Clients were sampled while exiting appointments from the six facilities. The implementation team approached clients, explained the study, and asked if they met the selection criteria. If clients met the criteria, they were offered a stipend of 20 cedis to participate. Table 1. Sample Sizes Allocation Clients Baseline Endline Intervention 1: Postnatal care package 100 106 Intervention 2: Child welfare clinic package 105 120 Total 205 226 Timeline of Activities This study was split into three phases of programming. Phases 1 and 3 were the same for both intervention arms. During Phase 2, three facilities received the postnatal care package and three received the child welfare clinic package. Phase 1: Formative Research To begin, the study team engaged facility-level stakeholders to understand the feasibility of implementing the intervention packages at the selected facilities. Previous research has indicated the importance of designing interventions in a participatory manner, including incorporating input from service providers and other stakeholders (18). Speaking to facility directors highlighted the need for an adaptable program with the structure of care differing between facilities. It also emphasized the importance of making the materials self-explanatory to better account for likely staff turnover or rotation around the facilities. From here, the team conducted baseline data collection through structured questionnaires delivered in person to clients who met the inclusion criteria at the target facilities. A follow-up questionnaire was delivered by mobile phone 14 days after in-person surveying to assess contraceptive uptake. Phase 2: Implementation of Intervention Packages Both intervention packages included the following activities: 1. Training for providers on 1:1 family planning counseling A single one-day training session was held for each intervention package with providers selected from the target facilities. While the project team intended to only invite providers from the intervention units (PNC or CWC), hospital administrators selected providers from multiple departments for attendance. This included staff who provided immediate postpartum services at the maternity ward but were not part of the Reproductive and Child Health team. The sessions were tailored to the postpartum period. They focused on guidance and practice in a model of counseling designed to be feasible for providers to consistently deliver in a way that would increase the quality of routine postnatal contraceptive counseling. Providers’ knowledge and attitudes were tested after the training to assess its effectiveness and potential barriers to implementation, with questions such as ‘Which methods can be safely used by breastfeeding mothers at one month post-delivery?’. 2. Program champions One provider was selected from each target facility to act as a ‘Program Champion’. These were selected by the facility director, with their name and contact details passed onto the project team. Program Champions were responsible for ensuring the program was consistently implemented at their facility, and for highlighting any barriers to implementation promptly so that the project team could coordinate with the facility to address these. These aims were achieved in part by collecting and submitting routine data on referral and counseling rates to the project team. They were also responsible for ensuring that all relevant providers - including those unable to attend the in-person training - were given clear guidance on the intervention and how to use the materials. Each Program Champion had to pass a knowledge test to be accepted into the role. They received a small stipend every two weeks upon submission of short observation, client, and facility data surveys, as well as a weekly WhatsApp check-in. 3. Ongoing monitoring activities through implementation Previous investigations of postpartum contraceptive counseling have been undermined by significant implementation challenges (39). As such, the project team implemented multiple further monitoring activities in addition to recruiting Program Champions. The team conducted phone surveys of a small sample (n=54) of clients to assess the quality of implementation at the midpoint of the intervention period. These surveys focused on assessing the frequency with which healthcare staff at the facilities used the counseling materials during the appropriate appointments. Phone numbers for clients were provided by each facility’s Program Champion. An experimental WhatsApp tool was also developed. This aimed to increase providers’ retention of training knowledge while engaging them in direct monitoring to maximize their adherence to the counseling model. This system allowed the project team to send an automated program of interactive content to every healthcare provider who participated in the training. Program Champions collected the phone numbers of any providers at the target facilities who were not able to attend the in-person training so that they could receive the key messages of the training through this WhatsApp system. For the postnatal care program, we sent a weekly survey of around five questions. For the child welfare clinic program, we sent a fortnightly survey of around 10-15 questions with the provision of a small airtime incentive as compensation for the time this took. Completion of the questionnaires was significant, particularly for those receiving the airtime incentive, suggesting that this is a viable strategy for direct provider engagement. Phase 3: Evaluation Endline surveying took place six weeks after the training sessions and initiation of the intervention packages. Client and provider surveys were delivered to assess provisional changes in knowledge, attitudes and contraceptive uptake rate. While a longer assessment period may have been beneficial, we believe that six weeks was more than sufficient time for quality implementation to occur that would allow for a robust indication of each program’s value based on the pre-post assessment model. Sample size and data collection questions were kept the same at the endline as for the baseline, with the addition of a few other questions to improve the contextual understanding of implementation quality and program value. With permission from the Regional Health Directorate and each facility, the project team collected government facility data capturing the monthly facility records for key metrics. However, some records were missing from the datasets and there were issues with the consistency and reliability of data received. As such, we have excluded this data from our assessment of program results. Timeline of Activity See Table 2. Table 2. Timeline of Activity August-September 2023 Phase 1 - Formative Research We refined the program design through engagement with facility stakeholders and baseline data collection. We completed baseline data collection by administering structured questionnaires to postpartum women at facilities alongside a questionnaire for facility directors. We then followed up with clients 14 days after the initial questionnaires via mobile phone to assess contraceptive uptake. October - November 2023 Phase 2 - Implementation of Intervention Packages We delivered training sessions in October 2023, including an assessment of providers’ contraceptive knowledge and attitudes towards contraceptive use. We commenced implementation at the facilities immediately post-training, pairing this with ongoing monitoring work to ascertain the quality of implementation. November 2023 - January 2024 Phase 3 - Evaluation We conducted endline data collection six weeks post-training through structured questionnaires with postpartum women at the intervention facilities. We supplemented this with mobile phone surveying 14 days later. We held the questions used for data analysis and the structure of surveying constant between the baseline and endline surveying. Limitations As data was only collected from mothers on a handful of days, the data represents only a snapshot of the care provided at facilities pre- and post-intervention. As a result, any differences to care provided on days when surveyors were present could have a disproportionate effect on the results. Additionally, data on contraceptive use was self-reported; hence, it may be vulnerable to issues such as social desirability bias. While the sample was sufficiently large to draw overall conclusions, the conclusions for particular subgroups are less robust due to the smaller sample size. Finally, we were unable to use facility data to examine the effect of programming on longer-run trends in contraceptive uptake due to issues with the consistency and reliability of the facility data we received. Intervention Package Intervention Arm 1: Postnatal Care (PNC) This intervention package was implemented at Yendi, Gushegu and Bimbilla hospitals. Counseling materials were provided to every training attendee, with additional copies for relevant providers at each facility who were unable to attend the training day. Providers at the PNC session were given a counseling guide, method cards, and a ‘Method Information Booklet’. The focus of this intervention was to increase the frequency and quality with which family planning counseling is included in one-to-one counseling sessions. The intervention package had three main aims: Include family planning counseling as part of every 1:1 postnatal appointment. Use MHI’s Counseling Guide as a framework for this discussion, with the Method Cards and Method Information Booklet used as key resources in this framework. The discussion should take around 20 minutes, depending on the number of questions from the client. Offer a method directly, or a referral to the family planning unit, for women who express an interest in taking up a method of birth spacing at the end of the counseling discussion. A novel counseling guide was designed for the intervention. This was targeted specifically at the postnatal period and designed to integrate into the existing structure of appointments at Ghana Health Service facilities. The counseling guide provided an overall structure for the counseling session and acted as a job aid for remembering the training while delivering counseling. The counseling guide was supplemented with method cards that aimed to make appointments interactive and client-centered, two markers of improved quality of care identified in prior literature (41). These acted as a visual tool for clients to indicate their key preferences and which kinds of methods they were most interested in. All attendees also received a ‘Method Information Booklet’ with an extensive explanation of family planning methods. This acted as a reference tool for providers to look up more complex or detailed information about different methods, including side effect profiles, effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, risk factors to screen for before method provision, and the mechanism for taking the method. Finally, the referral card acted as a practical reminder to clients who expressed interest in a method that was not available for provision during the routine appointment, either due to stock shortages or the need for insertion by a trained specialist. Intervention Arm 2: Child Welfare Clinics (CWC) This intervention package was implemented at Zabzugu, Karaga, and Kpandai hospitals. Counseling materials were provided to every training attendee, with additional copies for relevant providers at each facility who were unable to attend the training day. At the CWC session, providers were given a group talk flipchart, 1:1 counseling card, and referral cards for directing people to the Family Planning Unit. Similarly, all materials were designed specifically for this intervention to ensure their relevance to postpartum counseling and their ability to integrate into existing systems of care at public health facilities in Ghana. The child welfare clinic intervention was designed to consist of three key components. These were a group talk, one-to-one messaging, and a referral system. The intended process for delivering these is described below: Providers include family planning messaging in every group talk given while women wait for their child to be called up for weighing and immunization, using MHI’s streamlined ‘Birth Spacing Group Talk’ flipchart as a guide. Providers offering immunizations have a very short one-to-one family planning discussion with each woman as her child is vaccinated using the ‘Birth Spacing Card’. Providers offer women the option of a streamlined referral for family planning at the end of this one-to-one engagement, using a system of referral cards to make it simple for women to receive a method that day should they choose to do so. The ‘Birth Spacing Group Talk’ flipchart was designed so that the group talk would take no more than 10 minutes and be feasible to implement even at busy CWC sessions. The flipchart leads providers and clients through a discussion of the range of methods available to clients, how to safely take methods and manage their side effects, and the benefits of receiving family planning counseling while at the facility. The ‘Birth Spacing Card’ was designed for use by providers directly administering immunizations to children after they have been weighed and their health records have been recorded. Providers were asked to counsel every woman whose child they immunized. The card was designed so that the engagement would last 1-2 minutes at a maximum to ensure feasible implementation. This model was chosen to mirror the approach of (21). A referral card system was paired with the ‘Birth Spacing Card’. All women who expressed interest in discussing family planning further received a referral card to take to the Family Planning Unit. These were designed to be discreet to pass between provider and client to maintain confidentiality. Referral cards acted as a physical reminder to the client to follow up on their family planning interest. They also indicated to providers at the Family Planning Unit of the hospital that the client had already received some family planning guidance and could receive a streamlined version of standard counseling. Finally, all providers received a ‘Method Information Booklet’ as a reference tool to answer more complex questions about contraceptive method use and provision. Data Collection The surveying team obtained written, informed consent to participate from all clients and providers who participated in the study. All data was collected using the SurveyCTO system unless otherwise stated. All surveys and tests took place in private areas of the facilities where clients and providers could not be overheard, or via mobile phone. Surveying Approach Clients The implementation team used the SurveyCTO platform to deliver structured questionnaires to clients at each of the target facilities. Clients were surveyed after they had received care, but before they left that unit of the hospital. At the end of these questionnaires, clients were asked if they would be willing to share their mobile phone number and answer a short follow-up call 14 days later. Follow-up phone surveying was included based on feedback received from local stakeholders during the intervention design. Stakeholders shared that women often take time to consult with their husbands or other family members before beginning a family planning method, and that delayed surveying would capture such uptake. Questions at baseline and endline day-of surveying focused on assessing the following: demographic characteristics; current contraceptive use and attitudes; quality and structure of family planning counseling as part of routine care; and plans and preferences for contraceptive uptake. Surveys delivered via phone at the 14-day phone follow-up were substantially briefer. These focused on current and intended contraceptive use alongside reasons for non-use. Due to issues with client flow at some of the intervention facilities, some baseline surveying was delivered over the phone rather than in person. These phone surveys used the same questionnaire structure and approach as the in-person surveying. Data analysis We used Pearson’s chi-squared test to evaluate our primary hypothesis: postpartum women in the post-intervention group will have a higher level of current and intended modern contraceptive use than postpartum women in the pre-intervention group across both intervention packages. When samples were small, Fisher’s exact test was used. Pearson’s chi-squared test was also used to evaluate the knowledge differences between pre- and post-intervention groups across the two arms. Analyses were completed in R (version 4.3.2). Ethics approval and consent to participate The study’s authors received ethical approval from the Navrongo Health Research Centre Institutional Review Board to undertake this research. The project team also engaged the Regional Health Directorate of the Ghana Health Service in the design and delivery of the intervention. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth in the Belmont Report. Participants were informed of their voluntary participation in the study and were free to withhold answers at any time. They were also free to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Their consent was obtained before the commencement of the interviews and any data collection. Results Table 3 presents the personal and socio-demographic characteristics of women in the two groups (pre-intervention and post-intervention) across the two arms. The pre- and post-intervention groups were similar within the two arms: most respondents were Muslim, currently married, and had an average age of 27-28. Education levels were similar between pre- and post-intervention groups, with median educational outcomes of elementary to junior secondary. Most respondents had previously used modern contraception and were currently abstinent. Breastfeeding was almost universal across the two arms, with a substantial fraction breastfeeding exclusively (86% and 92.5% pre- and post-intervention at PNC and 42.8% and 50.8% pre- and post-intervention at CWC). The two metrics with significant differences between the pre- and post-intervention groups were the number of days post-birth and sexual activity for the CWC arm: in the post-intervention group, the average duration postpartum was 16.8% shorter and 14.4% fewer respondents were sexually active. Generally speaking, the pre- and post-intervention groups within each arm were similar, allowing for robust comparison between the two. Table 3. Background Characteristics of Study Participants by Arm PNC CWC Baseline (n= 100) Endline (n=106) Baseline (n= 105) Endline (n=120) Age (mean) 27.6 27.5 27.2 27.8 Marital status Married 83.0% 84.0% 88.6% 87.5% Unmarried 17.0% 16.0% 11.4% 12.5% Religion Muslim 86.0% 89.6% 69.5% 69.2% Christian 13.0% 10.4% 28.6% 30.8% Traditional/Spiritual 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% Other 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% Level of education None 31.0% 33.0% 32.4% 35.0% Elementary 10.0% 8.5% 17.1% 19.2% Junior secondary 23.0% 17.9% 21.9% 19.2% High school 26.0% 32.1% 21.9% 17.5% University 10.0% 8.5% 6.7% 9.2% Number of days post-birth (mean) 21.1 17.2 180.2 149.9 Abstinent 96.00% 98.11% 67.6% 81.7% Breastfeeding 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% Exclusively breastfeeding 86.0% 92.5% 42.8% 50.8% Past use of modern contraception 68.0% 67.0% 67.6% 68.3% Table 4 presents data on implementation across the two arms. In the PNC arm, there was a moderate increase in the frequency of 1:1 family planning counseling from pre- to post-intervention. In the CWC arm, there was a significant increase in the incidence of the family planning group talk and 1:1 family planning counseling from baseline to endline. Substantial variation between facilities was observed. In the PNC arm, 1:1 counseling was significantly more common at Yendi than the other two hospitals, while in the CWC arm, 1:1 family planning counseling was moderately less common at Zabzugu than the other two hospitals. In the PNC arm, the overall increase in 1:1 family planning guidance was largely driven by substantial increases at Yendi Hospital, where 1:1 counseling was received by 81% of clients at endline. Lower implementation at the other facilities was associated with low engagement from providers and facility leadership throughout the project and a change in Program Champion in the case of Bimbilla. Implementation data is only suggestive, given that data was collected from clients at only a few days for each facility. There is limited evidence to suggest surveyor presence may have affected the reliability of results by increasing provider compliance, particularly in the case of 1:1 messaging at immunization. While formal surveying elicited nearly universally positive feedback from providers and clients, providers expressed frustration with the 1:1 messaging at immunization in informal conversations. Concerns centered on time pressures for both clients and providers that made the 1:1 engagements frustrating to implement. Table 4. Implementation by Arm PNC CWC Baseline (n= 100) Endline (n=106) Difference (percentage points) Baseline (n= 105) Endline (n=120) Difference (percentage points) 1:1 Family Planning Counseling Bimbilla 2.27% 28.57% 26.30% Karaga 20.00% 62.86% 42.86% Gushegu 28.57% 46.67% 18.10% Kpandai 2.86% 68.57% 65.71% Yendi 31.43% 80.95% 49.52% Zabzugu 2.86% 42.00% 39.14% Overall 18.0% 39.6% 21.60% Overall 28.10% 55.80% 27.70% Group Talk on Family Planning N/A Karaga 37.14% 68.57% 31.43% Kpandai 2.86% 77.14% 74.28% Zabzugu 5.71% 74.00% 68.29% Overall 15.20% 72.50% 57.30% Tables 5 and 6 present data on self-reported change in actual and intended contraceptive use across the two arms between pre- and post-intervention. Table 5 includes data collected on the day of surveying (or, in several cases, on the day immediately following), while Table 6 includes data collected at the 2-week phone follow-up. While phone follow-up was attempted for all respondents, attrition was high due to phone non-use and unavailability. No statistically significant effects on actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm were observed at immediate surveying. In the PNC arm, contraceptive use increased from 2% to 5% and intended use decreased from 67.4% to 67.3% from baseline to endline; in the CWC arm, contraceptive use decreased from 15.2% to 14.2% and intended use increased from 65.9% to 74.8% from baseline to endline. Data from 2-week phone surveying suggests a statistically significant 22 percentage point increase in contraceptive use ( p = 0.000447) and a 25.3 percentage point increase in intended use ( p = .0187) in the PNC arm from baseline to endline and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm. In the CWC arm, contraceptive use decreased from 15.4% to 13.6% and intended use increased from 59.1% to 70.6%. Table 5. Difference in Actual and Intended Contraceptive Use by Arm (Immediate surveying) PNC CWC Baseline Endline Difference (percentage points) p value Baseline Endline Difference (percentage points) p value n=100 n=106 n=105 n=120 Use of modern contraception 2.00% 5.00% 3.00% 0.446 ☨ 15.20% 14.20% -1.00% 0.821 n = 98 n = 101 n = 88 n = 103 Intended use of modern contraception 67.40% 67.30% -0.10% 0.998 65.90% 74.80% 8.90% 0.181 Note: p-values calculated using Pearson's chi-squared unless indicated otherwise ☨ = Fisher's exact test, used due to small sample size Sample sizes for current and intended use differ due to the fact that current users of modern contraception were not asked about intended use Table 6. Difference in Actual and Intended Contraceptive Use by Arm (2 week phone follow-up) PNC CWC Baseline Endline Difference (percentage points) p value Baseline Endline Difference (percentage points) p value (n= 50) (n=41) (n= 52) (n=59) Use of modern contraception 0% 22.00% 22.00% 0.000447 ☨ ** 15.40% 13.60% -1.80% 0.794 ☨ (n=50) (n=32) (n=44) (n=51) Intended use of modern contraception 56.00% 81.30% 25.30% 0.0187* 59.10% 70.60% 11.50% 0.241 Note: p-values calculated using Pearson's chi-squared unless indicated otherwise ☨ Fisher's exact test, used due to small sample size * p < .05 ** p < .01 Sample sizes for current and intended use differ due to the fact that current users of modern contraception were not asked about intended use. There was significant attrition in both arms of the phone surveying, with only 46.9% of respondents reached; additionally, levels of attrition were higher at endline than baseline. This substantially reduces the sample size and therefore the robustness of these results. However, the demographics of both groups are generally similar; see Table 7. Table 7. Background Characteristics for Phone Respondents and Non-Respondents Phone Respondents (n=196) Phone Non-Respondents (n=216) Religion Muslim 80.61% 74.07% Christian 19.39% 24.54% Traditional/Spiritual 0.00% 0.46% Other 0.00% 0.93% Level of education None 31.12% 34.72% Elementary 11.73% 15.28% Junior secondary 20.41% 19.91% High school 27.55% 21.76% University 9.18% 8.33% Sexually active 11.73% 16.67% Past use of modern contraception 55.61% 57.41% Current use of modern contraception* 8.67% 9.72% * according to in-person surveying Due to inconsistencies in one step of data collection, data on background characteristics is unavailable for 6 phone respondents and 13 non-respondents and thus omitted from the table above. Table 8 presents data on knowledge differences among respondents. The data indicates a moderate increase in knowledge regarding the duration of LAM in both arms, suggesting that there was some knowledge transmission from providers to clients associated with the intervention. In the PNC arm, there was a moderate decrease in correct answers regarding side effects, raising concerns about misinformation provided in individual counseling sessions; however, there was only minimal change on this metric in the CWC arm. The data also indicates high levels of baseline knowledge regarding the importance of healthy birth intervals in both arms, suggesting that education on this topic may be less valuable for the respondents targeted in this study. Additionally, there was a moderate increase in knowledge concerning return to fertility in the CWC arm but only minimal change in the PNC arm, suggesting that this topic may have been addressed in group but not individual sessions. Table 8. Knowledge Differences by Arm PNC CWC Baseline (n= 100) Endline (n=106) Difference (percentage points) Baseline (n= 105) Endline (n=120) Difference (percentage points) Timing of Return to Fertility 13.0% 11.5% -1.5% 9.5% 23.3% 13.8%** Healthy Birth Intervals 95.0% 96.2% 1.2% 95.2% 97.5% 2.3% Duration of LAM 68.0% 82.1% 14.1%* 65.7% 88.3% 22.6%** Side Effects 25.0% 10.4% -14.6%** 21.0% 24.2% 3.2% Note: p-values calculated using Pearson's chi-squared unless indicated otherwise * p < .05 ** p < .01 Table 9 presents data on reasons for non-use, according to post-intervention phone surveying. Responses were similar between the two arms, with some variation: the most common reasons provided include breastfeeding, abstinence, and attitude of husband/partner. 21.6% of respondents in the CWC arm selected “other,” among whom most disclosed that they were waiting for their period to return. A substantial minority chose not to disclose a reason. Less commonly cited reasons included concerns about side effects and not wanting to use contraception. No respondents stated that they were unable to access contraception or willing to become pregnant. Table 9. Reasons for Non-Use by Arm (2 week phone follow-up, endline) PNC CWC Endline (n= 32) Endline (n= 51) Breastfeeding 37.5% 23.5% Abstinence 15.6% 25.5% Husband/partner attitude 25% 25.5% Do not want to answer 28.1% 23.5% Other 0% 21.5% Concerns about side effects 9.4% 7.8% Do not want to use contraception 6.3% 7.8% Unable to access 0% 0% Willing to become pregnant 0% 0% Note that respondents could select multiple responses Discussion Immediate surveying indicated no statistically significant changes to actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm associated with the intervention. Results from two-week phone surveying, however, suggest a 22% increase in contraceptive use ( p = 0.000447) and a 25.3% increase in intended use ( p = 0.0187) post-intervention in the PNC arm, and a non-significant 1.8% decrease in contraceptive use (p = 0.794) and non-significant 11.5% increase in intended use (p = 0.24) in the CWC arm. As many women consult with their husbands before starting a method, we expected higher rates of contraceptive use at follow-up surveys; however, it is surprising that no changes to intended use were present at immediate surveying. While there was a high rate of attrition between the in-person and phone follow-up, the background characteristics of respondents and non-respondents were similar, which suggests that differences in responses by phone likely result from the intervention rather than differences in the groups sampled. However, given that the sample size for the phone survey was substantially smaller, its results should be taken as suggestive rather than decisive. Taken together, the results suggest that the CWC arm had no effects on contraceptive use and a small, non-significant increase in intended use, while the PNC arm likely led to a moderate increase in actual and intended contraceptive use. While the relatively small sample size and lack of randomization limit the generalizability of the findings, the study contributes to the evidence base for postpartum family planning programming, suggesting that lighter-touch family planning programming in the postpartum period may be more likely to produce only limited changes to contraceptive uptake in some contexts. The lack of change in uptake in the CWC arm aligns with previous findings by Vance et al. in Ghana and Zambia, but contrasts with more successful results in Rwanda (21,39). The mixed findings in the PNC arm stand in contrast with several more successful studies; however, a significant proportion of studies evaluating facility-based programming involved a heavier-touch approach or emphasized LARCs such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) (18–20,42). The lighter touch approach we took in the PNC arm, involving adding family planning into only postnatal appointments in the first 6 weeks postpartum, may account for the less successful results. Other aspects of the results cast doubt on the usefulness of the uptake associated with the intervention, regardless of its magnitude. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence reported by respondents in both arms suggest that the reported changes in contraceptive uptake may have limited short-term effects in reducing unintended pregnancies. These results, considered alongside previous studies finding limited to no effects on pregnancy rates from facility-based postpartum programming in areas with high levels of postpartum insusceptibility, cast doubt on the usefulness and efficacy of family planning programming focused on the postpartum period in such regions (43–45). High levels of abstinence reported in this study – 96% at baseline and 98.1% at endline in the PNC arm and 67.6% at baseline and 81.7% at endline in the CWC arm – suggest a high level of existing protection against pregnancy, which reduces interest in contraceptive uptake as well as its impact. Near-universal levels of breastfeeding reported here also reduce the usefulness of contraceptive uptake. DHS data substantiates that postpartum abstinence and breastfeeding are both long-duration in the Northern region, with median durations of 4.7 and 20.5 months, respectively; note, however, that levels of postpartum abstinence in the CWC arm were higher than those reflected in DHS data (32). Breastfeeding – particularly exclusive breastfeeding – has been shown to delay the return of ovulation, a biological necessity for pregnancy (46). While the WHO defines LAM in strict, time-limited terms, numerous studies indicate that breastfeeding, amenorrheic women are at significantly reduced risk of pregnancy at one year postpartum and beyond than their non-breastfeeding, menstruating peers (47–50). Due to the combined effects of prolonged postpartum abstinence and high rates of breastfeeding, most African countries report long durations of postpartum insusceptibility, the inability to become pregnant due to amenorrhea. DHS data reflecting 44 African countries indicates a mean of 14.2 months of postpartum insusceptibility across the continent (51). Long-lasting postpartum insusceptibility significantly reduces the impact of family planning uptake in the first year postpartum. New users of contraception who are already protected by abstinence and/or breastfeeding will not incur additional benefits from modern forms of contraception; indeed, they may merely incur the burden of side effects (52,53). Increases in family planning uptake are primarily valuable insofar as they allow women to avert mistimed or unintended pregnancies. If most users of postpartum programming are already protected, few mistimed or unintended pregnancies will be averted. While some pregnancies are likely still averted - due to shifts in attitude that lead to subsequent uptake or immediate contraceptive uptake that lasts beyond the period of postpartum insusceptibility – high rates of contraceptive discontinuation diminish these effects (54,55). Indeed, multiple recent studies suggest that facility-based postpartum programming may have limited to no effect on rates of unintended or short-spaced pregnancies in regions with prolonged postpartum insusceptibility. Of the three studies we identified that measure the effects of facility-based postpartum family planning programming on pregnancy rates, studies in Tanzania and Burkina Faso found no effect (43,44), while one in Nepal found only a 0.7% absolute decrease in short-spaced pregnancies (45) . More research investigating this area is needed, but these results tentatively suggest that prolonged postpartum insusceptibility may significantly reduce the effects of postpartum programming on pregnancy rates. High rates of prolonged abstinence and amenorrhea among postpartum women – as found in our study – may substantially reduce the level of additional protection against pregnancy conferred by modern contraceptive methods. While community-based programs in Bangladesh and Malawi have shown more promising results regarding short-spaced pregnancies, these programs were significantly heavier-touch and not geographically representative (56,57). Further research is needed, but one possibility is that such programs more successfully reach women at high risk of short-spaced pregnancies than their lighter-touch counterparts at facilities. Abstinence and breastfeeding were key drivers of non-use among those surveyed, cited by more than half of respondents as a reason for non-use of contraceptives. Respondents demonstrated strong knowledge of the importance of healthy birth spacing. This suggests that a lack of knowledge regarding the benefits of birth spacing is not a key barrier to increased postpartum contraceptive uptake. This aligns with the literature more broadly. Gahungu et al., a systematic review of the drivers of unmet need in the postpartum period, found that amenorrhea, abstinence, and low perceived pregnancy risk were key drivers of non-use, alongside fear of side effects and husband opposition (13). Dulli et al. – which evaluated immunization integration in Rwanda – similarly identified amenorrhea and breastfeeding as among the most significant factors cited among non-users (21). Lowered interest in contraceptives due to abstinence and breastfeeding may contribute to the lower-than-expected implementation levels observed in this study: if providers do not feel that clients will be interested in or benefit from a service, it is understandable that they may decide not to provide it. Postpartum family planning is widely recommended, having been identified as a “proven high-impact practice” and endorsed by major institutions in the sexual and reproductive health space (58,59). These recommendations rest on an impressive number of studies indicating short-term increases in contraceptive use due to postpartum programming (17,18,21). However, these recommendations do not take into account recent studies showing minimal to no effects on rates of pregnancy from this programming. High rates of abstinence and breastfeeding suggest that the increases in contraceptive use found in these studies may have a significantly reduced effect on endline outcomes in comparison to family planning programming that targets other touchpoints, and hence significantly reduced value. Given the limited resources available for these interventions, our results suggest that postpartum family planning programming may be significantly less effective than currently considered in contexts with long-duration postpartum insusceptibility. The fact that many studies continue to find modest improvements in uptake during the postpartum period despite this reduced interest suggests that increased family planning messaging at a time when women have higher levels of interest and risk could be highly promising. Furthermore, investment in interventions that engage women and their broader communities outside of the first year postpartum appears promising. Conclusion The intervention packages increased the rate of counseling on family planning and knowledge of family planning by women, but only produced suggestive increases in contraceptive uptake rates in the PNC arm and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm. Implementation was imperfect but sufficient to suggest that postpartum family planning counseling through lighter-touch models that emphasize broad method choice may be less effective in increasing contraceptive uptake than other interventions. High rates of abstinence and breastfeeding indicate a minimal risk of unwanted pregnancy for many clients in the first year after birth. This level of postpartum insusceptibility appears prevalent across much of Sub-Saharan Africa and may be a driver behind recent research suggesting that facility-based postpartum family planning programming produces minimal changes in pregnancy rates in some regions. This conclusion warrants further investigation given its implication that facility-based postpartum family planning work may be significantly less valuable than widely considered at this time in regions with prolonged postpartum insusceptibility. Abbreviations CWC child welfare clinic DHS Demographic and Health Service IUD intrauterine device LARC long-acting reversible contraception PNC postnatal care Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study’s authors received ethical approval from the Navrongo Health Research Centre Institutional Review Board to undertake this research. The project team also engaged the Regional Health Directorate of the Ghana Health Service in the design and delivery of the intervention. Participants were informed of their voluntary participation in the study and were free to withhold answers at any time. They were also free to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Their consent was obtained before the commencement of the interviews and any data collection. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets generated by the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was funded by a collection of anonymous individual donors. Funders had no role in the design or implementation of this study. Author’s contributions SE and BW designed the study protocol and instruments. CF contributed to the study protocol. BW, SE, ASA, ARI, AMA, and SMG coordinated the data collection and field implementation. BW and SE wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting, and revision and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Acknowledgements We are grateful for the hard work of Enoch Weikem Weyori and the rest of the Norsaac team in delivering the surveying work. We thank Sulemana Hikimatu Tibangtaba for her skilful facilitation of the training sessions. We also thank the management staff of the Ghana Health Service Regional Health Directorate, as well as the staff for each of the intervention facilities, for their assistance in implementing this research. Additionally, we are grateful to Jemima Jones and Wan Yun Tan for their assistance in analyzing the results of this study, as well as Marshall Thomas for his feedback on the data analysis and manuscript. Finally, thank you to the healthcare providers and clients who participated in this study. Author Information Maternal Health Initiative – Sarah Eustis-Guthrie, Ben Williamson, Catherine Fist, and Sofía Martínez Gálvez Norsaac – Alhassan Mohammed Awal, Anthony Suguru Abako, and Abdul Rahman Issah References World Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division., https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240068759 Ahmed S, Li Q, Liu L, Tsui AO. Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):111–25. Cleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, Faundes A, Glasier A, Innis J. Family planning: the unfinished agenda. Lancet Lond Engl. 2006;368(9549):1810–27. Canning D, Schultz TP. The economic consequences of reproductive health and family planning. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):165–71. Båge K, Kågesten A, Fagbemi M, Utman O, Arunda MO, Britt-Inger, Puranen et al. Is Reproductive Agency Associated With Subjective Well-being? A Population-based Cross-sectional Study Among Men and Women in Four Sub-saharan African Countries Using the World Values Survey [PREPRINT]. 2023; https://www.researchsquare.com Senderowicz L, Higgins J. Reproductive Autonomy Is Nonnegotiable, Even in the Time of COVID-19. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;46:147–51. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Castaño F, Norton MH. Effects of birth spacing on maternal, perinatal, infant, and child health: a systematic review of causal mechanisms. Stud Fam Plann. 2012;43(2):93–114. Islam MZ, Billah A, Islam MM, Rahman M, Khan N. Negative effects of short birth interval on child mortality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2022;12:04070. Wendt A, Gibbs CM, Peters S, Hogue CJ. Impact of increasing inter-pregnancy interval on maternal and infant health. Pediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(Suppl 10 1):239–58. Kozuki N, Walker N. Exploring the association between short/long preceding birth intervals and child mortality: using reference birth interval children of the same mother as comparison. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(Suppl 3):S6. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(4):297–308. Grant C. Benefits of Investing in Family Planning. Institute of Development Studies; 2016 Dec. (K4D Helpdesk Research Report). https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13288 Gahungu J, Vahdaninia M, Regmi PR. The unmet needs for modern family planning methods among postpartum women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of the literature. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):35. Zimmerman LA, Karp C, Magalona S, Shiferaw S, Seme A, Ahmed S. Exploring Multiple Measures of Pregnancy Preferences and Their Relationship with Postpartum Contraceptive Uptake Using Longitudinal Data from PMA Ethiopia. Stud Fam Plann. 2023;54(3):467–86. Rutstein SO. Effects of preceding birth intervals on neonatal, infant and under-five years mortality and nutritional status in developing countries: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89(S1):S7–24. Wayessa MB, Abebe TW, Habtewold EM, Adlo AM, Teklu AM, Abeya SG, et al. Focused Family Planning Counseling Increases Immediate Postpartum Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Uptake: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Open Access J Contracept. 2020;11:91–102. Saeed GA, Fakhar S, Rahim F, Tabassum S. Change in trend of contraceptive uptake–effect of educational leaflets and counseling. Contraception. 2008;77(5):377–81. Tran NT, Seuc A, Coulibaly A, Landoulsi S, Millogo T, Sissoko F, et al. Post-partum family planning in Burkina Faso (Yam Daabo): a two group, multi-intervention, single-blinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1109–17. Tran NT, Seuc A, Tshikaya B, Mutuale M, Landoulsi S, Kini B, et al. Effectiveness of post-partum family planning interventions on contraceptive use and method mix at 1 year after childbirth in Kinshasa, DR Congo (Yam Daabo): a single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(3):e399–410. Pearson E, Senderowicz L, Pradhan E, Francis J, Muganyizi P, Shah I, et al. Effect of a postpartum family planning intervention on postpartum intrauterine device counseling and choice: evidence from a cluster-randomized trial in Tanzania. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):102. Dulli LS, Eichleay M, Rademacher K, Sortijas S, Nsengiyumva T. Meeting Postpartum Women’s Family Planning Needs Through Integrated Family Planning and Immunization Services: Results of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):73–86. Eeckhaut MCW, Hara Y. Reproductive Oppression Enters the Twenty-First Century: Pressure to Use Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) in the Context of LARC First. Socius. 2023;9:23780231231180378. Dehlendorf C, Perritt J. Statewide Contraceptive Access Initiatives: A Critical Perspective. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S5):S490–3. Gomez AM, Mann ES, Torres V. It would have control over me instead of me having control’: intrauterine devices and the meaning of reproductive freedom. Crit Public Health. 2018;28(2):190–200. Brandi K, Fuentes L. The history of tiered-effectiveness contraceptive counseling and the importance of patient-centered family planning care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(4):S873–7. Biggs MA, Tome L, Mays A, Kaller S, Harper CC, Freedman L. The Fine Line Between Informing and Coercing: Community Health Center Clinicians’ Approaches to Counseling Young People About IUDs. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;52(4):245–52. Gomez AM, Fuentes L, Allina A. Women or LARC First? Reproductive Autonomy and the Promotion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014;46(3):171–5. Senderowicz L. I was obligated to accept: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion. Soc Sci Med. 2019;239:112531. World Bank Open Data. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org United Nations. Contraceptive Use by Method 2019: Data Booklet. UN. 2019. https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210046527 Asah-Opoku K, Mumuni K, Ameme DK, Mohammed AG, Samba A, Nkyekyer K. Effect of one-to-one versus group counseling on uptake of postpartum contraception in selected hospitals in Ghana: A prospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;161(3):794–802. Ghana Statistical Service, Ghana ICF. DHS 2022. Accra, Ghana, and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2024 Jan. https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR387-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm Rominski SD, Sk Morhe E, Maya E, Manu A, Dalton VK. Comparing Women’s Contraceptive Preferences With Their Choices in 5 Urban Family Planning Clinics in Ghana. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(1):65–74. Ghana, National Reproductive Health Service Policy and Standards: Third Edition. Ghana Health Service. ; 2014 Dec. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3kOPCtvyEAxXtDjQIHebwB0QQFnoECB4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fplatform.who.int%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fmca-documents%2Fpolicy-documents%2Fpolicy%2Fgha-cc-10-01 -policy-2014-eng-national-reproductive-health-service-policy-and-standards.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Pj9IecGnP1_2GayghEvbV&opi=89978449. Morhe ESK, Ankobea F, Asubonteng GO, Opoku B, Turpin CA, Dalton VK. Postpartum contraceptive choices among women attending a well-baby clinic in Ghana. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;138(2):219–24. Ahmed S, Norton M, Williams E, Ahmed S, Shah R, Begum N, et al. Operations research to add postpartum family planning to maternal and neonatal health to improve birth spacing in Sylhet District, Bangladesh. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):262–76. Cooper CM, Wille J, Shire S, Makoko S, Tsega A, Schuster A, et al. Integrated Family Planning and Immunization Service Delivery at Health Facility and Community Sites in Dowa and Ntchisi Districts of Malawi: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4530. Cooper CM, Fields R, Mazzeo CI, Taylor N, Pfitzer A, Momolu M, et al. Successful Proof of Concept of Family Planning and Immunization Integration in Liberia. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015;3(1):71–84. Vance G, Janowitz B, Chen M, Boyer B, Kasonde P, Asare G, et al. Integrating family planning messages into immunization services: a cluster-randomized trial in Ghana and Zambia. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(3):359–66. Green SB. How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis. Multivar Behav Res. 1991;26(3):499–510. Fox E, Reyna A, Malcolm NM, Rosmarin RB, Zapata LB, Frederiksen BN, et al. Client Preferences for Contraceptive Counseling:A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(5):691–702. Karra M, Pearson E, Pradhan E, de Silva R, Samarasekera A, Canning D, et al. The effect of a postpartum IUD intervention on counseling and choice: Evidence from a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge trial in Sri Lanka. Trials. 2019;20:407. Rohr JK, Huber-Krum S, Rugarabamu A, Pearson E, Francis JM, Guo M, et al. Impact of a post-partum family planning intervention on contraception and fertility in Tanzania: two-year follow-up of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2024;29(1):24–31. Coulibaly A, Baguiya A, Garanet F, Tran NT, Millogo T, Yaméogo WME, et al. Yam Daabo interventions’ effects on postpartum family planning use in Burkina Faso at 24 months after childbirth. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):946. Guo M, Huber-Krum S, Shah I, Canning D. The Effect of Family Planning Counseling on Incident Pregnancy in Nepal. Stud Fam Plann. 2022;53(2):315–38. Kennedy KI, Visness CM. Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea. Lancet. 1992;339(8787):227–30. Ramos R, Kennedy KI, Visness CM. Effectiveness of lactational amenorrhoea in prevention of pregnancy in Manila, the Philippines: non-comparative prospective trial. BMJ. 1996;313(7062):909–12. Kazi A, Kennedy KI, Visness CM, Khan T. Effectiveness of the lactational amenorrhea method in pakistan. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(4):717–23. Short RV, Renfree MB, Shaw G, Lewis PR. Contraceptive effects of extended lactational amenorrhoea: beyond the Bellagio Consensus. Lancet. 1991;337(8743):715–7. Labbok MH, Hight-Laukaran V, Peterson AE, Fletcher V, von Hertzen H, Van Look PF. Multicenter study of the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM): I. Efficacy, duration, and implications for clinical application. Contraception. 1997;55(6):327–36. StatCompiler DHS. Mukanga B, Mwila N, Nyirenda HT, Daka V. Perspectives on the side effects of hormonal contraceptives among women of reproductive age in Kitwe district of Zambia: a qualitative explorative study. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23:436. Castle S. Factors Influencing Young Malians’ Reluctance to Use Hormonal Contraceptives. Stud Fam Plann. 2003;34(3):186–99. Cleland J, Shah IH, Benova L. A Fresh Look at the Level of Unmet Need for Family Planning in the Postpartum Period, Its Causes And Program Implications. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2015;41(3):155–62. Bhatia S, Kim YJ. Oral Contraception in Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plann. 1984;15(5):233–41. Baqui AH, Ahmed S, Begum N, Khanam R, Mohan D, Harrison M et al. Impact of integrating a postpartum family planning program into a community-based maternal and newborn health program on birth spacing and preterm birth in rural Bangladesh. J Glob Health 8(2):020406. Karra M, Maggio D, Guo M, Ngwira B, Canning D. The causal effect of a family planning intervention on women’s contraceptive use and birth spacing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(22):e2200279119. High Impact Practices in Family Planning (HIPs). HIP Partnership. 2022. Immediate postpartum family planning: a key component of childbirth care. https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/immediate-postpartum-family-planning/ World Health Organization. Programming strategies for postpartum family planning. World Health Organization. 2013. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241506496 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4818121","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":333730424,"identity":"b1245d9c-0068-4054-bfd2-da860ddd8217","order_by":0,"name":"Sarah Eustis-Guthrie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maternal Health Initiative","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Eustis-Guthrie","suffix":""},{"id":333730425,"identity":"b9fc7a00-3eed-4aa8-b7d2-9b696006b821","order_by":1,"name":"Ben Williamson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maternal Health Initiative","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ben","middleName":"","lastName":"Williamson","suffix":""},{"id":333730426,"identity":"e4329970-2825-4a5b-9b47-7cf8584c4e5c","order_by":2,"name":"Alhassan Mohammed Awal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norsaac","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alhassan","middleName":"Mohammed","lastName":"Awal","suffix":""},{"id":333730427,"identity":"2043d9d7-b91c-4e0e-aac8-e7bbfc4b694e","order_by":3,"name":"Anthony Suguru Abako","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norsaac","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anthony","middleName":"Suguru","lastName":"Abako","suffix":""},{"id":333730428,"identity":"57b38d36-1b4d-40fc-bc2b-f761c119df0e","order_by":4,"name":"Abdul Rahman Issah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norsaac","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdul","middleName":"Rahman","lastName":"Issah","suffix":""},{"id":333730429,"identity":"fe3e7238-d21c-46d0-8bc4-a1c71d28fe0d","order_by":5,"name":"Catherine Fist","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maternal Health Initiative","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Catherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Fist","suffix":""},{"id":333730430,"identity":"9b0cbb19-5c3f-4810-842c-9b6173e232c1","order_by":6,"name":"Sofía Martínez Gálvez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maternal Health Initiative","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sofía","middleName":"Martínez","lastName":"Gálvez","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-28 21:38:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":61811089,"identity":"8890e135-adea-4dbc-842e-1f9a693e802e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-05 20:23:31","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":300273,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTiming of Postnatal Care Appointments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4818121/v1/b439dd95b3c34e38d155e299.jpeg"},{"id":61811090,"identity":"9402f4eb-8020-4314-9acc-3bba0b8b3b57","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-05 20:23:33","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":420530,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4818121/v1/e40b4d1ef4461b00ba62adc8.jpeg"},{"id":61811793,"identity":"52f29d02-f155-4979-8b1c-d11db0036637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-05 20:31:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1740642,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4818121/v1/1848f63b-d26e-457d-b365-509a9a63a453.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluating two models of postpartum family planning counseling on contraceptive uptake: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study in Ghana","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Case for Family Planning Interventions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePregnancy-related health outcomes are a leading cause of preventable death among both mothers and children. In 2020, 287,000 women and girls died due to either pregnancy or childbirth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). While a variety of approaches are necessary to combat this issue, comprehensive access to contraception could avert more than 30% of maternal deaths and 10% of child mortality globally (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContraceptive access provides a wide range of other potential benefits. The most significant of these may be increasing reproductive autonomy for women who want to space or limit births and currently have limited options for doing so. Increasing women\u0026rsquo;s reproductive autonomy has been linked to increased income, educational attainment, and subjective well-being (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). More than this, increasing autonomy represents a worthy and important goal in and of itself (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe maternal and infant mortality risks from short birth spacing make the postpartum period potentially a particularly valuable time for increased contraceptive access (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). Kozuki and Walker\u0026rsquo;s analysis of Demographic and Health Service (DHS) data across 47 countries suggests an 18% increase in neonatal mortality and a 21% increase in child mortality from short-spaced births (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). Changes in maternal mortality are more difficult to measure due to the lower incidence of maternal deaths but may be as significant as a 32% increase in mortality risk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgramming targeting Sub-Saharan Africa may be particularly worthwhile given that contraceptive rates across the region are less than half of the global average while over half of young women with unmet need for family planning will live in the region by 2030 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the risks of short birth spacing are likely intensified in the region due to more fragile healthcare systems and additional financial and location constraints on accessing care (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies in other contexts have shown that integrating family planning guidance into postnatal care or child immunization appointments can be an effective way of increasing contraceptive uptake and reducing unmet need (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17 CR18 CR19 CR20\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese studies have adopted a variety of approaches to increasing contraceptive uptake in the postpartum period. The strongest increases in uptake appear to be associated with immediate postpartum family planning, particularly in programs with a focus on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) delivery in the first 48 hours after birth. This model of programming was not selected for this study due to concerns about freedom of choice and reproductive decision-making when information on certain methods is prioritized. Concerns around \u0026ldquo;LARC-first\u0026rdquo; programming have been discussed extensively, but nevertheless appear relatively under-addressed (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23 CR24\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). These concerns are supported by studies highlighting broader issues with unintentional coercion in family planning programming due to biased counseling, provider reluctance to remove LARCs, and an excess emphasis on uptake targets (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e). In response to these concerns, the design of counseling materials and counseling approach in this study avoided any prioritization of methods and focused on centering client preferences when selecting methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntervention Rationale\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was delivered in Ghana, one of several countries in West Africa where increases in contraceptive uptake have lagged behind global trends. Ghana had an average contraceptive uptake of 27% in 2018 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), significantly lower than the global average of 48.5% (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, recent data suggests that 30% of women in Ghana have an unmet need for contraception, meaning many women would like to space or limit their births but are not using contraception (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). This study took place in the Northern region of Ghana, which has among the lowest uptake of modern contraceptives in the country, at 17% (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne potential barrier to higher rates of family planning is insufficient counseling quality (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e). It is the official policy of the Ghana Health Service that all postnatal care should include family planning counseling and services (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). However, prior research has indicated that the consistency and quality of family planning services in the postpartum period varies in practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Based on this perceived gap, our study aimed to test the impact on family planning acceptor rates in the Northern Region of two models integrating consistent, high-quality family planning counseling into routine care.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese models were: 1) the provision of one-to-one family planning counseling during routine postnatal care (PNC) appointments; 2) the implementation of short family planning messaging and a referral system as part of normal child welfare clinic (CWC) sessions. In Ghana, postnatal care sessions are one-to-one appointments between a provider and the mother delivered from 0\u0026ndash;6 weeks post-birth. Child welfare clinics are group sessions focused on child weighing and immunization delivered from 6 weeks to 2 years after birth. See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study provided high-quality training to frontline staff who deliver either postnatal care appointments or child immunization sessions. In doing so, the study sought to replicate results from Asah-Opoku et al. and Dulli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). These studies showed increased consistency of family planning counseling and increased contraceptive uptake after training public healthcare staff in integrating counseling into routine care. As part of the training, providers were given materials and instruction on a system of counseling designed to be integrated into the routine care offered during Ghana Health Service appointments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEvidence for Intervention Models\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two intervention models were selected based on an extensive review of the evidence supporting different approaches to increasing contraceptive knowledge and uptake. Both approaches are supported by numerous randomized control trials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a prior study in Ghana, Asah-Opoku et al. found that contraceptive uptake was 12.6% for clients who received group counseling and 51% for those who received individual counseling in postnatal care (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). We based the design of the PNC intervention package in this study on Asah-Opoku et al.\u0026rsquo;s work. We aimed to reproduce their results through a streamlined intervention package suitable for scale-up through the Ghana Health Service.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDulli et al. delivered a randomized control trial in Rwanda that integrated family planning into child immunization services (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). This study found a 15% greater uptake of contraception in the intervention group in comparison to the control group, without any negative impact on child immunization rates. Similar models in Egypt, Malawi, and Liberia have also reported positive outcomes (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR37\" citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e). However, a previous study that attempted to integrate family planning into immunizations in Ghana encountered significant implementation challenges and did not find any increases in uptake (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e). We designed the CWC intervention package for this study to replicate the work of Dulli et al. in a manner that would overcome the implementation challenges encountered by Vance et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch3\u003eStudy Design and Sampling\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used a two-arm non-randomized repeated cross-sectional design to evaluate the two intervention packages. We surveyed 205 women receiving routine care prior to the implementation of the intervention: 100 in the PNC arm and 105 in the CWC arm. We subsequently surveyed 226 women receiving the intervention package post-intervention: 106 in the PNC arm and 120 in the CWC arm. See Figure 2. This study design was selected to reduce the possibility of contamination between the control and treatment groups; furthermore, as only approximately 3 months elapsed between the collection of treatment and control data, changes in contraceptive uptake due to exogenous factors were minimized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study took place at six hospitals in the Northern Region of Ghana. At the time of the study, there were 15 district hospitals across the Northern Region of Ghana. The sample of six\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003efacilities selected across six districts - with a mix of urban, peri-urban and more rural hospitals - aimed to provide a representative sample of care at hospitals across the Northern Region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDistrict hospitals were selected as the primary sampling unit due to higher anticipated client flow that would ease data collection and maximize the number of clients reached by each trained provider. Facilities were divided between the two intervention packages to ensure a comparable geographic spread. The following hospitals were allocated to the postnatal care package: Bimbilla, Gushegu, and Yendi Hospital. The following hospitals were allocated to the child immunization package: Karaga, Kpandai, and Zabzugu.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSampling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample size for clients was selected to exceed the baseline number of participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eneeded to do a regression analysis according to the principles set forth by (40). See Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria for clients participating in the study were that they had:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelivered a live birth in the last 12 months\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAttended a child immunization or postnatal care at one of the targeted facilities on the day of surveying\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients were sampled while exiting appointments from the six facilities. The implementation team approached clients, explained the study, and asked if they met the selection criteria. If clients met the criteria, they were offered a stipend of 20 cedis to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Sample Sizes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" width=\"553\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35.9885px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 70.9885px;\" rowspan=\"2\" width=\"292\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAllocation \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35.9885px;\" colspan=\"2\" width=\"261\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eBaseline\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eEndline\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"292\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntervention 1: Postnatal care package\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"292\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntervention 2: Child welfare clinic package\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"292\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e205\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"130\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e226\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTimeline of Activities\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was split into three phases of programming. Phases 1 and 3 were the same for both intervention arms. During Phase 2, three facilities received the postnatal care package and three received the child welfare clinic package.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003ePhase 1: Formative Research\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo begin, the study team engaged facility-level stakeholders to understand the feasibility of implementing the intervention packages at the selected facilities. Previous research has indicated the importance of designing interventions in a participatory manner, including incorporating input from service providers and other stakeholders (18). Speaking to facility directors highlighted the need for an adaptable program with the structure of care differing between facilities. It also emphasized the importance of making the materials self-explanatory to better account for likely staff turnover or rotation around the facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom here, the team conducted baseline data collection through structured questionnaires delivered in person to clients who met the inclusion criteria at the target facilities. A follow-up questionnaire was delivered by mobile phone 14 days after in-person surveying to assess contraceptive uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003ePhase 2: Implementation of Intervention Packages\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth intervention packages included the following activities:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Training for providers on 1:1 family planning counseling \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA single one-day training session was held for each intervention package with providers selected from the target facilities. While the project team intended to only invite providers from the intervention units (PNC or CWC), hospital administrators selected providers from multiple departments for attendance. This included staff who provided immediate postpartum services at the maternity ward but were not part of the Reproductive and Child Health team.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sessions were tailored to the postpartum period. They focused on guidance and practice in a model of counseling designed to be feasible for providers to consistently deliver in a way that would increase the quality of routine postnatal contraceptive counseling. Providers\u0026rsquo; knowledge and attitudes were tested after the training to assess its effectiveness and potential barriers to implementation, with questions such as \u0026lsquo;Which methods can be safely used by breastfeeding mothers at one month post-delivery?\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Program champions \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne provider was selected from each target facility to act as a \u0026lsquo;Program Champion\u0026rsquo;. These were selected by the facility director, with their name and contact details passed onto the project team. Program Champions were responsible for ensuring the program was consistently implemented at their facility, and for highlighting any barriers to implementation promptly so that the project team could coordinate with the facility to address these. These aims were achieved in part by collecting and submitting routine data on referral and counseling rates to the project team. They were also responsible for ensuring that all relevant providers - including those unable to attend the in-person training - were given clear guidance on the intervention and how to use the materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach Program Champion had to pass a knowledge test to be accepted into the role. They received a small stipend every two weeks upon submission of short observation, client, and facility data surveys, as well as a weekly WhatsApp check-in.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Ongoing monitoring activities through implementation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious investigations of postpartum contraceptive counseling have been undermined by significant implementation challenges (39). As such, the project team implemented multiple further monitoring activities in addition to recruiting Program Champions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe team conducted phone surveys of a small sample (n=54) of clients to assess the quality of implementation at the midpoint of the intervention period. These surveys focused on assessing the frequency with which healthcare staff at the facilities used the counseling materials during the appropriate appointments. Phone numbers for clients were provided by each facility\u0026rsquo;s Program Champion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experimental WhatsApp tool was also developed. This aimed to increase providers\u0026rsquo; retention of training knowledge while engaging them in direct monitoring to maximize their adherence to the counseling model. This system allowed the project team to send an automated program of interactive content to every healthcare provider who participated in the training. Program Champions collected the phone numbers of any providers at the target facilities who were not able to attend the in-person training so that they could receive the key messages of the training through this WhatsApp system. For the postnatal care program, we sent a weekly survey of around five questions. For the child welfare clinic program, we sent a fortnightly survey of around 10-15 questions with the provision of a small airtime incentive as compensation for the time this took. Completion of the questionnaires was significant, particularly for those receiving the airtime incentive, suggesting that this is a viable strategy for direct provider engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003ePhase 3: Evaluation\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEndline surveying took place six weeks after the training sessions and initiation of the intervention packages. Client and provider surveys were delivered to assess provisional changes in knowledge, attitudes and contraceptive uptake rate. While a longer assessment period may have been beneficial, we believe that six weeks was more than sufficient time for quality implementation to occur that would allow for a robust indication of each program\u0026rsquo;s value based on the pre-post assessment model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSample size and data collection questions were kept the same at the endline as for the baseline, with the addition of a few other questions to improve the contextual understanding of implementation quality and program value. With permission from the Regional Health Directorate and each facility, the project team collected government facility data capturing the monthly facility records for key metrics. However, some records were missing from the datasets and there were issues with the consistency and reliability of data received. As such, we have excluded this data from our assessment of program results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eTimeline of Activity\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSee Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. Timeline of Activity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" width=\"600\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"107\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAugust-September 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"493\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhase 1 - Formative Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe refined the program design through engagement with facility stakeholders and baseline data collection. We completed baseline data collection by administering structured questionnaires to postpartum women at facilities alongside a questionnaire for facility directors. We then followed up with clients 14 days after the initial questionnaires via mobile phone to assess contraceptive uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"107\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOctober - November 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"493\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhase 2 - Implementation of Intervention Packages\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe delivered training sessions in October 2023, including an assessment of providers\u0026rsquo; contraceptive knowledge and attitudes towards contraceptive use. We commenced implementation at the facilities immediately post-training, pairing this with ongoing monitoring work to ascertain the quality of implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"107\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNovember 2023 - January 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"493\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhase 3 - Evaluation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted endline data collection six weeks post-training through structured questionnaires with postpartum women at the intervention facilities. We supplemented this with mobile phone surveying 14 days later. We held the questions used for data analysis and the structure of surveying constant between the baseline and endline surveying.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eLimitations\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs data was only collected from mothers on a handful of days, the data represents only a snapshot of the care provided at facilities pre- and post-intervention. As a result, any differences to care provided on days when surveyors were present could have a disproportionate effect on the results. Additionally, data on contraceptive use was self-reported; hence, it may be vulnerable to issues such as social desirability bias. While the sample was sufficiently large to draw overall conclusions, the conclusions for particular subgroups are less robust due to the smaller sample size. Finally, we were unable to use facility data to examine the effect of programming on longer-run trends in contraceptive uptake due to issues with the consistency and reliability of the facility data we received.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntervention Package\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eIntervention Arm 1: Postnatal Care (PNC)\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis intervention package was implemented at Yendi, Gushegu and Bimbilla hospitals. Counseling materials were provided to every training attendee, with additional copies for relevant providers at each facility who were unable to attend the training day. Providers at the PNC session were given a counseling guide, method cards, and a \u0026lsquo;Method Information Booklet\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe focus of this intervention was to increase the frequency and quality with which family planning counseling is included in one-to-one counseling sessions. The intervention package had three main aims:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInclude family planning counseling as part of every 1:1 postnatal appointment.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUse MHI\u0026rsquo;s Counseling Guide as a framework for this discussion, with the Method Cards and Method Information Booklet used as key resources in this framework. The discussion should take around 20 minutes, depending on the number of questions from the client.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffer a method directly, or a referral to the family planning unit, for women who express an interest in taking up a method of birth spacing at the end of the counseling discussion.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA novel counseling guide was designed for the intervention. This was targeted specifically at the postnatal period and designed to integrate into the existing structure of appointments at Ghana Health Service facilities. The counseling guide provided an overall structure for the counseling session and acted as a job aid for remembering the training while delivering counseling. The counseling guide was supplemented with method cards that aimed to make appointments interactive and client-centered, two markers of improved quality of care identified in prior literature (41). These acted as a visual tool for clients to indicate their key preferences and which kinds of methods they were most interested in.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll attendees also received a \u0026lsquo;Method Information Booklet\u0026rsquo; with an extensive explanation of family planning methods. This acted as a reference tool for providers to look up more complex or detailed information about different methods, including side effect profiles, effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, risk factors to screen for before method provision, and the mechanism for taking the method. Finally, the referral card acted as a practical reminder to clients who expressed interest in a method that was not available for provision during the routine appointment, either due to stock shortages or the need for insertion by a trained specialist.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eIntervention Arm 2: Child Welfare Clinics (CWC)\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis intervention package was implemented at Zabzugu, Karaga, and Kpandai hospitals. Counseling materials were provided to every training attendee, with additional copies for relevant providers at each facility who were unable to attend the training day.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the CWC session, providers were given a group talk flipchart, 1:1 counseling card, and referral cards for directing people to the Family Planning Unit. Similarly, all materials were designed specifically for this intervention to ensure their relevance to postpartum counseling and their ability to integrate into existing systems of care at public health facilities in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe child welfare clinic intervention was designed to consist of three key components. These were a group talk, one-to-one messaging, and a referral system. The intended process for delivering these is described below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProviders include family planning messaging in every group talk given while women wait for their child to be called up for weighing and immunization, using MHI\u0026rsquo;s streamlined \u0026lsquo;Birth Spacing Group Talk\u0026rsquo; flipchart as a guide.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProviders offering immunizations have a very short one-to-one family planning discussion with each woman as her child is vaccinated using the \u0026lsquo;Birth Spacing Card\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProviders offer women the option of a streamlined referral for family planning at the end of this one-to-one engagement, using a system of referral cards to make it simple for women to receive a method that day should they choose to do so.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026lsquo;Birth Spacing Group Talk\u0026rsquo; flipchart was designed so that the group talk would take no more than 10 minutes and be feasible to implement even at busy CWC sessions. The flipchart leads providers and clients through a discussion of the range of methods available to clients, how to safely take methods and manage their side effects, and the benefits of receiving family planning counseling while at the facility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026lsquo;Birth Spacing Card\u0026rsquo; was designed for use by providers directly administering immunizations to children after they have been weighed and their health records have been recorded. Providers were asked to counsel every woman whose child they immunized. The card was designed so that the engagement would last 1-2 minutes at a maximum to ensure feasible implementation. This model was chosen to mirror the approach of (21).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA referral card system was paired with the \u0026lsquo;Birth Spacing Card\u0026rsquo;. All women who expressed interest in discussing family planning further received a referral card to take to the Family Planning Unit. These were designed to be discreet to pass between provider and client to maintain confidentiality. Referral cards acted as a physical reminder to the client to follow up on their family planning interest. They also indicated to providers at the Family Planning Unit of the hospital that the client had already received some family planning guidance and could receive a streamlined version of standard counseling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, all providers received a \u0026lsquo;Method Information Booklet\u0026rsquo; as a reference tool to answer more complex questions about contraceptive method use and provision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe surveying team obtained written, informed consent to participate from all clients and providers who participated in the study. All data was collected using the SurveyCTO system unless otherwise stated. All surveys and tests took place in private areas of the facilities where clients and providers could not be overheard, or via mobile phone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eSurveying Approach\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClients \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation team used the SurveyCTO platform to deliver structured questionnaires to clients at each of the target facilities. Clients were surveyed after they had received care, but before they left that unit of the hospital. At the end of these questionnaires, clients were asked if they would be willing to share their mobile phone number and answer a short follow-up call 14 days later. Follow-up phone surveying was included based on feedback received from local stakeholders during the intervention design. Stakeholders shared that women often take time to consult with their husbands or other family members before beginning a family planning method, and that delayed surveying would capture such uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions at baseline and endline day-of surveying focused on assessing the following: demographic characteristics; current contraceptive use and attitudes; quality and structure of family planning counseling as part of routine care; and plans and preferences for contraceptive uptake. Surveys delivered via phone at the 14-day phone follow-up were substantially briefer. These focused on current and intended contraceptive use alongside reasons for non-use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to issues with client flow at some of the intervention facilities, some baseline surveying was delivered over the phone rather than in person. These phone surveys used the same questionnaire structure and approach as the in-person surveying.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe used Pearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared test to evaluate our primary hypothesis: postpartum women in the post-intervention group will have a higher level of current and intended modern contraceptive use than postpartum women in the pre-intervention group across both intervention packages. When samples were small, Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test was used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared test was also used to evaluate the knowledge differences between pre- and post-intervention groups across the two arms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalyses were completed in R (version 4.3.2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s authors received ethical approval from the Navrongo Health Research Centre Institutional Review Board to undertake this research. The project team also engaged the Regional Health Directorate of the Ghana Health Service in the design and delivery of the intervention. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth in the Belmont Report. Participants were informed of their voluntary participation in the study and were free to withhold answers at any time. They were also free to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Their consent was obtained before the commencement of the interviews and any data collection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 3 presents the personal and socio-demographic characteristics of women in the two groups (pre-intervention and post-intervention) across the two arms. The pre- and post-intervention groups were similar within the two arms: most respondents were Muslim, currently married, and had an average age of 27-28. Education levels were similar between pre- and post-intervention groups, with median educational outcomes of elementary to junior secondary. Most respondents had previously used modern contraception and were currently abstinent. Breastfeeding was almost universal across the two arms, with a substantial fraction breastfeeding exclusively (86% and 92.5% pre- and post-intervention at PNC and 42.8% and 50.8% pre- and post-intervention at CWC). The two metrics with significant differences between the pre- and post-intervention groups were the number of days post-birth and sexual activity for the CWC arm: \u0026nbsp;in the post-intervention group, the average duration postpartum was 16.8% shorter and 14.4% fewer respondents were sexually active. Generally speaking, the pre- and post-intervention groups within each arm were similar, allowing for robust comparison between the two.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3. Background Characteristics of Study Participants by Arm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"615\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.178861788617887%\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.91056910569106%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003ePNC\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.91056910569106%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eCWC\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=106)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 105)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=120)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge (mean)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarital status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarried\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnmarried\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMuslim\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristian\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTraditional/Spiritual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eElementary\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJunior secondary\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh school\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of days post-birth (mean)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e149.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbstinent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.11%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBreastfeeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExclusively breastfeeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.26427406199021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePast use of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.43393148450245%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 presents data on implementation across the two arms. In the PNC arm, there was a moderate increase in the frequency of 1:1 family planning counseling from pre- to post-intervention. In the CWC arm, there was a significant increase in the incidence of the family planning group talk and 1:1 family planning counseling from baseline to endline. Substantial variation between facilities was observed. In the PNC arm, 1:1 counseling was significantly more common at Yendi than the other two hospitals, while in the CWC arm, 1:1 family planning counseling was moderately less common at Zabzugu than the other two hospitals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the PNC arm, the overall increase in 1:1 family planning guidance was largely driven by substantial increases at Yendi Hospital, where 1:1 counseling was received by 81% of clients at endline. Lower implementation at the other facilities was associated with low engagement from providers and facility leadership throughout the project and a change in Program Champion in the case of Bimbilla.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImplementation data is only suggestive, given that data was collected from clients at only a few days for each facility. There is limited evidence to suggest surveyor presence may have affected the reliability of results by increasing provider compliance, particularly in the case of 1:1 messaging at immunization. While formal surveying elicited nearly universally positive feedback from providers and clients, providers expressed frustration with the 1:1 messaging at immunization in informal conversations. Concerns centered on time pressures for both clients and providers that made the 1:1 engagements frustrating to implement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4. Implementation by Arm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003ePNC\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eCWC\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.567164179104477%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.940298507462687%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=106)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.992537313432836%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.194029850746269%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 105)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.753731343283581%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=120)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.552238805970148%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:1 Family Planning Counseling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.951845906902086%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBimbilla\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.27%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e28.57%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e26.30%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKaraga\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e20.00%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.112359550561798%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e62.86%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.520064205457464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.86%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.567164179104477%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGushegu\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e28.57%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.940298507462687%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e46.67%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.992537313432836%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e18.10%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKpandai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.194029850746269%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.86%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.753731343283581%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e68.57%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.552238805970148%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.71%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.567164179104477%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYendi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e31.43%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.940298507462687%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e80.95%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.992537313432836%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e49.52%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZabzugu\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.194029850746269%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.86%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.753731343283581%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e42.00%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.552238805970148%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.14%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.567164179104477%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eOverall\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e18.0%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.940298507462687%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e39.6%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.992537313432836%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e21.60%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.5%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eOverall\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.194029850746269%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e28.10%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.753731343283581%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e55.80%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.552238805970148%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e27.70%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup Talk on Family Planning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKaraga\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e37.14%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.112359550561798%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e68.57%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.520064205457464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e31.43%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKpandai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.388059701492537%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.86%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.507462686567163%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e77.14%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.104477611940297%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e74.28%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZabzugu\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.388059701492537%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.71%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.507462686567163%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e74.00%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.104477611940297%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e68.29%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eOverall\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.388059701492537%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15.20%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.507462686567163%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e72.50%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.104477611940297%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e57.30%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTables 5 and 6 present data on self-reported change in actual and intended contraceptive use across the two arms between pre- and post-intervention. Table 5 includes data collected on the day of surveying (or, in several cases, on the day immediately following), while Table 6 includes data collected at the 2-week phone follow-up. While phone follow-up was attempted for all respondents, attrition was high due to phone non-use and unavailability. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo statistically significant effects on actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm were observed at immediate surveying. In the PNC arm, contraceptive use increased from 2% to 5% and intended use decreased from 67.4% to 67.3% from baseline to endline; in the CWC arm, contraceptive use decreased from 15.2% to 14.2% and intended use increased from 65.9% to 74.8% from baseline to endline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData from 2-week phone surveying suggests a statistically significant 22 percentage point increase in contraceptive use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.000447) and a 25.3 percentage point increase in intended use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .0187) in the PNC arm from baseline to endline and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm. In the CWC arm, contraceptive use decreased from 15.4% to 13.6% and intended use increased from 59.1% to 70.6%.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5. Difference in Actual and Intended Contraceptive Use by Arm (Immediate surveying)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePNC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCWC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.791332263242376%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003evalue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.470304975922954%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003evalue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.791332263242376%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.470304975922954%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.791332263242376%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.446\u003csup\u003e☨\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.470304975922954%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.821\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en = 98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en = 101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.791332263242376%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en = 88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.470304975922954%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en = 103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntended use of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.272873194221509%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.30%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.791332263242376%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.998\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.470304975922954%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.038523274478331%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.181\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: p-values calculated using Pearson\u0026apos;s chi-squared unless indicated otherwise\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e☨\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;= Fisher\u0026apos;s exact test, used due to small sample size\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample sizes for current and intended use differ due to the fact that current users of modern contraception were not asked about intended use\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6. Difference in Actual and Intended Contraceptive Use by Arm (2 week phone follow-up)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePNC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.017656500802566%\" colspan=\"4\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCWC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003evalue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003evalue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=41)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=59)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000447\u003csup\u003e☨\u003c/sup\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.794\u003csup\u003e☨\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=44)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=51)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.964686998394864%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntended use of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.30%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.30%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0187*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.43338683788122%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.630818619582664%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.199036918138042%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754414125200642%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.241\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNote: p-values calculated using Pearson\u0026apos;s chi-squared unless indicated otherwise\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e☨\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Fisher\u0026apos;s exact test, used due to small sample size\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e* p \u0026lt; .05\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e** p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample sizes for current and intended use differ due to the fact that current users of modern contraception were not asked about intended use.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was significant attrition in both arms of the phone surveying, with only 46.9% of respondents reached; additionally, levels of attrition were higher at endline than baseline. This substantially reduces the sample size and therefore the robustness of these results. However, the demographics of both groups are generally similar; see Table 7.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7. Background Characteristics for Phone Respondents and Non-Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"476\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhone Respondents (n=196)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhone Non-Respondents (n=216)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMuslim\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.61%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.07%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristian\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.39%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.54%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTraditional/Spiritual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.12%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.72%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eElementary\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.73%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.28%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJunior secondary\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.41%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.91%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh school\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.76%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSexually active\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.73%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePast use of modern contraception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.61%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.41%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurrent use of modern contraception*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.333333333333336%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.72%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e* according to in-person surveying\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDue to inconsistencies in one step of data collection, data on background characteristics is unavailable for 6 phone respondents and 13 non-respondents and thus omitted from the table above.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8 presents data on knowledge differences among respondents. The data indicates a moderate increase in knowledge regarding the duration of LAM in both arms, suggesting that there was some knowledge transmission from providers to clients associated with the intervention. In the PNC arm, there was a moderate decrease in correct answers regarding side effects, raising concerns about misinformation provided in individual counseling sessions; however, there was only minimal change on this metric in the CWC arm.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data also indicates high levels of baseline knowledge regarding the importance of healthy birth intervals in both arms, suggesting that education on this topic may be less valuable for the respondents targeted in this study. Additionally, there was a moderate increase in knowledge concerning return to fertility in the CWC arm but only minimal change in the PNC arm, suggesting that this topic may have been addressed in group but not individual sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8. Knowledge Differences by Arm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.628205128205128%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"41.18589743589744%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePNC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"41.18589743589744%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCWC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.57188498402556%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=106)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference (percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 105)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=120)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(percentage points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.57188498402556%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTiming of Return to Fertility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.8%**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.57188498402556%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealthy Birth Intervals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.57188498402556%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDuration of LAM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.1%*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.6%**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.57188498402556%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSide Effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-14.6%**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.738019169329073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: p-values calculated using Pearson\u0026apos;s chi-squared unless indicated otherwise\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e* p \u0026lt; .05\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e** p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9 presents data on reasons for non-use, according to post-intervention phone surveying. Responses were similar between the two arms, with some variation: the most common reasons provided include breastfeeding, abstinence, and attitude of husband/partner. 21.6% of respondents in the CWC arm selected \u0026ldquo;other,\u0026rdquo; among whom most disclosed that they were waiting for their period to return. A substantial minority chose not to disclose a reason. Less commonly cited reasons included concerns about side effects and not wanting to use contraception. No respondents stated that they were unable to access contraception or willing to become pregnant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9. Reasons for Non-Use by Arm (2 week phone follow-up, endline)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"325\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePNC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCWC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEndline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n= 51)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBreastfeeding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbstinence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHusband/partner attitude\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDo not want to answer\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConcerns about side effects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDo not want to use contraception\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnable to access\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.07692307692308%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWilling to become pregnant\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.076923076923077%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.846153846153847%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote that respondents could select multiple responses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eImmediate surveying indicated no statistically significant changes to actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm associated with the intervention. Results from two-week phone surveying, however, suggest a 22% increase in contraceptive use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.000447) and a 25.3% increase in intended use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0187) post-intervention in the PNC arm, and a non-significant 1.8% decrease in contraceptive use (p = 0.794) and non-significant 11.5% increase in intended use (p = 0.24) in the CWC arm. As many women consult with their husbands before starting a method, we expected higher rates of contraceptive use at follow-up surveys; however, it is surprising that no changes to intended use were present at immediate surveying. While there was a high rate of attrition between the in-person and phone follow-up, the background characteristics of respondents and non-respondents were similar, which suggests that differences in responses by phone likely result from the intervention rather than differences in the groups sampled. However, given that the sample size for the phone survey was substantially smaller, its results should be taken as suggestive rather than decisive. Taken together, the results suggest that the CWC arm had no effects on contraceptive use and a small, non-significant increase in intended use, while the PNC arm likely led to a moderate increase in actual and intended contraceptive use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the relatively small sample size and lack of randomization limit the generalizability of the findings, the study contributes to the evidence base for postpartum family planning programming, suggesting that lighter-touch family planning programming in the postpartum period may be more likely to produce only limited changes to contraceptive uptake in some contexts. \u0026nbsp;The lack of change in uptake in the CWC arm aligns with previous findings by Vance et al. in Ghana and Zambia, but contrasts with more successful results in Rwanda\u0026nbsp;(21,39). The mixed findings in the PNC arm stand in contrast with several more successful studies; however, a significant proportion of studies evaluating facility-based programming involved a heavier-touch approach or emphasized LARCs such as intrauterine devices (IUDs)\u0026nbsp;(18\u0026ndash;20,42).\u0026nbsp;The lighter touch approach we took in the PNC arm, involving adding family planning into only postnatal appointments in the first 6 weeks postpartum, may account for the less successful results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther aspects of the results cast doubt on the usefulness of the uptake associated with the intervention, regardless of its magnitude. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence reported by respondents in both arms suggest that the reported changes in contraceptive uptake may have limited short-term effects in reducing unintended pregnancies. These results, considered alongside previous studies finding limited to no effects on pregnancy rates from facility-based postpartum programming in areas with high levels of postpartum insusceptibility, cast doubt on the usefulness and efficacy of family planning programming focused on the postpartum period in such regions\u0026nbsp;(43\u0026ndash;45).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh levels of abstinence reported in this study \u0026ndash; 96% at baseline and 98.1% at endline in the PNC arm and 67.6% at baseline and 81.7% at endline in the CWC arm \u0026ndash; suggest a high level of existing protection against pregnancy, which reduces interest in contraceptive uptake as well as its impact. Near-universal levels of breastfeeding reported here also reduce the usefulness of contraceptive uptake. DHS data substantiates that postpartum abstinence and breastfeeding are both long-duration in the Northern region, with median durations of 4.7 and 20.5 months, respectively; note, however, that levels of postpartum abstinence in the CWC arm were higher than those reflected in DHS data\u0026nbsp;(32).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBreastfeeding \u0026ndash; particularly exclusive breastfeeding \u0026ndash; has been shown to delay the return of ovulation, a biological necessity for pregnancy\u0026nbsp;(46). While the WHO defines LAM in strict, time-limited terms, numerous studies indicate that breastfeeding, amenorrheic women are at significantly reduced risk of pregnancy at one year postpartum and beyond than their non-breastfeeding, menstruating peers\u0026nbsp;(47\u0026ndash;50). Due to the combined effects of prolonged postpartum abstinence and high rates of breastfeeding, most African countries report long durations of postpartum insusceptibility, the inability to become pregnant due to amenorrhea. DHS data reflecting 44 African countries indicates a mean of 14.2 months of postpartum insusceptibility across the continent\u0026nbsp;(51).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLong-lasting postpartum insusceptibility significantly reduces the impact of family planning uptake in the first year postpartum. New users of contraception who are already protected by abstinence and/or breastfeeding will not incur additional benefits from modern forms of contraception; indeed, they may merely incur the burden of side effects\u0026nbsp;(52,53). Increases in family planning uptake are primarily valuable insofar as they allow women to avert mistimed or unintended pregnancies. If most users of postpartum programming are already protected, few mistimed or unintended pregnancies will be averted. While some pregnancies are likely still averted - due to shifts in attitude that lead to subsequent uptake or immediate contraceptive uptake that lasts beyond the period of postpartum insusceptibility \u0026ndash; high rates of contraceptive discontinuation diminish these effects\u0026nbsp;(54,55).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndeed, multiple recent studies suggest that facility-based postpartum programming may have limited to no effect on rates of unintended or short-spaced pregnancies in regions with prolonged postpartum insusceptibility. Of the three studies we identified that measure the effects of facility-based postpartum family planning programming on pregnancy rates, studies in Tanzania and Burkina Faso found no effect\u0026nbsp;(43,44), while one in Nepal found only a 0.7% absolute decrease in short-spaced pregnancies\u0026nbsp;(45)\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eMore research investigating this area is needed, but these results tentatively suggest that prolonged postpartum insusceptibility may significantly reduce the effects of postpartum programming on pregnancy rates. High rates of prolonged abstinence and amenorrhea among postpartum women\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; as found in our study\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;may substantially reduce the level of additional protection against pregnancy conferred by modern contraceptive methods. While community-based programs in Bangladesh and Malawi have shown more promising results regarding short-spaced pregnancies, these programs were significantly heavier-touch and not geographically representative\u0026nbsp;(56,57). Further research is needed, but one possibility is that such programs more successfully reach women at high risk of short-spaced pregnancies than their lighter-touch counterparts at facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbstinence and breastfeeding were key drivers of non-use among those surveyed, cited by more than half of respondents as a reason for non-use of contraceptives. Respondents demonstrated strong knowledge of the importance of healthy birth spacing. This suggests that a lack of knowledge regarding the benefits of birth spacing is not a key barrier to increased postpartum contraceptive uptake. This aligns with the literature more broadly. Gahungu et al., a systematic review of the drivers of unmet need in the postpartum period, found that amenorrhea, abstinence, and low perceived pregnancy risk were key drivers of non-use, alongside fear of side effects and husband opposition\u0026nbsp;(13). Dulli et al. \u0026ndash; which evaluated immunization integration in Rwanda \u0026ndash; similarly identified amenorrhea and breastfeeding as among the most significant factors cited among non-users\u0026nbsp;(21). Lowered interest in contraceptives due to abstinence and breastfeeding may contribute to the lower-than-expected implementation levels observed in this study: if providers do not feel that clients will be interested in or benefit from a service, it is understandable that they may decide not to provide it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePostpartum family planning is widely recommended, having been identified as a \u0026ldquo;proven high-impact practice\u0026rdquo; and endorsed by major institutions in the sexual and reproductive health space\u0026nbsp;(58,59). These recommendations rest on an impressive number of studies indicating short-term increases in contraceptive use due to postpartum programming\u0026nbsp;(17,18,21). However, these recommendations do not take into account recent studies showing minimal to no effects on rates of pregnancy from this programming. High rates of abstinence and breastfeeding suggest that the increases in contraceptive use found in these studies may have a significantly reduced effect on endline outcomes in comparison to family planning programming that targets other touchpoints, and hence significantly reduced value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the limited resources available for these interventions, our results suggest that postpartum family planning programming may be significantly less effective than currently considered in contexts with long-duration postpartum insusceptibility. The fact that many studies continue to find modest improvements in uptake during the postpartum period despite this reduced interest suggests that increased family planning messaging at a time when women have higher levels of interest and risk could be highly promising. Furthermore, investment in interventions that engage women and their broader communities outside of the first year postpartum appears promising.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe intervention packages increased the rate of counseling on family planning and knowledge of family planning by women, but only produced suggestive increases in contraceptive uptake rates in the PNC arm and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm. Implementation was imperfect but sufficient to suggest that postpartum family planning counseling through lighter-touch models that emphasize broad method choice may be less effective in increasing contraceptive uptake than other interventions. High rates of abstinence and breastfeeding indicate a minimal risk of unwanted pregnancy for many clients in the first year after birth. This level of postpartum insusceptibility appears prevalent across much of Sub-Saharan Africa and may be a driver behind recent research suggesting that facility-based postpartum family planning programming produces minimal changes in pregnancy rates in some regions. This conclusion warrants further investigation given its implication that facility-based postpartum family planning work may be significantly less valuable than widely considered at this time in regions with prolonged postpartum insusceptibility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCWC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003echild welfare clinic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDHS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic and Health Service\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIUD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eintrauterine device\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLARC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elong-acting reversible contraception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePNC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epostnatal care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch4\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s authors received ethical approval from the Navrongo Health Research Centre Institutional Review Board to undertake this research. The project team also engaged the Regional Health Directorate of the Ghana Health Service in the design and delivery of the intervention. Participants were informed of their voluntary participation in the study and were free to withhold answers at any time. They were also free to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Their consent was obtained before the commencement of the interviews and any data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated by the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eFunding\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was funded by a collection of anonymous individual donors. Funders had no role in the design or implementation of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s contributions\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSE and BW designed the study protocol and instruments. CF contributed to the study protocol. BW, SE, ASA, ARI, AMA, and SMG coordinated the data collection and field implementation. BW and SE wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting, and revision and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful for the hard work of Enoch Weikem Weyori and the rest of the Norsaac team in delivering the surveying work. We thank Sulemana Hikimatu Tibangtaba for her skilful facilitation of the training sessions. We also thank the management staff of the Ghana Health Service Regional Health Directorate, as well as the staff for each of the intervention facilities, for their assistance in implementing this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, we are grateful to Jemima Jones and Wan Yun Tan for their assistance in analyzing the results of this study, as well as Marshall Thomas for his feedback on the data analysis and manuscript. Finally, thank you to the healthcare providers and clients who participated in this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eAuthor Information\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaternal Health Initiative \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;Sarah Eustis-Guthrie, Ben Williamson, Catherine Fist, and Sof\u0026iacute;a Mart\u0026iacute;nez G\u0026aacute;lvez\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorsaac\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;Alhassan Mohammed Awal, Anthony Suguru Abako, and Abdul Rahman Issah\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division., \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240068759\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240068759\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmed S, Li Q, Liu L, Tsui AO. Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):111\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, Faundes A, Glasier A, Innis J. Family planning: the unfinished agenda. Lancet Lond Engl. 2006;368(9549):1810\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCanning D, Schultz TP. The economic consequences of reproductive health and family planning. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):165\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB\u0026aring;ge K, K\u0026aring;gesten A, Fagbemi M, Utman O, Arunda MO, Britt-Inger, Puranen et al. Is Reproductive Agency Associated With Subjective Well-being? A Population-based Cross-sectional Study Among Men and Women in Four Sub-saharan African Countries Using the World Values Survey [PREPRINT]. 2023; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchsquare.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.researchsquare.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSenderowicz L, Higgins J. Reproductive Autonomy Is Nonnegotiable, Even in the Time of COVID-19. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;46:147\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Casta\u0026ntilde;o F, Norton MH. Effects of birth spacing on maternal, perinatal, infant, and child health: a systematic review of causal mechanisms. Stud Fam Plann. 2012;43(2):93\u0026ndash;114.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIslam MZ, Billah A, Islam MM, Rahman M, Khan N. Negative effects of short birth interval on child mortality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2022;12:04070.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWendt A, Gibbs CM, Peters S, Hogue CJ. Impact of increasing inter-pregnancy interval on maternal and infant health. Pediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(Suppl 10 1):239\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKozuki N, Walker N. Exploring the association between short/long preceding birth intervals and child mortality: using reference birth interval children of the same mother as comparison. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(Suppl 3):S6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Berm\u0026uacute;dez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(4):297\u0026ndash;308.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant C. Benefits of Investing in Family Planning. Institute of Development Studies; 2016 Dec. (K4D Helpdesk Research Report). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13288\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13288\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGahungu J, Vahdaninia M, Regmi PR. The unmet needs for modern family planning methods among postpartum women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of the literature. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman LA, Karp C, Magalona S, Shiferaw S, Seme A, Ahmed S. Exploring Multiple Measures of Pregnancy Preferences and Their Relationship with Postpartum Contraceptive Uptake Using Longitudinal Data from PMA Ethiopia. Stud Fam Plann. 2023;54(3):467\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRutstein SO. Effects of preceding birth intervals on neonatal, infant and under-five years mortality and nutritional status in developing countries: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89(S1):S7\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWayessa MB, Abebe TW, Habtewold EM, Adlo AM, Teklu AM, Abeya SG, et al. Focused Family Planning Counseling Increases Immediate Postpartum Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Uptake: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Open Access J Contracept. 2020;11:91\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaeed GA, Fakhar S, Rahim F, Tabassum S. Change in trend of contraceptive uptake\u0026ndash;effect of educational leaflets and counseling. Contraception. 2008;77(5):377\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran NT, Seuc A, Coulibaly A, Landoulsi S, Millogo T, Sissoko F, et al. Post-partum family planning in Burkina Faso (Yam Daabo): a two group, multi-intervention, single-blinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1109\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran NT, Seuc A, Tshikaya B, Mutuale M, Landoulsi S, Kini B, et al. Effectiveness of post-partum family planning interventions on contraceptive use and method mix at 1 year after childbirth in Kinshasa, DR Congo (Yam Daabo): a single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(3):e399\u0026ndash;410.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePearson E, Senderowicz L, Pradhan E, Francis J, Muganyizi P, Shah I, et al. Effect of a postpartum family planning intervention on postpartum intrauterine device counseling and choice: evidence from a cluster-randomized trial in Tanzania. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDulli LS, Eichleay M, Rademacher K, Sortijas S, Nsengiyumva T. Meeting Postpartum Women\u0026rsquo;s Family Planning Needs Through Integrated Family Planning and Immunization Services: Results of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):73\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEeckhaut MCW, Hara Y. Reproductive Oppression Enters the Twenty-First Century: Pressure to Use Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) in the Context of LARC First. Socius. 2023;9:23780231231180378.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDehlendorf C, Perritt J. Statewide Contraceptive Access Initiatives: A Critical Perspective. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S5):S490\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGomez AM, Mann ES, Torres V. It would have control over me instead of me having control\u0026rsquo;: intrauterine devices and the meaning of reproductive freedom. Crit Public Health. 2018;28(2):190\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrandi K, Fuentes L. The history of tiered-effectiveness contraceptive counseling and the importance of patient-centered family planning care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(4):S873\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs MA, Tome L, Mays A, Kaller S, Harper CC, Freedman L. The Fine Line Between Informing and Coercing: Community Health Center Clinicians\u0026rsquo; Approaches to Counseling Young People About IUDs. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020;52(4):245\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGomez AM, Fuentes L, Allina A. Women or LARC First? Reproductive Autonomy and the Promotion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014;46(3):171\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSenderowicz L. I was obligated to accept: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion. Soc Sci Med. 2019;239:112531.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank Open Data. World Bank Open Data. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.worldbank.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.worldbank.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. Contraceptive Use by Method 2019: Data Booklet. UN. 2019. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210046527\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210046527\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsah-Opoku K, Mumuni K, Ameme DK, Mohammed AG, Samba A, Nkyekyer K. Effect of one-to-one versus group counseling on uptake of postpartum contraception in selected hospitals in Ghana: A prospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;161(3):794\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhana Statistical Service, Ghana ICF. DHS 2022. Accra, Ghana, and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2024 Jan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR387-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR387-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRominski SD, Sk Morhe E, Maya E, Manu A, Dalton VK. Comparing Women\u0026rsquo;s Contraceptive Preferences With Their Choices in 5 Urban Family Planning Clinics in Ghana. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(1):65\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhana, National Reproductive Health Service Policy and Standards: Third Edition. Ghana Health Service. ; 2014 Dec. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t\u0026amp;rct=j\u0026amp;q=\u0026amp;esrc=s\u0026amp;source=web\u0026amp;cd=\u0026amp;cad=rja\u0026amp;uact=8\u0026amp;ved=2ahUKEwi3kOPCtvyEAxXtDjQIHebwB0QQFnoECB4QAQ\u0026amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fplatform.who.int%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fmca-documents%2Fpolicy-documents%2Fpolicy%2Fgha-cc-10-01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.google.com/url?sa=t\u0026amp;rct=j\u0026amp;q=\u0026amp;esrc=s\u0026amp;source=web\u0026amp;cd=\u0026amp;cad=rja\u0026amp;uact=8\u0026amp;ved=2ahUKEwi3kOPCtvyEAxXtDjQIHebwB0QQFnoECB4QAQ\u0026amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fplatform.who.int%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fmca-documents%2Fpolicy-documents%2Fpolicy%2Fgha-cc-10-01\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e-policy-2014-eng-national-reproductive-health-service-policy-and-standards.pdf\u0026amp;usg=AOvVaw0Pj9IecGnP1_2GayghEvbV\u0026amp;opi=89978449.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorhe ESK, Ankobea F, Asubonteng GO, Opoku B, Turpin CA, Dalton VK. Postpartum contraceptive choices among women attending a well-baby clinic in Ghana. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;138(2):219\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmed S, Norton M, Williams E, Ahmed S, Shah R, Begum N, et al. Operations research to add postpartum family planning to maternal and neonatal health to improve birth spacing in Sylhet District, Bangladesh. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):262\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooper CM, Wille J, Shire S, Makoko S, Tsega A, Schuster A, et al. Integrated Family Planning and Immunization Service Delivery at Health Facility and Community Sites in Dowa and Ntchisi Districts of Malawi: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4530.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooper CM, Fields R, Mazzeo CI, Taylor N, Pfitzer A, Momolu M, et al. Successful Proof of Concept of Family Planning and Immunization Integration in Liberia. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015;3(1):71\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVance G, Janowitz B, Chen M, Boyer B, Kasonde P, Asare G, et al. Integrating family planning messages into immunization services: a cluster-randomized trial in Ghana and Zambia. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(3):359\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreen SB. How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis. Multivar Behav Res. 1991;26(3):499\u0026ndash;510.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFox E, Reyna A, Malcolm NM, Rosmarin RB, Zapata LB, Frederiksen BN, et al. Client Preferences for Contraceptive Counseling:A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(5):691\u0026ndash;702.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarra M, Pearson E, Pradhan E, de Silva R, Samarasekera A, Canning D, et al. The effect of a postpartum IUD intervention on counseling and choice: Evidence from a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge trial in Sri Lanka. Trials. 2019;20:407.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRohr JK, Huber-Krum S, Rugarabamu A, Pearson E, Francis JM, Guo M, et al. Impact of a post-partum family planning intervention on contraception and fertility in Tanzania: two-year follow-up of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2024;29(1):24\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoulibaly A, Baguiya A, Garanet F, Tran NT, Millogo T, Yam\u0026eacute;ogo WME, et al. Yam Daabo interventions\u0026rsquo; effects on postpartum family planning use in Burkina Faso at 24 months after childbirth. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):946.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo M, Huber-Krum S, Shah I, Canning D. The Effect of Family Planning Counseling on Incident Pregnancy in Nepal. Stud Fam Plann. 2022;53(2):315\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKennedy KI, Visness CM. Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea. Lancet. 1992;339(8787):227\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamos R, Kennedy KI, Visness CM. Effectiveness of lactational amenorrhoea in prevention of pregnancy in Manila, the Philippines: non-comparative prospective trial. BMJ. 1996;313(7062):909\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKazi A, Kennedy KI, Visness CM, Khan T. Effectiveness of the lactational amenorrhea method in pakistan. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(4):717\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShort RV, Renfree MB, Shaw G, Lewis PR. Contraceptive effects of extended lactational amenorrhoea: beyond the Bellagio Consensus. Lancet. 1991;337(8743):715\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLabbok MH, Hight-Laukaran V, Peterson AE, Fletcher V, von Hertzen H, Van Look PF. Multicenter study of the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM): I. Efficacy, duration, and implications for clinical application. Contraception. 1997;55(6):327\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatCompiler DHS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMukanga B, Mwila N, Nyirenda HT, Daka V. Perspectives on the side effects of hormonal contraceptives among women of reproductive age in Kitwe district of Zambia: a qualitative explorative study. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23:436.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastle S. Factors Influencing Young Malians\u0026rsquo; Reluctance to Use Hormonal Contraceptives. Stud Fam Plann. 2003;34(3):186\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleland J, Shah IH, Benova L. A Fresh Look at the Level of Unmet Need for Family Planning in the Postpartum Period, Its Causes And Program Implications. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2015;41(3):155\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhatia S, Kim YJ. Oral Contraception in Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plann. 1984;15(5):233\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaqui AH, Ahmed S, Begum N, Khanam R, Mohan D, Harrison M et al. Impact of integrating a postpartum family planning program into a community-based maternal and newborn health program on birth spacing and preterm birth in rural Bangladesh. J Glob Health 8(2):020406.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarra M, Maggio D, Guo M, Ngwira B, Canning D. The causal effect of a family planning intervention on women\u0026rsquo;s contraceptive use and birth spacing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(22):e2200279119.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHigh Impact Practices in Family Planning (HIPs). HIP Partnership. 2022. Immediate postpartum family planning: a key component of childbirth care. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/immediate-postpartum-family-planning/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/immediate-postpartum-family-planning/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. Programming strategies for postpartum family planning. World Health Organization. 2013. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241506496\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241506496\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"postpartum family planning, contraception, family planning access, postnatal care","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating family planning programming into postpartum care is widely established as an effective approach to improve access to family planning. We conducted a pilot in 6 hospitals in northern Ghana to evaluate the effectiveness of two approaches at improving contraceptive uptake. These approaches were: 1) family planning counseling during postnatal care (PNC) appointments and; 2) family planning messaging and referrals during immunization/child welfare clinic (CWC) sessions in the first year postpartum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used a two-arm non-randomized repeated cross-sectional design. We surveyed 205 women pre-intervention and 226 women post-intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe observed no statistically significant effects on actual or intended contraceptive use in either arm at immediate surveying. Results from two-week phone surveying (n = 202) suggest a 22% increase in contraceptive use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01) and a 25.3% increase in intended use (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;.05) post-intervention in the PNC arm and no statistically significant effects in the CWC arm; however, this data is only suggestive due to its small sample size. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence suggest that the majority surveyed were not at high risk of pregnancy irrespective of modern contraceptive use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the relatively small sample size and non-randomized study design limit the generalizability of the findings, the results suggest that contraceptive counseling at CWC may have limited effect on contraceptive uptake, while counseling at PNC is more promising yet still mixed. High rates of breastfeeding and prolonged postpartum abstinence suggest that changes in contraceptive uptake in the first year postpartum in similar contexts may have a reduced effect on unintended pregnancies; this supports similar recent findings in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrial registration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluating two models of postpartum family planning counseling on contraceptive uptake: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional study in Ghana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-05 20:23:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4818121/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"451df4b7-14e0-494b-98c7-ddcd2120097d","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-08-05T20:23:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-05 20:23:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4818121","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4818121","identity":"rs-4818121","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}