Closing the Gap: Ensuring Access to and Quality of Contraceptive Implant Removal Services is Essential to Rights-based Contraceptive Care.

The use of the subdermal contraceptive implant is increasing globally, and particularly so in lower- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For initiation or discontinuation of the implant, users need to have access to services for insertion and removal by healthcare providers. Providing access to safe and effective contraceptive implant removal services presents both clinical and programmatic challenges. The most challenging implant removal cases, termed -difficult removals‖, place additional demands upon removal services. In this commentary, we outline challenges for the provision of removal services. Based on our experience in this field, we make recommendations on how healthcare providers and health services can plan for these challenges. Through maximising the provision of comprehensive and accessible implant removal services, including those for difficult removals, implant users can be empowered to discontinue their use of this method of contraception if they choose, thus upholding the principles of rights-based contraceptive care.

Experiences of Accessing and Providing Contraceptive Implant Removal Services in Gaborone, Botswana: A Qualitative Study Among Implant Users and Healthcare Providers.

Introduction: This study explored implant user and healthcare provider experiences of accessing and providing contraceptive implant removal services in Gaborone, Botswana, following introduction of the implant in the public sector in 2016. We sought to understand reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction with services and their potential impact on wider perceptions of the implant, including influence on future uptake. Methods: Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews. Participants comprised ten women who had previously undergone implant removal, and ten providers whose work included provision of implant insertion and removal. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Seven of the ten users in this study had experienced a delay between initial request and undergoing implant removal. This interval ranged from <1 week to 3 months. Users identified the principal barriers to accessing implant removal services as lack of access to trained removal providers, inconvenient appointment times, and provider resistance to performing removal. Nine of the ten providers in this study had experienced barriers to providing implant removal, including insufficient training, lack of equipment, lack of time, and lack of a referral pathway for difficult removals. Despite experiencing barriers in accessing removal, users' perceptions of the implant remained generally positive. Providers were concerned that ongoing negative user experiences of removal services would damage wider perceptions of the implant. Conclusion: Introduction of the contraceptive implant in Botswana has been an important strategy in increasing contraceptive choice. Following an initial focus on provision of insertion services, the development of comparable, accessible removal services is critical to ensuring that the implant remains a desirable contraceptive option and is vital to upholding women's reproductive health rights. The experiences of users and providers in this study can inform the ongoing development of services for implant insertion and removal in Botswana and other lower-resource settings.

Integration of family planning services into health care for HIV-positive women in Botswana.

OBJECTIVE: To create and assess a clinic model to address the unmet need for effective contraception among women living with HIV in Botswana, where half of all pregnancies are unintended and 30% of women of reproductive age are living with HIV. METHODS: We introduced family planning services into an HIV clinic in Gaborone, Botswana. Our intervention gave HIV providers brief training on contraceptive counseling plus the option of immediate referral of interested patients to an on-site contraception provider. We administered a survey to patients and providers before and after intervention. Patients were female, aged 18-45 years and using antiretrovirals. RESULTS: At baseline, 6% of 141 patients discussed contraception with their HIV-care provider, compared with 61% of 107 post intervention (P < 0.001). At baseline, 6% of patients reported wanting to use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Post intervention, 45% of patients chose to meet with the contraception provider, and 29% wanted to use LARC (P < 0.001 versus baseline). All providers strongly agreed that they were better informed about contraception post intervention and were satisfied with their ability to counsel and refer women for contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of on-site contraceptive services in this HIV clinic encouraged family planning discussions and increased interest in LARC.

Etonogestrel concentrations among contraceptive implant users in Botswana using and not using dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether etonogestrel concentrations are reduced to a level that could potentially reduce contraceptive efficacy when the etonogestrel contraceptive implant is used concomitantly with dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a non-randomized, open-label, cross-sectional pharmacokinetic study among women using single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implants in Botswana. We compared plasma etonogestrel concentrations, sampled at a single time-point between 3 and 12 months from implant insertion, among implant users living with HIV and receiving dolutegravir-based ART with HIV-negative implant users. We also assessed concentrations among implant users living with HIV and receiving efavirenz-based ART. We compared geometric mean etonogestrel concentrations analyzing data from 142 participants: 97 HIV-negative, 30 using dolutegravir, and 15 using efavirenz. RESULTS: The groups were similar. Duration of implant use was between 3 and 12 months (median = 5). Geometric mean etonogestrel plasma concentrations and 90% confidence intervals of the mean were 227.5(212.4-243.8), 289.6(251.8-333.0) and 76.4(63.9-91.4) pg/mL among the HIV-negative, dolutegravir- and efavirenz-based ART groups, respectively. All women in the HIV-negative and dolutegravir-based ART groups had etonogestrel concentrations above 90 pg/mL; 9/15 women (60%) using efavirenz-based ART had concentrations below 90 pg/mL. On average, etonogestrel levels were lower among individuals who had implants inserted for longer durations. CONCLUSIONS: Implant users receiving dolutegravir-based ART had a higher mean etonogestrel concentration compared to HIV-negative women, and none had etonogestrel concentrations below the posited threshold for ovulation suppression. In contrast, women in the efavirenz-group had much lower etonogestrel concentrations. Overall, these data provide evidence that the etonogestrel implant may be effectively combined with dolutegravir-based ART regimens. IMPLICATIONS: The etonogestrel implant remains a highly effective contraceptive option for women living with HIV who use dolutegravir-based ART.