English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

For accelerating its progress towards FP2020 goals, the Government of India has focused on improving the quality of intrauterine device (IUD) services. EngenderHealth has supported the Governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat since 2014 through its Expanding Access to IUD Services in India (EAISI) project by building the capacity of service providers, monitoring their compliance with standard practices, and strengthening health systems. This study sought to assess whether EAISI trained providers provide a better quality of IUD services as compared to non-EAISI trained providers, as indicated by a reduction in confirmed IUD complications?  This study was an analytical cross-sectional study of secondary data collected from the follow-up registers of 176 intervention facilities (138 in Rajasthan and 38 in Gujarat) during Phase I of EAISI project. The analysis included clients who returned between April 2018 and March 2019 to the same facility for a follow-up visit. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with IUD complications.  A total of 56,733 IUD insertions were conducted, and 10,747 (18.9%) client follow-ups were documented. Of these, 49.4% (N=5,305) clients received IUDs from EAISI-trained providers, while 50.6% (N=5,442) received IUDs from non-EAISI trained providers. A total of 4.0% (N=432) of clients experienced complications (Expulsion: 1.3%, Missing Strings: 1.7%, Infection: 1.1%). Clients who received IUDs from non-EAISI-trained providers were 55.5% more likely [95% CI (26.2%, 91.5%), p<0.0005] to have complications compared to clients who received insertions from EAISI-trained providers. Other significant factors include the type of IUD, timing of the follow-up visit and timing of the insertion.  The findings demonstrate that intensive, hands-on training of providers to improve clinical skills for IUD insertions can have a positive impact on the reduction of post-insertion complications.

Could trained providers provide better quality of IUD services? Results of a secondary data analysis of complications as a proxy indicator