Use of injectable hormonal contraceptives: diverging perspectives of women and men, service providers and policymakers in Uganda

References

• J Wajcman. Delivered into men's hands? The social construction of reproductive technology. G Sen, R Snow. Power and decision – the social control of reproduction. 1994; Harvard University Press: Boston.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Family Planning: Fact Sheet No.351. 2012; WHO: Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a technical working group. 1992; WHO: Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP) Knowledge for Health Project. Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers (2011 update). 2011; CCP and WHO: Baltimore and Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• S Malarcher, O Meirik, E Lebetkin. Provision of DMPA by community health workers: what the evidence shows. Contraception. 83(6): 2011; 495–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J Stanback, AK Mbonye, M Bekiita. Contraceptive injections by community health workers in Uganda: a nonrandomized community trial. Bulletin of World Health Organization. 85(10): 2007; 768–773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J Stanback, J Spieler, I Shah. Community-based health workers can safely and effectively administer injectable contraceptives: conclusions from a technical consultation. Contraception. 81(3): 2010; 181–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF International Inc. Uganda Demographic & Health Survey 2011. 2012; UBOS and Calverton MD: ICF International: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008, 6th ed. 2011; WHO: Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• S Singh, E Prada, F Mirembe. The incidence of induced abortion in Uganda. International Family Planning Perspectives. 31(4): 2005; 183–191.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uganda Ministry of Health. Uganda Reproductive Health Commodity Security Strategic Plan 2009/10–2013/14. 2009; MoH: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• Uganda Ministry of Health. Road Map for Accelerating the Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality and Morbidity in Uganda 2006–2015. 2008; MoH: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Macro International Inc. Uganda Service Provision Assessment Survey 2007. 2008; MoH: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• Chattoe-Brown A, Bitunda A. Reproductive Health Commodity Security – Uganda country case study: Commissioned jointly by the Department for International Development and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Uganda Ministry of Health. Annual Health Sector Performance Report 2010–11. 2011; Uganda MoH: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Macro International Inc. Uganda Demographic & Health Survey 2006. 2007; UBOS and Kampala: Macro International Inc: Calvertaon MD.
   Google Scholar
• S Khan, SEK Bradley, J Fishel. Unmet need and the demand for family planning in Uganda – further analysis of the Uganda Demographic & Health Surveys, 1995–2006. 2008; Macro International Inc: Calverton MD.
   Google Scholar
• L Nakato. Have you heard the rumour?. African Women & Health: a Safe Motherhood Magazine. 2(3): 1994; 23–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M Campbell, NN Sahin-Hodoglugil, M Potts. Barriers to fertility regulation: a review of the literature. Studies in Family Planning. 37(2): 2006; 87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Flaherty, W Kipp, I Mehangye. ‘We want someone with a face of welcome’: Ugandan adolescents articulate their family planning needs and priorities. Tropical Doctor. 35(1): 2005; 4–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LM Williamson, A Parkes, D Wight. Limits to modern contraceptive use among young women in developing countries: a systematic review of qualitative research. Reproductive Health. 6: 2009; 3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uganda Ministry of Health. Revised Reproductive Health Communication Strategy. 2009; Uganda MoH: Kampala.
   Google Scholar
• A Kaler. Health interventions and the persistence of rumour: the circulation of sterility stories in African public health campaigns. Social Science & Medicine. 68(9): 2009; 1711–1719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UH Graneheim, B Lundman. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 24(2): 2004; 105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N Rutenberg, SC Watkins. The buzz outside the clinics: conversations and contraception in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Studies in Family Planning. 28(4): 1997; 290–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Kaler, SC Watkins. Disobedient distributors: street-level bureaucrats and would-be patrons in community-based family planning programs in rural Kenya. Studies in Family Planning. 32(3): 2001; 254–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DK Kaye, M Mirembe, G Bantebya. Domestic violence as risk factor for unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 11(1): 2006; 90–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DK Kaye. Community perceptions and experiences of domestic violence and induced abortion in Wakiso district, Uganda. Qualitative Health Research. 16(8): 2006; 1120–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Contraception discontinuation and switching in developing countries, Research Policy Brief. 2012; WHO: Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• H Bhargava, JC Bhatia, L Ramachandran. Field trial of Billings ovulation method of natural family planning. Contraception. 53(2): 1996; 69–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JE Darroch, G Sedgh, H Ball. Contraceptive Technologies: Responding to Women's Needs. 2011; Guttmacher Institute: New York.
   Google Scholar
• T Ravindran, S Rao. Is the diaphragm a suitable method of contraception for low-income women: a users' perspectives study, Madras, India. Beyond Acceptability: Users' Perceptions on Contraception. 1997; Reproductive Health Matters: London, 78–88.
   Google Scholar
• A Bulut, N Ortayli, K Ringheim. Assessing the acceptability, service delivery requirements, and use-effectiveness of the diaphragm in Colombia, Philippines, and Turkey. Contraception. 63(5): 2001; 267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A van der Straten, N Sahin-Hodoglugil, K Clouse. Feasibility and potential acceptability of three cervical barriers among vulnerable young women in Zimbabwe. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 36(1): 2010; 13–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PS Coffey, M Kilbourne-Brook. Wear and care of the SILCS diaphragm: experience from three countries. Sexual Health. 7(2): 2010; 159–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AM Kaunitz. Lunelle monthly injectable contraceptive. An effective, safe, and convenient new birth control option. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 265(3): 2001; 119–123.
   Google Scholar
• S Averbach, N Sahin-Hodoglugil, P Musara. Duet for menstrual protection: a feasibility study in Zimbabwe. Contraception. 79(6): 2009; 463–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar