Cost per insertion and couple year of protection for postpartum intrauterine devices and implants provided during service scale-up in Kigali, Rwanda.

• Authors: Kristin Wall, Emory University; Rosine Ingabire, Emory University; Susan Allen, Emory University; Etienne Karita, Emory University
• Journal Title: Gates Open Res
• Volume: Volume 2
• Publisher: Gates Open Research | 2018, Pages 39-39
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12858.4
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology; Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery; Health Sciences, Epidemiology
• Keywords: Couple year of protection; Rwanda; contraceptive implant; intrauterine device; post-partum

Abstract

Introduction: In two high-volume government hospitals, their two affiliated health facilities, and two additional health facilities, we developed and implemented postpartum intrauterine device (PPIUD) and postpartum (PP) implant promotional counseling and service delivery procedures between May-July 2017 in Kigali, Rwanda. Between August 2017 and July 2018, 9,073 pregnant women received PPIUD/PP implant promotions who later delivered in one of our selected facilities. Of those, 2,633 had PPIUDs inserted, and 955 had PP implants inserted. The goal of the present analysis is to detail implementation expenditures and estimate incremental costs per insertion and couple years of protection (CYP) for PPIUD and PP implant users. Methods: We detail the incremental costs during the implementation from the health system perspective (including both the implementation costs and the cost of contraceptive methods) and use of standard methods to estimate the cost per insertion and CYP for PPIUD and PP implant users. In addition to the incremental costs of labor and supplies, the costs of promotional activities are included. Research costs for formative work were excluded. Results: A total of $74,147 USD was spent on the implementation between August 2017 and July 2018. The largest expense (34% of total expenses) went toward personnel, including doctoral-level, administrative, data management and nurse counseling staff. Training for PPIUD and implant providers and promoters comprised 8% of total expenses. Recruitment and reimbursements comprised 6% of expenses. Costs of implants to the government comprised 12% of the expenses, much higher than the cost of IUDs (1%). Costs per insertion were $25/PPIUDs and $77/PP implant. Costs per CYP were $6/PPIUDs and $21/PP implant.  Conclusion: Understanding the cost per PPIUD/PP implant inserted and CYP can help to inform the cost of scaling up PPIUD/PP implant service implementation activities and resource allocation decision-making by the Rwandan Ministry of Health.