Search

Background: Evidence-informed priority setting is vital to improved investment in public health interventions. This is particularly important as South Africa (SA) makes the shift to universal health coverage and institution of National Health Insurance., Objectives: To measure the financial impact of increasing the demand for modern contraceptive methods in the SA public health sector. We estimated the total cost of providing contraceptives, and specifically the budgetary impact of premature removals of long-acting reversible contraceptives., Methods: We created a deterministic model in Microsoft Excel to estimate the costs of contraception provision over a 5-year time horizon (2018 - 2023) from a healthcare provider perspective. Only direct costs of service provision were considered, including drugs, supplies and personnel time. Costs were not discounted owing to the short time horizon. Scenario analyses were conducted to test uncertainty., Results: The base-case cost of current contraceptive use in 2018 was estimated to be ZAR1.64 billion (ZAR29 per capita). Injectable contraceptives accounted for ~47% of total costs. To meet the total demand for family planning, SA would have to spend ~30% more than the estimate for current contraceptive use. In the year 2023, the 'current use' of modern contraceptives would increase to ZAR2.2 billion, and fulfilling the total demand for family planning would require ZAR2.9 billion. The base-case cost of implantable contraceptives was estimated at ZAR54 million. Assuming a normal removal rate, the use of implants is projected to increase by 20% during the 5-year period between 2019 and 2023, with an estimated 46% increase in costs. The cost of early removal of Implanon NXT is estimated at ZAR75 million, with total contraception costs estimated at ZAR102 million in 2019, compared with ZAR56 million when a normal removal rate is applied., Conclusions: The costs of scaling up modern contraceptives in SA are substantial. Early and premature removals of implantable contraceptives are costly to the nation and must be minimised. The government should consider conducting appropriate health technology assessments to inform the introduction of new public health interventions as SA makes the shift to universal health coverage by means of National Health Insurance.

In 2014, the contraceptive implant was introduced into public sector facilities in South Africa (SA). Several thousand healthcare workers were trained, and demand was generated for the method, achieving high uptake. Use of the implant has since declined, but currently accounts for ~7% of all contraceptive use – a not insignificant achievement for a ‘new’ method.[1,2] In this edition of SAMJ, three articles[3-5] take stock of the early years of implant provision in SA. The articles, based on research in 2016, capture women’s motivations for using the implant and their perspectives towards the method; and healthcare providers’ competencies and experiences with service provision. Insights may be generalisable to family planning services more broadly, but are also relevant to the introduction of other new technologies, especially those related to HIV., Competing Interests: None, (Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial Works License (CC BY-NC 4.0))

Abstract: Background. Implanon NXT, a long-acting reversible contraceptive, was introduced in South Africa (SA) in early 2014, aiming to expand the method mix and increase its effectiveness. Initial uptake was high, but has since declined considerably. In these early years after the implant’s introduction, it is important to identify reasons for the decline, and remedy gaps in services. Objectives. To determine periods of use, reasons for the use and early removal of the implant Implanon NXT. Methods. In 2016, we recruited 152 women from six clinics in the City of Johannesburg, and six in North West Province, SA. A semistructured interview was administered to 91 women currently using the implant and 61 previous users. We examined user perspectives, factors influencing women’s experiences with the implant and reasons for discontinuation. Results. The participants’ mean age was 30 years, with only 15% aged <25. Implant uptake was motivated by convenience (less frequent visits required than for short-acting methods) and by favourable views of the method among friends, family and healthcare providers. Only about a quarter of women recalled being counselled pre-insertion about implant effectiveness, and half about side-effects pre-insertion. Among discontinuers, the median time to device removal was 8 months (interquartile range 6 - 12), and this was primarily as a result of side-effects (90%), especially bleeding-pattern changes and headaches. Removals were most common among married and cohabiting women, often ascribed to the effects of bleeding on their sexual relationships. Rumours and misinformation contributed to some removals. Overall, women’s experiences with the implant were rated ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by 74% of those continuing use, many of whom reported not having experienced any side-effects or that these had diminished over time. Conclusion. Levels of acceptability among continuing users were high, mainly linked to the method’s convenience. While early favourable views drove uptake, negative perceptions, if unaddressed, may now undermine services. Deficiencies in counselling around effectiveness and side-effects may extend to contraceptive services more generally. Women require more intensive support when experiencing sideeffects, including effective systematic approaches to ameliorating bleeding and headaches. Implant services could specifically target young women and first-time contraceptive users. These actions together could reverse the persistent decline in implant use in SA., Competing Interests: None, (Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial Works License (CC BY-NC 4.0))