Understanding the healthcare provider role on post abortion contraception adoption in India using National Family Household Survey-5.

BACKGROUND: Post abortion contraceptive use is an important area in provisioning of services associated with child birth planning. This study examines the factors related to the type and timing of initiation of contraception adoption among women who had undergone induced abortion. Study also tries to identify the role of personnel who provided the abortion service on decision of family planning adoption using complementary log-log model in India. METHODOLOGY: The study uses the secondary data from the fifth round of the National Family Household Survey conducted during 2019-21. For, the analysis, we have used five-year women's reproductive calendar to extract information on contraceptive use, post last induced abortion among women. We used complementary log-log regression models, to estimate relative risk ratios and its 95% Confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: According to NFHS-5, out of all the last pregnancies (2,55,549), about three percent resulted in abortion. Most of the abortion occurred in private facilities (55%), with the help of health professionals (71%). From the women's reproductive calendar, it was found that around 40% of the women adopted modern methods of contraception, with maximum adopting spacing method (33%), and only handful adopted permanent method (7%). It was also found that the likelihood of early adoption of permanent method increased to two times when the abortion is done by health professional compared to others [95% CI (1.25-3.30)]. CONCLUSION: This emphasises a need for quality counselling related to timing and types of family planning as an essential part of the family planning program ensuring client centric approach suited to their needs and contexts that helps in alleviating any apprehensions associated with adverse effects of modern contraceptive methods.

How to work with intangible software in public health systems: some experiences from India.

This commentary focuses on "intangible software", defined as the range of ideas, norms, values and issues of power or trust that affect the performance of health systems. While the need to work with intangible software within health systems is increasingly being recognized, the practical hows of doing so have been given less attention. In this commentary, we, a team of researchers and implementers from India, have tried to deliberate on these hows through a practice lens. We engage with four questions of current relevance to intangible software in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR): (1) Is it possible to rewire intangible software in health systems? (2) What approaches have been attempted in the Indian public health system to rewire intangibles? (3) Have such approaches been evaluated? (4) What practical lessons can we offer from our experience on rewiring intangibles? From our perspective, approaches to rewiring intangible software recognize that people in health systems are capable of visioning, thinking, adapting to and leading change. These approaches attempt to challenge the often-unchallenged power hierarchies in health systems by allowing people to engage deeply with widely accepted norms and routinized actions. In this commentary, we have reported on such approaches from India under six categories: approaches intended to enable visioning and leading; approaches targeted at engaging with evidence better; approaches intended to help health workers navigate contextual complexities; approaches intended to build the cultural competence; approaches that recognize and reward performance; and approaches targeted at enabling collaborative work and breaking power hierarchies. Our collective experiences suggest that intangible software interventions work best when they are codesigned with various stakeholders, are contextually adapted in an iterative manner and are implemented in conjunction with structural improvements. Also, such interventions require long-term investments. Based on our experiences, we highlight the need for the following: (1) fostering more dialogue on this category of interventions among all stakeholders for cross-learning; (2) evaluating and publishing evidence on such interventions in nonconventional ways, with a focus on participatory learning; and (3) building ecosystems that allow experiential learnings on such interventions to be shared.