Rhfp 4

Contraception from rdlj

Rhfp 5

Abortion from rdlj

FP in Ghana

Mass Media Promotion of Family Planning and the Use of Modern Contraception in Ghana

Dr. Nicholas Parr
Demographic Research Group, EFS, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW2109 Australia

Phone: 61 2 9850 8570
FAX: 61 2 9850 6065
Email: nparr@efs.mq.edu.au

Paper presented in poster format to the 24th IUSSP General Conference at Salvador, Bahia, Brazil 18th-24th August 2001

the link above leads to a full text version
+++

Discontinuation of Contraceptive Use in Ghana

Using data from the Ghana Demographic and Health Survey 1998, this paper analyzed the durationof use of a contraceptive method and the reasons for its non-use given by former users of contraception.The results showed that the duration of use tended to be short, particularly so for the use of condomand withdrawal. Injectable contraceptives and periodic abstinence tended to be used for relativelylong periods. After type of method, a woman’s age and residence (urban or rural) were the mostsignificant predictors of duration of use. The reasons for not currently using contraception given bysignificant numbers of former users of pill and injectable contraceptives should concern service providers and educators.

Rhfp 3

HIV/AIDS Epidemic from rdlj

bonus=Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014

trifle but nice

Boris Denisov PLOS ONE Reviewer (2015) February 2016 Dear Boris Denisov, On behalf of PLOS and the PLOS ONE editorial team, I would like to thank you for participating in the peer review process this past year at PLOS ONE. We know there are many claims on your time and expertise and we very much appreciate your valuable input in 2015. With your help, we have continued to publish an influential, lively and highly accessed Open Access journal. Simply put, we could not do it without you and the thousands of other volunteers for PLOS ONE and the other PLOS journals who graciously contributed time reviewing manuscripts. A public “Thank You” to our 2015 reviewers – including you – was published earlier this week.   (2016) PLOS ONE 2015 Reviewer Thank You. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0150341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150341 Your name is listed in the Supporting Information file associated with the article. I hope that you will be able to use this letter, along with the article citation, to claim the credit and recognition you deserve within your institution for supporting PLOS ONE and Open Access publishing. If you would ever like to provide feedback on your experience, we would very much welcome that. Please send feedback to plosone@plos.org. With gratitude,

Iratxe Puebla, Managing Editor PLOS ONE

Veronique Kiermer, Executive Editor PLOS

P.S. If you’d like to receive news and information from PLOS, opt-in here.

RHFP 2

Maternal Mortality from rdlj

there is an error on slide 17
could you identify it ?

Screening for perinatal depression: a missed opportunity

All pregnant and post-partum women should be routinely screened for depression, according to a new statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This controversial recommendation is part of the USPSTF's updated 2016 guidance recommending routine screening for depression in adults, published on Jan 26, which for the first time has been expanded to include information related to pregnant and post-partum women. The task force's proposals were widely welcomed by the mainstream media—but given the limited evidence in this area, are such bold recommendations warranted?

According to the task force statement, “direct and indirect evidence support moderate certainty that screening for depression in pregnant and postpartum women is of moderate net benefit”, citing reductions in risk of depression of 28–59% in post-partum women who underwent screening. However, these conclusions are at odds with recommendations from other countries. Expert groups in Canada and the UK, for example, have evaluated the same body of literature and concluded that high-quality evidence to support routine perinatal screening for depression is scarce. Notably, as stated in the USPSTF report, five of the six studies included in the assessment of the effects of depression screening on health outcomes were of only fair quality, none compared simply screening plus usual care versus usual care alone, and the reduction in risk of depression in pregnant women was not statistically significant.

Furthermore, for a screening test to be suitable for use in clinical practice, it must be simple and accurate with an acceptable risk of false-positive and false-negative results. But the most commonly used screening instrument—the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—is lengthy to administer and has a positive predictive value for detecting major depressive disorder of just 47–64%, running the risk that a substantial proportion of women could be falsely labelled as having depression. This situation is potentially dangerous. Results of qualitative studies suggest that women are extremely concerned about depression screening, about the stigma associated with a diagnosis of depression, and that a positive result might lead to an automatic social service referral, and potentially removal of their baby. Only one trial in the USPSTF review reported on the potential harms of screening, but noted no harmful effects. Clearly, high-quality randomised controlled trials of screening programmes that include access to interventions, with a thorough assessment of the potential adverse effects, are needed before widespread screening can be advocated.

Information about the financial costs of perinatal depression screening is a glaring omission from the USPSTF statement. The high rate of false-positive screenings could also lead to costly referrals, unnecessary diagnostic assessments, and possibly treatment for some women incorrectly identified as depressed. Access to care is problematic in some countries, notably the USA, especially for marginalised people such as the large undocumented immigrant population, who cannot even get access to basic maternity care. Funds might be better spent on improving care for these disadvantaged groups.

Identification of perinatal depression is undoubtedly important. As highlighted in the Lancet Series on perinatal mental health, depressive disorders are common during pregnancy and the post-partum period: the point prevalence of major depressive disorder is about 5% during pregnancy and in the first 3 months after childbirth in women from high-income countries, and prevalence is generally higher in low-income and middle-income countries. Maternal depression is associated with a range of negative child outcomes, which can persist into adolescence and adulthood, and about a third of women who develop postnatal depression still have depression beyond the first year after giving birth. However, to merely focus on identification of depressive disorders during pregnancy and the post-partum period is a missed opportunity. Other mental health disorders can also occur—for example, studies suggest that anxiety disorders are more common than depressive disorders during pregnancy and the postnatal period—and the regular appointments that take place during pregnancy and post partum are an ideal opportunity to fully address the whole range of mental health disorders that can present during this time.

Routine screening for depressive disorders in pregnancy and post partum could potentially be harmful. The pregnancy and postnatal period is an opportunity to maximise the health of women and their families. But this needs to be done through sensitive enquiry in the context of a broader conversation about the physical and mental health wellbeing of mothers.

Source

Stillbirth

The silence around stillbirth is unspeakable

7,200 lives are lost every day to stillbirths. Imagine if we could reduce that number and stop this epidemic of grief. Learn what The Lancet is doing to fight back.

and more:

• Stillbirths: ending an epidemic of grief 
• Supporting women, families, and care providers after stillbirths 
• Reductions in stillbirths—more than a triple return on investment 
• Stillbirths in sub-Saharan Africa: unspoken grief 
• Stillbirths: progress and unfinished business 
• Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030 
• Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences

upg

• Stillbirths: recall to action in high-income countries
• Stillbirths: ending preventable deaths by 2030

trafficking

The EU’s criminal intelligence agency warns pan-European gangs are targeting minors for sex work and slavery

the guardian

Trends in Maternal Mortality, 4s

New estimates in Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990 to 2015 released by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-agency Group (MMEIG) indicate that maternal mortality has fallen by 44 per cent since 1990.

Maternal deaths around the world dropped from about 532 000 in 1990 to an estimated 303 000 this year, according to the report, the last in a series that has looked at progress under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This equates to an estimated global maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 216 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, down from 385 in 1990.

Maternal mortality is defined as the death of a woman during pregnancy, childbirth or within 6 weeks after birth.

This new report is accompanied by a Lancet paper available online (Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group.

• UN-MMEIG press release
• Download the report

This new release provides the most up-to-date comprehensive information on maternal mortality worldwide, including a public database containing 3634 country-years of data for 183 countries taking into account all available nationally-representative data from vital registration systems, population censuses, household surveys, and sample registration systems.

About UN-MMEIG

The United Nations Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-agency Group (MMEIG) was formed to share data on maternal mortality, harmonise estimates within the UN system, improve methods for maternal mortality estimation and generate internationally comparable MMR estimates. MMEIG, which is led by the World Health Organization (WHO), comprises the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank Group, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division (UNPD).

For more information, including estimates, empirical data and methodology, visit: http://www.maternalmortalitydata.org/

World Contraceptive Use, 4s

Contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning are key indicators for measuring improvements in access to reproductive health. The data set World Contraceptive Use 2015 includes country data as of March 2015.

This new data set is used to generate Estimates and Projections of Family Planning Indicators 2015 , model-based estimates and projections of family planning indicators.

RHFP 1

RHFP 1 from rdlj