Packages of interventions for family planning, safe abortion care, maternal, newborn and child health

The evidence shows that high maternal, perinatal, neonatal and child mortality rates are associated with inadequate and poor quality health services. Evidence also suggests that explicit, evidence-based, cost effective packages of interventions can improve the processes and outcomes of health care when appropriately implemented. This document describes the key effective interventions organized in packages across the continuum of care through pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum, newborn care and care of the child. The packages are defined for community and/or facility levels in developing countries and provide guidance on the essential components needed to assure adequacy and quality of care

Aborto inducido y embarazo no planeado en Guatemala

Aunque la legislación guatemalteca permite el aborto inducido solamente para salvar la vida de la mujer, con frecuencia muchas mujeres obtienen abortos, en condiciones de riesgo, y en respuesta a un embarazo no planeado. Estudios recientes indican que el aborto inseguro es un factor clave que contribuye a la morbilidad y mortalidad materna en el país; sin embargo, no existen datos a nivel nacional sobre la incidencia del aborto.

Estimaciones de los costos de abortos inseguros para los sistemas de atención sanitaria en África y América Latina

Cada año ocurren 19 millones de abortos inseguros en los países en desarrollo y se estima que cinco millones de mujeres reciben tratamiento por complicaciones médicas graves resultantes. Entretanto, es poco lo que se conoce sobre el impacto económico de la atención postaborto en los sistemas de atención sanitaria en África y América Latina (en Asia no hay estudios)

Estimaciones del aborto inducido en México: ¿qué ha cambiado entre 1990 y 2006?

En México,donde el aborto inducido en gran parte continúa siendo ilegal y clandestino,contar con datos confiables sobre su incidencia y la morbilidad relacionada es crítico para fundamentar las políticas y programas.La única estimación nacional disponible sobre aborto es para 1990; y,desde entonces, los cambios demográficos y socioeconómicos probablemente han afectado su incidencia

Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (Review)

Background Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy when taken after unprotected intercourse.Obtaining emergency contraception within the recommended time frame is difficult for many women. Advance provision could circumvent some obstacles to timely use. Objectives To summarize randomized controlled trials evaluating advance provision of emergency contraception to explore effects on pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual and contraceptive behaviors. Search strategy In November 2009, we searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, POPLINE,MEDLINE via PubMed, and a specialized emergency contraception article database. We also searched reference lists and contacted experts to identify additional published or unpublished trials. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing advance provision and standard access (i.e., counseling whichmay ormay not have included information about emergency contraception, or provision of emergency contraception on request at a clinic or pharmacy). Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. We entered and analyzed data using RevMan 5.0.23. Main results Eleven randomized controlled trials met our criteria for inclusion, representing 7695 patients in the United States, China, India and Sweden. Advance provision did not decrease pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25 in studies for which we included twelve-month follow-up data; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29 in a study with seven-month follow-up data; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.20 in studies for which we included six-month follow-up data; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74 in a study with three-month follow-up data), despite reported increased use (single use: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.40; multiple use: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.77 to 9.63) and faster use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -12.98 hours, 95% CI -16.66 to -9.31 hours). Advance provision did not lead to increased rates of sexually transmitted infections (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37), increased frequency of unprotected intercourse, or changes in contraceptive methods.Women who received emergency contraception in advance were equally likely to use condoms as other women. Authors’ conclusions Advance provision of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates when compared to conventional provision. Results from primary analyses suggest that advance provision does not negatively impact sexual and reproductive health behaviors and outcomes. Women should have easy access to emergency contraception, because it can decrease the chance of pregnancy.However, the interventions tested thus far have not reduced overall pregnancy rates in the populations studied.