Assessing Contraceptive Security in Peru- SPARHCS

Publication date: 2006

[image: image1.emf] Documentation of the Use of SPARHCS: Peru Introduction Contraceptive security (CS) is achieved when individuals have the ability to choose, obtain, and use contraceptives and condoms whenever they need them. The Strategic Pathway to Reproductive Health Commodity Security (SPARHCS) framework provides countries with a tool to assess contraceptive security and to design plans for advancing it in both the short and long term. In September 2003, with input from Peru’s CS committee, a team from Futures Group/POLICY and John Snow Inc. (JSI)/DELIVER conducted a SPARHCS assessment as part of the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Regional CS Feasibility Study. It was the first of five SPARHCS assessments conducted in the region. The overall goal of the study was to analyze and identify barriers and opportunities to achieving contraceptive security at both the country and regional levels. As a follow-on to the study, the POLICY and DELIVER projects are working with the USAID on assistance strategies for countries at regional, subregional, and national levels, under the LAC Regional CS Initiative. The technical assistance will build capacity within Peru and in the LAC region to address CS issues in the short, medium, and long term. This brief describes the Peru CS context and SPARHCS assessment and the findings and recommendations, lessons learned, and activities and progress made since the SPARHCS application. CS Context in Peru The SPARHCS team reviewed the demographic indicators, the history of donor financing of contraceptives, the family planning (FP) market, and the economic and political environment in Peru to understand the context related to achieving contraceptive security (Taylor et al., 2004). Demographic indicators. In the 1990s, significant government and donor investment in family planning resulted in increased contraceptive use and changes in demographic indicators. The contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) for married women of reproductive age (MWRA), ages 15-49, increased from 59 percent in 1991 to 69 percent in 2000. Also during that period, the CPR for MWRA in rural areas increased from 41 to 61 percent and in urban areas from 66 to 73 percent. However, despite the increased rates, in 2000, the unmet need for family planning was 10 percent for MWRA and was even higher for certain populations, including youth, the less educated, and those living in rural and remote, mountainous areas (ENDES, 1991/2; ENDES, 1996; ENDES, 2000). History of donor financing of contraceptives. From 1993–2004, USAID donated contraceptive commodities to the Ministry of Health (MINSA). USAID will continue contraceptive commodity donations to select nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for social marketing programs for an undefined period. From 1997–2003, USAID contracted the Peruvian NGO, PRISMA, to manage contraceptive logistics for USAID and MINSA. Since 2003, USAID has been transferring logistics management and financial responsibilities from PRISMA to MINSA. Contraceptive commodity donations from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) ended in 1998, but UNFPA continues to provide condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention, and to facilitate the procurement of contraceptives for MINSA. The International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Department for International Development (United Kingdom) also provided contraceptives to MINSA and select NGOs in small quantities, but their donations ended in 2001 (Taylor et al., 2004). FP providers and methods. MINSA is Peru’s main provider of FP services and products, serving 69 percent of FP users (see Figure 1). The commercial sector, composed of private health providers and pharmacies, is responsible for 17 percent of the market share for family planning. EsSALUD, the country’s social security system, serves 11 percent of FP users. Finally, NGOs and other sources are responsible for the remaining 3 percent of FP provision (ENDES, 2000). [image: image2.emf]In 2000, 73 percent of current FP users reported using modern methods (see Figure 2). Modern methods used include injectables (21 percent), female sterilization (17 percent), IUDs (13 percent), oral contraceptives (OCs) (10 percent), condoms (9 percent), and other (3 percent). This modern method mix is costly for MINSA, with a large portion of its FP clientele seeking relatively expensive injectables and OCs. Twenty-seven percent reported traditional method use, which decreased from 44 percent in 1991 (ENDES, 1991/2; ENDES, 2000). [image: image3.emf] Economic and political environment. Several economic and political factors pose challenges to national and regional contraceptive security. Peru enjoyed a period of economic growth in the mid-1990s, but gross domestic product fell between 1997 and 2001, threatening to erode progress made in the 1990s in health and development indicators. Health spending as a percent of gross domestic product has declined since 2001 and is currently about 6 percent. Poverty levels have increased since the late 1990s from 48 percent in 1997 to 54 percent in 2003 (World Bank/WDI, 2002; CIA, 2004). Limited funds affect the government’s ability to invest in family planning and its ability to increase MINSA’s annual contraceptive budget. Since the early 1990s, laws, policies, and financial resources have been in place to support Peruvians’ access to FP services; however, family planning continues to be a controversial topic. From 2000–2003, governmental officials opposed to family planning attempted to alter the legal framework supporting it. Though this attempt was not successful, it is an important reminder that future political support for family planning is not guaranteed. Furthermore, government reforms, such as decentralization and changes in health services delivery, create conditions that could potentially disrupt progress in achieving contraceptive security. The SPARHCS Assessment in Peru The SPARHCS assessment in Peru, conducted from September 1–11, 2003, articulated the country’s national objectives, including identifying existing challenges in the public and private sectors affecting contraceptive security; raising awareness among decisionmakers about the need for coordinated action to overcome these challenges; and suggesting strategies for decreasing dependence on donated commodities while, at the same time, preserving gains made in the 1990s in contraceptive demand. Key players. The SPARHCS team included five individuals from DELIVER and POLICY, and it relied on the collaboration and input of 11 in-country partners from various divisions of MINSA, the Social Security Institute (EsSALUD), local NGOs, and USAID/Peru and other international agencies. The CS committee in Peru, formed after the 2003 LAC Regional CS Conference in Managua, Nicaragua, played a valuable role in planning for the SPARHCS assessment by identifying interviewees and arranging meetings for the team. After completing the assessment, the CS committee assisted the team in reviewing the assessment’s findings and formulating the national CS recommendations. Information gathering. The SPARHCS team gathered information through a document review, interpersonal interviews, focus groups, a site visit, and debriefings with USAID and CS committee members. In addition, the team prepared contraceptive commodity and cost projections through 2015 using Spectrum software, with inputs drawn from available national data. The team integrated POLICY/Peru’s study findings on FP services and market segmentation into the assessment (Sharma et al., 2004). The team conducted in-depth interviews with 29 key informants from local and national government agencies and NGOs, international health and development agencies, and private sector organizations involved in health and family planning in Peru. Two SPARHCS team members conducted a site visit to determine the status of regional and provincial CS activities, during which they conducted interviews with high-level representatives of the regional government, a provincial hospital, and a local NGO. Findings and dissemination of results. The team presented preliminary findings to the CS committee on the final day of the assessment. After the committee provided additional information and revisions, the team completed an in-depth assessment report in English and a summary report, titled “CS in Peru: Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses,” in both English and Spanish. The summary report was distributed at the LAC Regional CS Forum in Lima, Peru, in October 2004, and is available on the websites of POLICY and DELIVER. Overview of SPARHCS Findings The SPARHCS assessment revealed evidence of progress toward achieving contraceptive security but also revealed challenges in the areas of financing, market segmentation, procurement, logistics, and policy and political commitment (Taylor et al., 2004). Financing. Peru has made significant progress in the financing of contraceptives. Since 1999, MINSA has purchased increasing amounts of contraceptives. In 2004, MINSA planned to cover 80 percent of its annual contraceptive needs, and in 2005, MINSA expected to cover 100 percent, as donations would no longer be made. However, despite its commitment to meeting contraceptive requirements, MINSA needs more funds than appear to be available. Its annual financial requirement will increase from US$4 million in 2000 to US$6 million by 2015, assuming contraceptives are procured at low prices (Taylor et al., 2004). Market segmentation. The current market segmentation for family planning in Peru is the country’s most challenging issue, as it directly affects financing and service delivery capacity. From 1992–2000, Peru’s FP market changed significantly, with the public sector’s market share increasing from 49 to 79 percent. Behind this drastic change is a 1995 policy that supported access to family planning for all Peruvians and mandated free FP services in the public sector for anyone wanting them. While the policy is largely responsible for a significant increase in contraceptive coverage, the policy relied heavily on donated contraceptive commodities and is not sustainable because Peru is no longer receiving these donations. The government must consider alternative financing mechanisms to protect the poor’s access to public sector FP commodities and should consider strategies for diverting wealthier clientele to private sector sources. The 1995 policy decision also inhibited the private sector’s market share because it is difficult for the private sector to compete with low or no-cost FP providers. To achieve more rational market segmentation, the private sector’s role in FP provision must be expanded, in particular for those in middle and upper economic groups. Procurement. UNFPA has helped Peru to procure contraceptives at low prices; however, the lengthy process has resulted in delays that have seriously disrupted their availability. NGOs with social marketing programs have also experienced challenges with international procurement, such as inconsistent prices and unreliable product availability. Fortunately, MINSA, EsSALUD, and other NGOs involved in FP service delivery have experience with procurement and are now looking for alternative mechanisms. Currently, national procurement regulations and practices favor national suppliers, and although national procurement would be a more costly alternative to UNFPA procurement, contraceptive manufacturers in Peru seem open to price negotiation. Logistics and information systems. Peru’s contraceptive logistics system is excellent. However, from 1997–2003, it was managed by PRISMA and financed by USAID and MINSA. Since 2003, PRISMA has been transferring the logistics system to MINSA and is working with the ministry to design an integrated pharmaceutical management system. By 2006, the transfer of logistics functions from PRISMA to MINSA and the transfer of logistics management costs from USAID to MINSA should be complete. Policy, political commitment, and leadership. Peru is one of the few countries in the LAC region where contraceptives have a national budget line item and are considered strategic commodities, aspects that bode well for achieving contraceptive security but do not guarantee it. Advocacy and lobbying are necessary to ensure that the line item is funded and that family planning continues to be an important component of public health programming. A reproductive health watchdog group, composed of civil society groups and NGOs, has been essential in preserving reproductive health progress in Peru in times of political opposition. Imminent decentralization may pose challenges for national contraceptive security because the views of regional authorities on family planning as a priority vary. Main Recommendations for Achieving Contraceptive Security The Peru SPARHCS assessment revealed many potential interventions for achieving contraceptive security. These were grouped into five priority strategies: Promote a more rational market segmentation of family planning by targeting government-subsidized contraceptives to those in the poorest income groups and encouraging the expansion of the private sector’s role in supplying contraceptives to those in the middle and upper economic groups. Lobby for increased government funding for contraceptives and for low-cost procurement via UNFPA’s reimbursable procurement mechanism or other cost-effective mechanisms. Ensure the smooth transition of PRISMA technical and financial oversight to MINSA’s integrated pharmaceutical management system, called SISMED. Advocate for health sector and government reforms that preserve past FP achievements and promote further progress toward contraceptive security. Strengthen the CS committee by clearly defining its roles and responsibilities and by drafting a CS action plan to ensure that it stimulates interagency dialogue, planning, advocacy, and implementation. Lessons Learned Using SPARHCS in Peru Important lessons emerged from Peru’s SPARHCS assessment that can be used to inform SPARHCS assessments in other countries. Because Peru’s assessment was the first of five to occur in the LAC region, the other country teams used some of these lessons to improve the efficiency of their assessments. Use SPARHCS to create a common understanding of contraceptive security. POLICY and DELIVER presented the SPARHCS framework to country teams from Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru at the 2003 LAC Regional CS Conference in Managua, Nicaragua. The presentation included a comprehensive review of the main CS concepts and the range of stakeholders that could participate in CS initiatives. As a result, the country teams gained a common understanding of contraceptive security and saw the value of SPARHCS as a consensus-building tool. Adapt SPARHCS locally to achieve a more effective application in the field. SPARHCS was adapted for application in the LAC region and in the field, allowing it to become a more operational and efficient tool. Adaptations for the LAC region included expanding the key CS areas to 10 (environment, policy, leadership and commitment, financing, market segmentation, client demand and use, access and quality of services, procurement, coordination, and logistics). Because Peru’s assessment was the first assessment conducted in the region, the Peru SPARHCS team created several data collection formats in Spanish for use in the entire region. Other SPARHCS teams subsequently refined the formats to make them relevant to their own countries. Draw on the SPARHCS framework as a guide. In Peru, the SPARHCS team used the framework as a general guide for conducting the assessment rather than a stringent set of instructions. For example, the SPARHCS team found it necessary to fine tune interview questions for country relevance and to organize interview questions by institution (e.g., Ministry of Finance, NGOs, MINSA), depending on which would have the necessary information. The Peru SPARHCS team also chose to conduct free-form interviews, using the questions as guidance and later as an organizational tool for the information collected. Use SPARHCS as a complementary tool. SPARHCS is not a stand-alone tool; it requires an array of sources and types of information for its proper use. The SPARHCS team relied on notes from interviews and focus groups, various cost calculations, SPECTRUM, and Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and national health account analyses. As such, the assessment generated a large volume of information, and ultimately the greatest challenge to the SPARHCS team was culling the information into specific next steps and recommendations at the country level. A noted limitation was that the SPARHCS tool does not provide a framework for analyzing the information that is collected for use in strategy development. Consult local field staff to maximize a SPARHCS assessment. To maximize the time allotted for the assessment and local technical input, POLICY/Peru field staff contacted key informants and scheduled the meetings prior to the team’s arrival. As a result, the SPARHCS team was able to spend two weeks in Peru solely on information gathering and synthesis because coordination for the assessment took place prior to the team’s arrival. Involve national CS committees in all stages of the assessment process. In the five LAC countries, CS committees have provided valuable assistance to SPARHCS teams in preparing for assessments, revising and fine tuning findings and recommendations, and planning how to use them to move CS activities forward in-country. Activities and Progress since the SPARHCS Application Since the SPARHCS application, Peru’s efforts to achieve contraceptive security, especially those of the CS committee, have been helping to create a stronger enabling policy environment and more sustainable financing alternatives. Selected activities and progress include the following: With eight other countries, Peru participated in the CS LAC Regional Forum held in October 2004 in Lima, Peru. The CS committee created short-term strategies to encourage a more rationally segmented market through targeting resources, encouraging private sector dialogue, increasing private sector provision of contraceptive methods, and including family planning in insurance benefits. In addition, the committee discussed strategies to increase advocacy for contraceptive security and increase the budget for contraceptives. In 2004, MINSA assumed leadership for addressing contraceptive security through its Reproductive Health Strategy, thereby ensuring policy implementation. Also in 2004, MINSA, with support from USAID, completed a pricing study that ultimately allowed the government to purchase contraceptives at low prices, resulting in significant savings for the government. New DHS data show an increase, from 17 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2004, in the role of the commercial sector in providing contraceptive methods, which is an important step toward securing the sustainability of family planning in Peru (ENDES, 2000; ENDES, 2004 Continua). Seventy-eight percent of the commercial sector’s clientele belong to the two highest economic segments. POLICY presented an updated FP market segmentation analysis and a trends analysis to the CS committee in December 2005. The committee is currently preparing strategies to achieve a more rational market segmentation and, specifically, to secure access to contraceptives for the poor. The CS committee has collaborated with five local NGOs and international agencies on market segmentation activities, resulting in proposed resource-targeting strategies for MINSA’s FP program. Other activities initiated include working with MINSA to understand and improve aspects of FP service delivery; examining operational policies of private and other insurance schemes, with the aim of including family planning; and analyzing and modifying norms of the public health sector to ensure access to FP services. DELIVER and POLICY conducted an in-depth procurement options analysis for Peru, which will form part of a LAC regional procurement options analysis. This analysis will help countries identify the best procurement option and consider advocacy strategies directed at eliminating obstructive laws/regulations. As part of the LAC CS Initiative, Peru will continue to take part in activities through 2006 to advance progress toward achieving contraceptive security. POLICY and DELIVER will provide technical assistance to increase momentum. The main activities include capacity building on the use of data for projections and CS advocacy and CS strategic planning. These activities will ensure that Peru can continue advancing toward contraceptive security after 2006. References Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2004. The World Fact Book 2005. Washington, DC: CIA. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, Asociación Benéfica PRISMA, and Macro International. 1992. Perú Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar (ENDES, 1991/2). Columbia, MD: ORC Macro. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, and Macro International. 1996. Perú Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar (ENDES, 1996). Columbia, MD: ORC Macro. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, and Macro International. 2000. Perú Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar (ENDES, 2000). Columbia, MD: ORC Macro. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, and Macro International. 2005. Perú Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar (ENDES, 2004 Continua). Columbia, MD: ORC Macro. Population Reference Bureau. 2005 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Sharma, S., G. Subiria, and V. Dayaratna. 2004. Family Planning Market Segmentation in Peru. Draft. Washington, DC: Futures Group, POLICY Project. Taylor, P.A., G. Subiria, C. Cisek, C. Basurto Corvera, and P. Mostajo. 2004. Peru: Contraceptive Security Assessment, September 1–12, 2003. Arlington, VA: John Snow, Inc., DELIVER; and Washington, DC: Futures Group, POLICY Project, for USAID. World Bank. World Bank Development Indicators 2002, CD-Rom. Washington, DC: World Bank. � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� The Strategic Pathway to Reproductive Health Commodity Security (SPARHCS), developed by the DELIVER, POLICY, and Commercial Market Strategies (CMS) projects (in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and other donors and technical agencies), serves as an assessment, planning, and implementation tool to help countries address contraceptive security (CS) issues and to determine areas for strengthening and intervention. SPARHCS examines six key areas that factor into a country’s CS situation: client use and demand, context, commitment, capital, capacity, and coordination. Moreover, it is a universal assessment tool that can be tailored to specific timelines, country contexts, or program objectives. �The briefs in this series outline the experience of using SPARHCS in assessing contraceptive security in Peru, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. The assessments’ findings have been used to stimulate dialogue on strategies to advance toward achieving contraceptive security in Latin America and the Caribbean. � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� � USAID’s Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC/RSD-PHN) conducted a Regional CS Feasibility Study to guide future policy and programmatic decisions at the regional and country levels. USAID’s DELIVER and POLICY projects implemented the study by creating CS assessments in Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru, using SPARHCS. � USAID’s Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean launched a regional initiative, following the Regional CS Feasibility Study, to determine how contraceptive security in the LAC region could be more effectively addressed in light of the phase out of contraceptive donations. The initiative, being implemented by the POLICY and DELIVER Projects, is now in its third year of activities. � Peru’s population exceeds 28 million inhabitants. Nearly 21 million people (73 percent) live in urban areas. There are 7 million women (26 percent) of reproductive age, and demographic projections reveal that Peru’s population of women of reproductive age will continue to grow into the next decade (PRB, 2005). � Includes both women who are married legally and by common law. � PRISMA is an NGO that specializes in contraceptive supply chain management and, from 1997–2003, provided contraceptive logistics technical assistance to MINSA and NGOs that receive USAID-donated contraceptives. � The CS committee includes representatives from MINSA and EsSALUD; local NGOs, including INPPARES (IPPF affiliate), APROPO (social marketing), and PRISMA (logistics management); and international organizations, including Pathfinder/CATALYST, POLICY/Peru, UNFPA, and USAID. � Spectrum is a suite of policy models, designed by the POLICY Project, used to project the need for reproductive healthcare and the consequences of not addressing reproductive health needs. � � HYPERLINK "http://www.policyproject.com" ��www.policyproject.com�; www.deliver.jsi.com. � Low prices are those that governments and organizations pay for contraceptives using the UNFPA’s reimbursable procurement mechanism. These prices include shipping and a 5 percent charge for UNFPA’s management costs. PAGE 7 [image: image4.emf]_1200315184.xls Chart3 21 17 13 10 9 27 3 Figure 2. Method Mix Among Users of Family Planning in Peru (2000) Sterilization 17% Peru 2000 MINSA 68.7 EsSALUD 10.8 Priv. provider 8.5 Pharmacy 8.3 NGO 2.3 Other 1.5 2000 Injectables 21 Sterilization 17 IUDs 13 OCs 10 Condoms 9 Traditional 27 Other 3 Peru 68.6888231277 10.7671295242 8.5249260187 8.297291145 2.2535852493 1.4682449351 2000 Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Peru (2000) Bolivia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2. Method Mix Among Users of Family Planning in Peru (2000) Sterilization 17% Paraguay 1998 MSD 33.0 Priv. provider 32.0 Pharmacy 25.0 CNS 9.0 Other 1.0 100.0 1998 IUD 23 Sterilization 13 OCs 8 Injectables 2 Other 5 Traditional 49 100 Paraguay 33 32 25 9 1 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Bolivia (1998) Nicaragua 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Bolivia (1998) Honduras Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Paraguay (1998) Pharmacy 43.5 MSP y BS 26.9 Priv Provider 16.4 Other Priv. 6.7 NGO 3.6 Other Public 2.9 100 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Paraguay (1998) OCs 24 IUD 19 Traditional 17 Sterilization 14 Injectables 13 Condoms 13 100 Honduras 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Paraguay (1998) Other Public 2% Other Public 3% Madagascar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Paraguay (1998) Ukraine Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Nicaragua (2001) MINSA 64 NGO 14 Pharmacy 12 Priv. Provider 7 Other 3 100 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Nicaragua (2001) Sterilization 36 Injectables 21 OCs 21 IUD 9 Condoms 5 Trad. 4 Other 4 100 Ukraine 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Nicaragua (2001) Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Nicaragua (2001) Egypt Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Honduras (2001) SS 40 Ashonplafa 29 Pharmacy 12 Priv. Provider 10 IHSS 5 Other 4 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Honduras (2001) Sterilization 29.1 OCs 16.8 Injectables 16 IUD 16 Condoms 5 Traditional 17.5 100.4 Egypt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Honduras (2001) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Honduras (2001) 2003 Public 58 Commerical 33 NGO 9 100 Injectables 35 OCs 13 Condoms 5 LAM 5 Sterilization 3 IUD 2 Traditional 35 Other 2 100 58 33 9 Figure 1: Source Mix among Current Users of Modern Methods in Madagascar (2003) 35 13 5 5 3 2 35 2 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Madagascar (2003) IUD Condom Women Consult. Centers 66 Women Consult. Centers 10 Pharmacy 3.7 Pharmacy 56.6 Hospital 20.4 Hospital 2.1 Maternity House 5.3 Drug kiosk 7.3 Other 4.7 Other 24 100.1 100 1999 Method IUD 18.6 Condoms 13.5 OCs 3 Steriliz. 1.4 Other 1.1 Traditional 30 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among IUD Users in Ukraine (1999) 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Source Mix among Condom Users in Ukraine (1999) 18.6 13.5 3 1.4 1.1 30 Figure 3: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Ukraine (1999) Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Jordan (2002) Public 34 Priv. provider 27 Pharmacy 11 NGO 20 Other 8 100 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Jordan (2002) IUD 43 Traditional 26 OCs 13 Condom 6 Steril. 5 LAM 5 Other mod. 2 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Jordan (2002) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Jordan (2002) Other mod. 2% Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Egypt (2003) Public 55.6 Priv provider 23.3 Pharmacy 15.6 NGO 4.9 Other 0.7 100.1 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Egypt (2003) IUD 60 OCs 15 Injectables 13 Traditional 6 Steril 2 Condom 2 Implant 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Egypt (2003) 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Egypt (2003) _1200315533.xls Chart5 68.6888231277 10.7671295242 8.5249260187 8.297291145 2.2535852493 1.4682449351 2000 Figure 1. Source Mix Among Users of Modern Methods in Peru (2000) Peru 2000 MINSA 68.7 EsSALUD 10.8 Priv. provider 8.5 Pharmacy 8.3 NGO 2.3 Other 1.5 2000 Injectables 21 Sterilization 17 IUDs 13 OCs 10 Condoms 9 Traditional 27 Other 3 Peru 68.6888231277 10.7671295242 8.5249260187 8.297291145 2.2535852493 1.4682449351 2000 Figure 1. Source Mix Among Users of Modern Methods in Peru (2000) Bolivia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2. Method Mix Among Users of Family Planning in Peru (2000) Sterilization 17% Paraguay 1998 MSD 33.0 Priv. provider 32.0 Pharmacy 25.0 CNS 9.0 Other 1.0 100.0 1998 IUD 23 Sterilization 13 OCs 8 Injectables 2 Other 5 Traditional 49 100 Paraguay 33 32 25 9 1 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Bolivia (1998) Nicaragua 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Bolivia (1998) Honduras Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Paraguay (1998) Pharmacy 43.5 MSP y BS 26.9 Priv Provider 16.4 Other Priv. 6.7 NGO 3.6 Other Public 2.9 100 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Paraguay (1998) OCs 24 IUD 19 Traditional 17 Sterilization 14 Injectables 13 Condoms 13 100 Honduras 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Paraguay (1998) Other Public 2% Other Public 3% Madagascar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Paraguay (1998) Ukraine Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Nicaragua (2001) MINSA 64 NGO 14 Pharmacy 12 Priv. Provider 7 Other 3 100 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Nicaragua (2001) Sterilization 36 Injectables 21 OCs 21 IUD 9 Condoms 5 Trad. 4 Other 4 100 Ukraine 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Nicaragua (2001) Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Nicaragua (2001) Egypt Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Honduras (2001) SS 40 Ashonplafa 29 Pharmacy 12 Priv. Provider 10 IHSS 5 Other 4 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Honduras (2001) Sterilization 29.1 OCs 16.8 Injectables 16 IUD 16 Condoms 5 Traditional 17.5 100.4 Egypt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix Among Current Users of Modern Methods in Honduras (2001) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix Among Current Users of Family Planning in Honduras (2001) 2003 Public 58 Commerical 33 NGO 9 100 Injectables 35 OCs 13 Condoms 5 LAM 5 Sterilization 3 IUD 2 Traditional 35 Other 2 100 58 33 9 Figure 1: Source Mix among Current Users of Modern Methods in Madagascar (2003) 35 13 5 5 3 2 35 2 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Madagascar (2003) IUD Condom Women Consult. Centers 66 Women Consult. Centers 10 Pharmacy 3.7 Pharmacy 56.6 Hospital 20.4 Hospital 2.1 Maternity House 5.3 Drug kiosk 7.3 Other 4.7 Other 24 100.1 100 1999 Method IUD 18.6 Condoms 13.5 OCs 3 Steriliz. 1.4 Other 1.1 Traditional 30 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among IUD Users in Ukraine (1999) 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Source Mix among Condom Users in Ukraine (1999) 18.6 13.5 3 1.4 1.1 30 Figure 3: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Ukraine (1999) Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Jordan (2002) Public 34 Priv. provider 27 Pharmacy 11 NGO 20 Other 8 100 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Jordan (2002) IUD 43 Traditional 26 OCs 13 Condom 6 Steril. 5 LAM 5 Other mod. 2 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Jordan (2002) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Jordan (2002) Other mod. 2% Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Egypt (2003) Public 55.6 Priv provider 23.3 Pharmacy 15.6 NGO 4.9 Other 0.7 100.1 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Egypt (2003) IUD 60 OCs 15 Injectables 13 Traditional 6 Steril 2 Condom 2 Implant 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2: Method Mix among Users of Family Planning in Egypt (2003) 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1: Source Mix among Users of Modern Methods in Egypt (2003)

View the publication

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.