Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus

Charlotte E Warren; Tracy L McClair; Karen R Kirk; Charity Ndwiga; Eileen A Yam

doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.1

Home Browse Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Open Letter

Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Charlotte E Warren¹, Tracy L McClair¹, Karen R Kirk², Charity Ndwiga³, Eileen A Yam ¹

Charlotte E Warren¹, Tracy L McClair¹, [...] Karen R Kirk², Charity Ndwiga³, Eileen A Yam ¹

PUBLISHED 13 Jan 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Population Council, Washington, DC, 20008, USA
² Population Council, New York, NY, 10017, USA
³ Population Council, Nairobi, Kenya

Charlotte E Warren
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tracy L McClair
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Karen R Kirk
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Charity Ndwiga
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Eileen A Yam
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Contraceptive decision-making is highly complex, and family planning (FP) clients choose methods according to a host of personal, interpersonal, and context-specific considerations. These include concerns about side effects, confidence in their ability to adhere to daily or monthly use, efficacy of methods, partner support, and HIV vulnerability. FP decision support tools can support FP clients and providers to engage in a joint decision-making process to ensure clients make informed choices about contraception. For more than two decades, the Balanced Counseling Strategy (BCS) and Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) decision support tools have been used in lower- and middle-income countries, informed by implementation science research and iterative updates and refinements to reflect new developments in contraceptive technology and HIV prevention strategies. To inform the development and scale-up of future FP decision support tools, as well as share lessons from translating implementation science results to practice, this article describes the development, evaluation, and proliferation of BCS and BCS+.

Keywords

family planning, counseling, job aids, decision support tool, contraception

Corresponding author: Eileen A Yam

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1213550].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Warren CE et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Warren CE, McClair TL, Kirk KR et al. Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. Gates Open Res 2022, 6:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.1) First published: 13 Jan 2022, 6:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.1) Latest published: 03 May 2022, 6:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.2)

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. Publication in Gates Open Research does not imply endorsement by the Gates Foundation.

Background

In 2019, 270 million women of reproductive age (15–49 years) worldwide had an unmet need for contraception, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) disproportionately burdened¹; unmet need for family planning (FP) ranges from 14% in Indonesia to 40% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)². The World Health Organization (WHO) FP handbook³ includes 20 methods that provide women with many options to meet their FP needs. Contraceptive decision-making is complex, deeply personal, and context-specific. Faced with multiple contraceptive options, women must consider myriad factors, such as their concerns about side effects, confidence in their ability to adhere to daily or monthly use, efficacy of methods, and partner support including considering a couple’s values and preferences⁴. Thus, FP providers face the challenge of providing comprehensive – yet relevant – FP information, while supporting clients to make contraceptive choices that suit their needs and preferences. Furthermore, in the past two decades, adding to the complexity of FP decision-making, there has been increasing recognition of the need to explicitly integrate HIV counseling and services in FP settings. Many women are simultaneously at risk of unintended pregnancy as well as HIV infection, and clients of FP services often have a need to address both. In response, numerous global and regional commitments have called for integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services^5–10.

To provide FP clients with comprehensive, holistic FP counseling, providers must possess the technical expertise, motivation, agency, and interpersonal skills to provide woman-centered care¹¹. Screening tools and job aids can help providers deliver patient-centered FP services in a manner that facilitates shared decision-making, with the provider lending clinical input to inform clients’ individual choices^12–15. This Open Letter describes the evolution and proliferation of a job aid to improve shared FP decision-making in low-income settings, initially introduced as Balanced Counseling Strategy (BCS) in 1999, and later expanded to Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) in 2007. BCS+ incorporated HIV counseling into a foundational contraceptive counseling algorithm, making it a tool for integrated counseling on FP and HIV.

We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize collective learnings from more than two decades of implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform future implementation science initiatives to improve quality of service delivery.

Background on BCS and BCS+

The BCS toolkit was conceived as an interactive, client-centered, paper-based FP decision support tool that a provider would use to guide a client through a semi-structured consultation supporting informed contraceptive choice. Building on the initial BCS format, BCS+ added HIV/STI prevention counseling, testing, and other related services (Table 1)¹⁶. The intended BCS+ users are health providers or FP counselors who help a client to make an informed decision on FP and other relevant services. As illustrated in Figure 1, the current BCS+ tool consists of three job aids: 1) a counseling algorithm that guides the provider through a set of steps for a FP counseling session. The steps are organized into four stages: pre-choice, method choice, post-choice, and systematic screening for other health needs; 2) a set of cards including information cards about contraceptive methods, and counseling cards on a range of other topics and services including STI/HIV testing and cervical cancer screening; and 3) contraceptive method-specific client brochures. The rest of the toolkit includes facilitators’ and participants’ training guides. The method and counseling cards are “pocket sized,” have a picture on one side (depicting the contraceptive method) and summary points on the other, all held together on a key ring. The intention is that the cards can be laid out on the table between the provider and client to aid discussion, with method cards successively removed as clients decide which methods they are not interested in or are not appropriate (for example, if a woman wants children in the future, the permanent methods are put to one side). The method brochures are supplementary and provide clients with detailed information on their chosen FP method, including effectiveness, whether it protects against HIV/STIs, and any potential side effects.

Table 1. Content of Balanced Counseling Strategy (BCS) and Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) editions.

Edition	Year	Contents
BCS (Peru)	1999	• Counseling algorithm (22 steps) - as poster size • Eight method cards (injectables x two, pills x two, male condom, IUD, tubal ligation, vasectomy) • Eight method brochures
BCS (Guatemala)	2001	• Counseling algorithm (Two – one for social worker, one for physician) • Eight method cards (injectables, pills, male condom, IUD, tubal ligation, vasectomy, necklace assisted rhythm/Two-Day Method, and LAM) • Eight method brochures (as above) • Checklist to make reasonably sure client is not pregnant
BCS+ (Kenya & South Africa)	2007	• Revised counseling algorithm • 12 method cards (Nur-Isterate, Depo-Provera, combined oral pill, progestin only pill, emergency contraception, male and female condom, IUD, tubal ligation, vasectomy, natural methods and LAM) • 12 method brochures (see above) • Five counseling cards on HIV/STI transmission and prevention information, HIV counseling and testing, HIV/STI risk assessment, dual protection, positive health dignity and prevention
BCS+ (Second edition) Kenya and eSwatini	2012	• Revised counseling algorithm • 16 method cards (added hormonal implants, LNG IUS, withdrawal, Standard Days Method, and Two-Day Method as two separate cards) • 16 method brochures • Revised counseling cards on HIV/STI screening, counseling, services • New counseling cards on healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies, healthy postpartum period, promoting infant health, screening for cervical cancer
BCS+ (Third edition)	2015	• Revised algorithm • 18 method cards (added Caya/SILCS diaphragm and progesterone vaginal ring) • 18 method brochures • Revised counseling cards on HIV/STI screening, counseling, services • New counseling cards on post-abortion care, adolescent counseling, women’s support and safety, male services and support for their partners, Zika, breast cancer information and awareness

Figure 1. Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) toolkit (Third edition).

Consent for publication of the image was obtained from the individuals in the image.

Development, testing, and updating of BCS and BCS+

The Population Council led the USAID-supported global Frontiers in Reproductive Health Program (FRONTIERS) (1998–2008), which applied operations research techniques to improve FP and reproductive health services and policies. Under FRONTIERS, the Population Council piloted, adapted, and replicated BCS in several countries. The initial BCS pilot study in 1999 was developed (and scaled) in response to a study of client-provider interactions at Peru Ministry of Health clinics, in which the questions asked by providers were very medical in nature and ignored a female client's reproductive intentions and whether her partner supported her use of FP. Providers using the BCS toolkit scored significantly higher in quality of counseling^12,17,18. The BCS was then adapted, tested, and expanded nationally in Guatemala^18,19. The Guatemala version included a new checklist for providers to “be reasonably sure that the client was not pregnant.” (Table 1)

Following on this success, FRONTIERS tested the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of an adapted BCS for use in counseling for FP services in two high HIV/STI-prevalence settings – Kenya and South Africa – among people actively seeking to prevent pregnancy who were potentially at elevated risk of HIV/STIs. The adapted toolkit – named the Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) – incorporated changes to the algorithm, additional cards for counseling on HIV/STI risks and services available, and contraceptive updates aligned with the WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) contraceptive guidelines²⁰. The BCS+ was subsequently reviewed and expanded following the publication of new MEC guidelines in 2010 and 2015^21,22. These updates, which were made under the Integra Initiative (supported by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)) and the USAID-supported Evidence project (2013–2021), included a revised algorithm, three additional counseling cards, new method cards, and the WHO “MEC wheel.” These second and third editions were completed following consultation with users (including Ministries of Health) in Kenya and eSwatini, and with international FP experts. The updated tool adopted a “systematic screening” approach that not only added HIV in this “plus” aspect of BCS+, but also other services of relevance to women seeking FP such as cervical cancer screening, postpartum and postabortion care and screening for gender-based violence (GBV) (Table 2).

Table 2. Components of the Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) toolkit (Third edition).

ALGORITHM: Summarizes the 19 steps suggested for a FP counseling session. The steps are organized into four stages: pre-
choice, method choice, post-choice, and systematic screening for other health needs. A provider asks the client a series of
questions and follows prompts to guide the conversation to tailor it to the individual needs and preferences of the client.
METHOD-SPECIFIC CARDS: (18 cards) Describe use, efficacy, and risks of each method. Provider lays out all method cards and
removes/excludes methods as counseling proceeds.
OTHER COUNSELING CARDS: (15 cards) Used by the provider during FP counseling sessions. The first contains six questions that
determine whether a client is pregnant or not. Others provide systematic screening for other services including advice on HIV/
STI risk assessment, testing, and treatment; postpartum and postabortion care; adolescent SRH, screening for cervical cancer;
women’s safety; and male contraception.
TRAINER’S GUIDE: Used to train health facility managers, supervisors, and service providers to use the BCS+ for counseling FP
clients. It includes a sample agenda, training exercises, role play scripts, and background information.
USER’S GUIDE: Focuses on implementation of the BCS+. It can be distributed during training or used on its own with the BCS+
job aids.

FP: family planning; SRH: sexual and reproductive health

Evaluations of BCS and BCS+

Since its conception in the 1990s as a job aid that was piloted in the context of operations research, BCS and BCS+ have been evaluated to assess their impact on quality of counseling, FP behavioral outcomes, and HIV behavioral outcomes. In Peru and Guatemala, for instance, BCS use improved quality of care in domains such as consultation length and client satisfaction^17,18. In Indonesia, the MyChoice project led by the Johns Hopkins Center for Communications Programs (2014–2020) introduced a digital BCS+ app for postpartum FP clients, which reduced the time that providers spent counseling. A year after the MyChoice app was introduced, 86% of women chose a modern FP method, and they had a discontinuation rate of 8% compared to 29% who received traditional counseling (https://ccp.jhu.edu/2021/03/08/digital-counseling-app-family-planning-choices/). BCS+ has also had demonstrated success with increasing integration of HIV counseling in FP services: counseling on HIV testing services significantly improved among BCS+ providers in Kenya²³, and it improved counseling on condoms for dual protection²⁴.

BCS and BCS+ use and adaptations

In addition to being evaluated, the BCS and BCS+ have been introduced and adapted in several projects and countries worldwide. For instance, BCS+ was a key intervention component with a peer mentoring approach of the Integra Initiative (2008–2015), a multi-centred non-randomized trial, which explored a range of issues relating to the integration of HIV and SRH health services in Kenya and eSwatini^23–26.

Elsewhere, the toolkit has been adapted into diverse formats, such as locally appropriate illustrations, phone chatbots and interactive voice response technology (in Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania)^27–29, and digital applications using the toolkit information structure and content (https://ccp.jhu.edu/2021/03/08/digital-counseling-app-family-planning-choices/). In 2017, Jhpiego introduced a desk “placemat” of the algorithm (instead of a poster) for providers in the Philippines as a job aid to support FP counseling sessions³⁰.

The governments of Indonesia, Kenya, and South Africa, among others, have adopted the BCS+ toolkit as part of their respective National Strategies on Family Planning, in which the BCS+ is a recommended tool. Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries³¹. UNFPA supported use of the full toolkit in Lebanon for counseling postpartum women within public and private health facilities and refugee camps, with local illustrations and translations³⁰.

The BCS+ is available in English, French, and Spanish, with some components of the toolkit also available in Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Kiswahili, and siSwati. The toolkit has been used by a variety of government, non-governmental, religious, and civil society organizations. Since the original study using the BCS, the country and programmatic use of the toolkit has grown to cover a wide range of services and countries. The Population Council conducted research, and supported BCS+ adaptation and scale-up activities in Egypt, eSwatini, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, and Zambia. In addition, Jhpiego has introduced or strengthened the use of the BCS+ as part of nine projects in seven countries: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso (five regions), Kenya (several counties), Indonesia, Madagascar (15 regions through Maternal and Child Survival Program), Myanmar, and the Philippines. Following the introduction in Burkina Faso, the national midwifery school taught trainees on use of the counseling cards. CARE International incorporated the BCS+ in Supporting Access to FP and Post Abortion Care (SAFPAC) in Chad, DRC, Djibouti, Mali, and Pakistan (2011–2013). Additional examples of BCS+ use by projects include the USAID-supported PROGRESS project (2009–2014), implemented by FHI 360, Pathfinder International, and D-tree International, which piloted the BCS+ in one district in Tanzania; Ibis Reproductive Health used components in South Africa; Marie Stopes International (MSI) introduced a balanced counseling tool in Nepal and Nigeria; IntraHealth in Malawi; International Medical Corps in South Sudan; and in one county in Kenya, FHI 360 targeted increased dual protection rates among female sex workers using a balanced counseling approach. In 2015, Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services (CBCHS) introduced the BCS+ concept into FP Counseling and Integration of Other Reproductive Health Services in health facilities where they operate with the help of the Population Council Kenya office and the Ministry of Health, Kenya.

Discussion and conclusion

Over the course of more than 20 years, BCS+ has become one of the most widely used integrated FP decision support tools, bolstered and refined by iterative learnings from implementation science findings. During that time, the toolkit grew from a small operations research study in Peru in the late 1990s, to its widespread use and adaptation in more than 20 countries two decades later. Successive investments from private and public donors ensured that the tool “kept up with the times,” incorporating new contraceptive technologies, emerging diseases such as HIV and Zika, as well as emergent priorities such as GBV and cervical cancer screening. In addition, successive versions of the toolkit maintained a steadfast focus on clients, designed expressly to ensure contraceptive decision-making was an informed, systematic process, rather than dictated solely by the whim of the provider.

However, there are several contextual factors, limitations, and challenges to consider. While the original study, replication, and adaptation took place under the USAID flagship FRONTIERS program, the Council was able to accommodate the necessary updates until the project ended in 2008. Even though the Council’s support continued to an extent under the Integra Initiative (BMGF 2008–2015) and Evidence Project (USAID 2014–2021) for the second and third editions, other institutions – recognising the value of the toolkit to improve FP counseling, contraception uptake and other services – incorporated or adapted components of the toolkit elsewhere from 2008 onwards. Over the years, in the various adaptations across multiple countries, the full BCS+ focus on comprehensive women-centred integrated counseling for FP and other services may have been diluted. Even though BCS contact information at the Population Council was listed in the facilitator and user guides, these were less likely to be used – with most people just using the algorithm, and the method and counseling cards – at facility level.

In 2008, the BCS approach (in theory) was easy to adapt to local contexts, and the toolkit included instructions for adaptation as well as a CD-ROM with electronic copies of the materials. The toolkit was initially developed in the paper era, when paper job aids and large printing budgets were the norm to supply job aids to providers in health facilities. After funded projects end, Ministries of Health are challenged to ensure all facilities have sufficient printed materials, even where the BCS+ was nationalised as is the case in Kenya, Indonesia and South Africa. While job aids have been proven to improve counseling of integrated FP, HIV, and other SRH services²⁴, unwieldy multiple tools or components of tools may not be used consistently by providers⁴. In practice, updating the toolkit was challenging, as each component was a mix of text and graphics locked into a .pdf file, which is then difficult to amend. Although Microsoft Word versions of the second and third editions were available from the Population Council on request, this information did not seem to be clear to implementing partners and MOHs interested in adaptation. Moreover, when staff move, and funding cycles complete, institutional memory is lost across the board – at the Council, other implementing partners, and Ministries of Health. However, despite this, the BCS+ continues to receive high “online hits,” demonstrating its popularity and usefulness.

With the advent of low-cost access to the Internet, digital health has now introduced a new world of potential opportunities to both providers and clients. Leveraging the network of stakeholders who are within the global public health space may potentially help improve the distribution of an electronic toolkit. As seen above, numerous implementing partner organizations, such as Jhpiego, CARE, and MSI, support national and regional governments to introduce and distribute materials like the BCS+ toolkit. Rather than organizations and countries reinventing the wheel, convening a network of stakeholders to update the next version – an adaptable electronic version – of the toolkit is worth considering³². The costs of production of and training on job aids can seem prohibitive to programs, but the existence of proven global or national tools should make their digital adaptation, implementation and/or dissemination easier²⁵.

Additionally, client-facing self-care digital solutions offer decision support, contraceptive screening, and automated counseling that often complement facility-based provider counseling. A self-informed client helps them prepare for a good discussion with a provider. The BCS+ has inspired some of these digital solutions over the years, and updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms direct to consumers, extending the reach of the BCS+.

The BCS+ requires an additional update: new contraceptives (some of which are self-administered: Caya diaphragm, female condom, progesterone vaginal ring, and Sayana Press) are now available, and there have been numerous changes in the nature of the HIV pandemic since the last BCS+ update in 2015, including new prevention, detection, and treatment strategies. The development of multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) are designed to address the need for both contraception and protection from HIV/STIs simultaneously³³. Despite concerted advocacy and programmatic efforts to integrate HIV and FP services, integrated service provision and counseling remains a challenge in many settings, notwithstanding the dramatic changes in the landscape for prevention and treatment of HIV: condoms are no longer the sole method for preventing sexual HIV transmission. For instance, there is now scientific consensus that people living with HIV cannot sexually transmit the virus when on treatment and virally suppressed³⁴, and HIV acquisition by seronegative people can be dramatically reduced through oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)³⁵.

While some may argue that job aids to support counseling do not always result in good FP outcomes⁴, research suggests that a broader range of available methods and better-informed clients improve contraceptive uptake and method continuation³². Therefore, now is the time for the international public health community to come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy to reach more providers and, through them, more clients. Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)³⁶.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Author contributions

CW led several programmatic and research activities to update and evaluate BCS+, and she led the conceptualization and original draft preparation of this manuscript. TM, KK, CN, and EAY contributed to the review and editing of the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was substantially informed and inspired by the BCS+ experience and insights generated by Gobee Group, Jhpiego, and Nivi, Inc. We recognize with gratitude these institutions’ successful efforts to synthesize BCS+ experience and learnings (Gobee Group) and adapt and scale its use (Jhpiego and Nivi, Inc.).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Kantorová V, Wheldon MC, Ueffing P, et al.: Estimating progress towards meeting women’s contraceptive needs in 185 countries: A Bayesian hierarchical modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(2): e1003026. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Cahill N, Sonneveldt E, Stover J, et al.: Modern contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand satisfied among women of reproductive age who are married or in a union in the focus countries of the Family Planning 2020 initiative: a systematic analysis using the Family Planning Estimation Tool. Lancet. 2018; 391(10123): 870–882. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communications Programs (CCP), Knowledge for Health Project: Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers (2018 Update). CCP and WHO. 2018. Reference Source
4. Cavallaro FL, Benova L, Owolabi OO, et al.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of counselling strategies for modern contraceptive methods: what works and what doesn’t? BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020; 46(4): 254–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Hopkins J, Collins L: How linked are national HIV and SRHR strategies? A review of SRHR and HIV strategies in 60 countries. Health Policy Plan. 2017; 32(suppl_4): iv57–iv66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Warren CE, Hopkins J, Narasimhan M, et al.: Health systems and the SDGs: lessons from a joint HIV and sexual and reproductive health and rights response. Health Policy Plan. 2017; 32(suppl_4): iv102–iv107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. World Health Organization: The Glion Call to Action on Family Planning and HIV/AIDS in Women and Children. 2004. Reference Source
8. UNFPA, UNAIDS, FHI: The New York Call to Commitment: Linking HIV/AIDS and Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2004. Reference Source
9. Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator: PEPFAR Blueprint: Creating an AIDS-Free Generation. U.S. Department of State, 2012. Reference Source
10. Inter-agency Task Team for Prevention and Treatment of HIV Infection in Pregnant Women, Mothers, and their Children: Preventing HIV and Unintended Pregnancies: Strategic Framework 2011-2015. World Health Organization. 2011. Reference Source
11. Mayhew SH, Warren CE, Ndwiga C, et al.: Health systems software factors and their effect on the integration of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services. Lancet HIV. 2020; 7(10): e711–e720. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Leon FR: Peru: Providers’ Compliance with Quality of Care Norms. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 1999. Reference Source
13. Baumgartner JN, Green M, Weaver MA, et al.: Integrating family planning services into HIV care and treatment clinics in Tanzania: evaluation of a facilitated referral model. Health Policy Plan. 2014; 29(5): 570–579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Kim YM, Kols A, Martin A, et al.: Promoting informed choice: evaluating a decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers in Mexico. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2005; 31(4): 162–171. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Foreit JR: Systematic Screening: A Strategy for Determining and Meeting Clients’ Reproductive Health Needs. FRONTIERS Program Brief. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2006. Reference Source
16. León F, Vernon R, Martin A, et al.: The Balanced Counseling Strategy: A Toolkit for Family Planning Service Providers. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2008. Reference Source
17. Leon F, Roca S, Rios A, et al.: One-Year Client Impacts of Quality of Care Improvements Achieved in Peru. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2003. Publisher Full Text
18. Leon FR, Brambila C, Cruz M, et al.: Providers’ Compliance with the Balanced Counseling Strategy in Guatemala. Stud Fam Plann. 2005; 36(2): 117–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Leon F, Brambila C, de la Cruz M, et al.: Effects of IGSS’ Job Aids-Assisted Balanced Counseling Algorithms on Quality of Care and Client Outcomes. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2004. Publisher Full Text
20. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria Wheel for Contraceptive Use. 3rd Edition + 2008 Update. World Health Organization. 2008.
21. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Fourth Edition, 2009. World Health Organization. 2010. Reference Source
22. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Fifth Edition, 2015. World Health Organization. 2015. Reference Source
23. Liambila W, Warren C, Mullick S, et al.: Feasibility, acceptability, effect, and cost of integrating counseling and testing for HIV within family planning services in Kenya. Reprod Health. Published online January 1, 2008. Publisher Full Text
24. Liambila W, Askew I, Mwangi J, et al.: Feasibility and effectiveness of integrating provider-initiated testing and counselling within family planning services in Kenya. AIDS. 2009; 23 Suppl 1: S115–121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Church K, Warren CE, Birdthistle I, et al.: Impact of Integrated Services on HIV Testing: A Nonrandomized Trial among Kenyan Family Planning Clients. Stud Fam Plann. 2017; 48(2): 201–218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Warren CE, Mayhew SH, Vassall A, et al.: Study protocol for the Integra Initiative to assess the benefits and costs of integrating sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Kenya and Swaziland. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1): 973. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Hussain SA, Ogundimu F, Bhattarai S: Mobile Phone-Based Chatbot for Family Planning and Contraceptive Information. In: Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Healthcare Applications. Springer, Cham. 2019: 342–352. Publisher Full Text
28. Agarwal S, Lasway C, L’Engle K, et al.: Family Planning Counseling in Your Pocket: A Mobile Job Aid for Community Health Workers in Tanzania. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016; 4(2): 300–310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Whitcomb A: Increasing Family Planning Uptake in Kenya through a Digital Marketplace: A Case Study in Human Centered Design. Duke University; 2017. Reference Source
30. Gobee Group: Distribution Strategy for the BCS+ Toolkit: Prepared by Gobee Group for the Population Council. 2020.
31. Ross J, Stover J: Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982–2009. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013; 1(2): 203–212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Ali M, Tran NT, Kabra R, et al.: Strengthening contraceptive counselling: gaps in knowledge and implementation research. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021; bmjsrh-2021–201104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Harrison PF, Hemmerling A, Romano J, et al.: Developing multipurpose reproductive health technologies: an integrated strategy. AIDS Res Treat. 2013; 2013: 790154. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
34. Eisinger RW, Dieffenbach CW, Fauci AS: HIV viral load and transmissibility of HIV infection: undetectable equals untransmittable. JAMA. 2019; 321(5): 451–452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al.: Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5): 399–410. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Family Planning and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Data Booklet. 2019. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Jan 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Population Council, Washington, DC, 20008, USA
² Population Council, New York, NY, 10017, USA
³ Population Council, Nairobi, Kenya

Charlotte E Warren
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Tracy L McClair
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Karen R Kirk
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Charity Ndwiga
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Eileen A Yam
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1213550].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 03 May 2022, 6:2

https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.2

version 1

Published: 13 Jan 2022, 6:2

https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.1

© 2022 Warren CE et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
Gates Open Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Warren CE, McClair TL, Kirk KR et al. Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Gates Open Res 2022, 6:2 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13477.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 Jan 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Mar 2022

Kelsey Holt, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14737.r31624

Thank you for putting together this useful report of the origin, proliferation, and future directions of the valuable BCS+ counseling tool. This will no doubt serve as a useful reference point for researchers and practitioners dedicated to improving the quality ... Continue reading

The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries³¹.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Yes
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Partly
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Quality of contraceptive counseling, person-centered reproductive healthcare

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

03 May 2022

Author Response

The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, ... Continue reading The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
We agree that that stated objectives could be refined to better align with the content of the manuscript. We have reworded this paragraph as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.”

Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed the culminating section “Discussion and recommendations,” to underscore that this section includes suggested ways forward.

Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
Unfortunately, other than the included link for MyChoice, we are unaware of online versions of other described adaptations.

As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
We have added language to the “Background on BCS and BCS+” section to underscore that this toolkit was conceived at the outset to promote shared decision-making, with toolkit components being both client-facing and provider-facing. As described in this section, we regard the optimal approach as being a shared process whereby the provider lends clinical expertise to inform clients’ choices.

As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
We have edited this text to clarify that MyChoice is one of various digital adaptations of the BCS+, as there also have been, for example, chatbots that have incorporated BCS+ content. For clarity, we also have deleted the referenced sentence regarding content distribution on these platforms.

Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries31.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.
We concur and have removed this sentence.
The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
We agree that that stated objectives could be refined to better align with the content of the manuscript. We have reworded this paragraph as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.”

Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed the culminating section “Discussion and recommendations,” to underscore that this section includes suggested ways forward.

Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
Unfortunately, other than the included link for MyChoice, we are unaware of online versions of other described adaptations.

As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
We have added language to the “Background on BCS and BCS+” section to underscore that this toolkit was conceived at the outset to promote shared decision-making, with toolkit components being both client-facing and provider-facing. As described in this section, we regard the optimal approach as being a shared process whereby the provider lends clinical expertise to inform clients’ choices.

As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
We have edited this text to clarify that MyChoice is one of various digital adaptations of the BCS+, as there also have been, for example, chatbots that have incorporated BCS+ content. For clarity, we also have deleted the referenced sentence regarding content distribution on these platforms.

Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries31.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.
We concur and have removed this sentence.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

03 May 2022

Author Response

The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, ... Continue reading The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
We agree that that stated objectives could be refined to better align with the content of the manuscript. We have reworded this paragraph as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.”

Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed the culminating section “Discussion and recommendations,” to underscore that this section includes suggested ways forward.

Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
Unfortunately, other than the included link for MyChoice, we are unaware of online versions of other described adaptations.

As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
We have added language to the “Background on BCS and BCS+” section to underscore that this toolkit was conceived at the outset to promote shared decision-making, with toolkit components being both client-facing and provider-facing. As described in this section, we regard the optimal approach as being a shared process whereby the provider lends clinical expertise to inform clients’ choices.

As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
We have edited this text to clarify that MyChoice is one of various digital adaptations of the BCS+, as there also have been, for example, chatbots that have incorporated BCS+ content. For clarity, we also have deleted the referenced sentence regarding content distribution on these platforms.

Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries31.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.
We concur and have removed this sentence.
The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
We agree that that stated objectives could be refined to better align with the content of the manuscript. We have reworded this paragraph as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.”

Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed the culminating section “Discussion and recommendations,” to underscore that this section includes suggested ways forward.

Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
Unfortunately, other than the included link for MyChoice, we are unaware of online versions of other described adaptations.

As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
We have added language to the “Background on BCS and BCS+” section to underscore that this toolkit was conceived at the outset to promote shared decision-making, with toolkit components being both client-facing and provider-facing. As described in this section, we regard the optimal approach as being a shared process whereby the provider lends clinical expertise to inform clients’ choices.

As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
We have edited this text to clarify that MyChoice is one of various digital adaptations of the BCS+, as there also have been, for example, chatbots that have incorporated BCS+ content. For clarity, we also have deleted the referenced sentence regarding content distribution on these platforms.

Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries31.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.
We concur and have removed this sentence.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Feb 2022

Megan Christofield, Technical Leadership & Innovations, JHPIEGO, Baltimore, MD, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14737.r31626

Gratitude to the authors for this synthesis of the Balanced Counseling Strategy's inception and evolution over the past 20+ years. It is an impressive story; undoubtedly the BCS/BCS+ has played a crucial role in our FP environment over this time.
... Continue reading

The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
The conclusion of this paper, that we should "come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy" could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS's inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+'s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Partly
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Partly
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Contraceptive access; Service delivery

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

03 May 2022

Author Response

The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. ... Continue reading The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
We concur that the shared decision-making aspect is not the focus of this synthesis; some adaptations of BCS are more provider-facing than others, in fact. Thus, we have revised the title to remove this language as follows: “Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to support contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus.”

While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
Thank you for pointing out this nuance. Rather than informing future implementation science per se, we have reworded this text as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.

The conclusion of this paper, that we should “come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy” could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS’s inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+’s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.
We agree that the emphasis on digital distribution can be minimized, and have instead focused on how the existing BCS+ content can serve as a valuable foundational public good, and continue to be a resource for future such FP decision support tools. We have revised the text as follows: “Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on decades of iterative refinements and scale-up, the BCS+ toolkit can increasingly be regarded as a global public good that continues to be adapted and updated to reflect new biomedical products, meet context-specific counseling needs, and promote women’s informed contraceptive choices.”

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).
Thank you. We have edited this line accordingly.
The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
We concur that the shared decision-making aspect is not the focus of this synthesis; some adaptations of BCS are more provider-facing than others, in fact. Thus, we have revised the title to remove this language as follows: “Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to support contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus.”

While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
Thank you for pointing out this nuance. Rather than informing future implementation science per se, we have reworded this text as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.

The conclusion of this paper, that we should “come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy” could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS’s inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+’s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.
We agree that the emphasis on digital distribution can be minimized, and have instead focused on how the existing BCS+ content can serve as a valuable foundational public good, and continue to be a resource for future such FP decision support tools. We have revised the text as follows: “Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on decades of iterative refinements and scale-up, the BCS+ toolkit can increasingly be regarded as a global public good that continues to be adapted and updated to reflect new biomedical products, meet context-specific counseling needs, and promote women’s informed contraceptive choices.”

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).
Thank you. We have edited this line accordingly.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

03 May 2022

Author Response

The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. ... Continue reading The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
We concur that the shared decision-making aspect is not the focus of this synthesis; some adaptations of BCS are more provider-facing than others, in fact. Thus, we have revised the title to remove this language as follows: “Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to support contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus.”

While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
Thank you for pointing out this nuance. Rather than informing future implementation science per se, we have reworded this text as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.

The conclusion of this paper, that we should “come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy” could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS’s inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+’s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.
We agree that the emphasis on digital distribution can be minimized, and have instead focused on how the existing BCS+ content can serve as a valuable foundational public good, and continue to be a resource for future such FP decision support tools. We have revised the text as follows: “Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on decades of iterative refinements and scale-up, the BCS+ toolkit can increasingly be regarded as a global public good that continues to be adapted and updated to reflect new biomedical products, meet context-specific counseling needs, and promote women’s informed contraceptive choices.”

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).
Thank you. We have edited this line accordingly.
The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
We concur that the shared decision-making aspect is not the focus of this synthesis; some adaptations of BCS are more provider-facing than others, in fact. Thus, we have revised the title to remove this language as follows: “Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to support contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus.”

While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
Thank you for pointing out this nuance. Rather than informing future implementation science per se, we have reworded this text as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.

The conclusion of this paper, that we should “come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy” could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS’s inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+’s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.
We agree that the emphasis on digital distribution can be minimized, and have instead focused on how the existing BCS+ content can serve as a valuable foundational public good, and continue to be a resource for future such FP decision support tools. We have revised the text as follows: “Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on decades of iterative refinements and scale-up, the BCS+ toolkit can increasingly be regarded as a global public good that continues to be adapted and updated to reflect new biomedical products, meet context-specific counseling needs, and promote women’s informed contraceptive choices.”

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).
Thank you. We have edited this line accordingly.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Jan 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 03 May 22	read	read
Version 1 13 Jan 22	read	read

Megan Christofield, JHPIEGO, Baltimore, USA
Kelsey Holt, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

20 Jun 2022 | for Version 2

Kelsey Holt, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments - thank you.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Quality of contraceptive counseling, person-centered reproductive healthcare

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

05 May 2022 | for Version 2

Megan Christofield, Technical Leadership & Innovations, JHPIEGO, Baltimore, MD, USA

22 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Feedback from the first round of edits has been well-incorporated. Thank you!

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Contraceptive access; Service delivery

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

22 Mar 2022 | for Version 1

Kelsey Holt, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries³¹.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Yes
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Partly
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Quality of contraceptive counseling, person-centered reproductive healthcare

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

The last sentence of the Background details the two objectives of the paper, both of which could benefit from additional content to ensure the body of the piece addresses them, or alternatively, wording changes to the objectives to more clearly convey what is contained in the Open Letter. First, re: ‘synthesizing collective learnings,’ the article doesn’t appear to place emphasis on this aspect but rather focuses more on detailing the (impressive!) series of implementations and adaptations over the years. There is a short section on evaluation findings that is more focused on outcomes rather than lessons learned from the process. Perhaps more detail on lessons learned from implementing the tool and how subsequent versions have adapted accordingly would be helpful; alternatively, a deeper dive into implementation lessons could be better saved for a lengthier paper and the objective listed here could be reworded. Second, ‘inform future implementation science initiatives’ objective, consider rephrasing this to more directly acknowledge that the majority of the discussion/conclusions section is geared specifically at recommendations for future directions of this specific toolkit rather than the broader field of counseling quality improvement.
We agree that that stated objectives could be refined to better align with the content of the manuscript. We have reworded this paragraph as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.”

Related to the last point, you might consider pulling out the recommendations for future BCS+ directions into a separate section such that these stand out as a key component of the article.
Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed the culminating section “Discussion and recommendations,” to underscore that this section includes suggested ways forward.

Consider adding links where available to more of the adapted versions so that readers know where to find more information on the different versions that have been used across myriad countries over the years. E.g., where should someone go to find the version used in South Africa?
Unfortunately, other than the included link for MyChoice, we are unaware of online versions of other described adaptations.

As the field increasingly grapples with different approaches to counseling—directive versus shared versus informed—and seeks to define the best approach for clients, it would be helpful to provide more discussion of what makes the BCS+ a shared decision-making approach and how this differs from other efforts that are more focused on informed choice. It would also be helpful to clarify whether BCS considered its approach shared decision-making from the beginning, or if this has evolved in more recent years as discussions about different orientations to counseling have burgeoned.
We have added language to the “Background on BCS and BCS+” section to underscore that this toolkit was conceived at the outset to promote shared decision-making, with toolkit components being both client-facing and provider-facing. As described in this section, we regard the optimal approach as being a shared process whereby the provider lends clinical expertise to inform clients’ choices.

As the authors rightly point out, there is increasing interest in digital solutions; as such, more detail is merited on the MyChoice Indonesia version (which appears, based on the article, to be the only digital version?) and whether this particular tool is worth adapting for other settings, or if you envision new efforts? It is not clear to me what the authors are suggesting when they say that “updated BCS+ content could be meaningfully distributed via these consumer digital health platforms…”.
We have edited this text to clarify that MyChoice is one of various digital adaptations of the BCS+, as there also have been, for example, chatbots that have incorporated BCS+ content. For clarity, we also have deleted the referenced sentence regarding content distribution on these platforms.

Minor point – consider removing the sentence, “Interestingly both Indonesia and Kenya have lower unmet need than many countries31.” It appears that the authors are implying that the BCS+ can claim some of this success, though there is not discussion of the justification for this point.
We concur and have removed this sentence.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

07 Feb 2022 | for Version 1

Megan Christofield, Technical Leadership & Innovations, JHPIEGO, Baltimore, MD, USA

21 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
The conclusion of this paper, that we should "come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy" could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS's inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+'s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Partly
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Partly
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Contraceptive access; Service delivery

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 May 2022

Eileen Yam, Population Council, Washington, 20008, USA

The article title suggests BCS/BCS+ promotes shared decision making, however the concept of shared decision making (and evidence that supports BCS/BCS+'s ability to promote such shared decision making) is sparse. As we know, provider bias is rife and not all counseling tools successfully mitigate this. Consider elaborating on this connection.
We concur that the shared decision-making aspect is not the focus of this synthesis; some adaptations of BCS are more provider-facing than others, in fact. Thus, we have revised the title to remove this language as follows: “Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to support contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus.”

While the experience and learnings of BCS/BCS+ are well captured, I had trouble seeing how you accomplished the part of your Letter's purpose to "...inform future implementation science to improve quality of service delivery". Perhaps a learning agenda would be an effective means of doing this?
Thank you for pointing out this nuance. Rather than informing future implementation science per se, we have reworded this text as follows: “We share our experience developing, evaluating, and scaling BCS+ to, for the first time, synthesize more than two decades of iterative refinement and implementation of a widely used FP counseling tool, as well as inform the development, rollout, and scale-up of future innovations in FP decision support tools.

The conclusion of this paper, that we should “come together to simplify the current BCS+ toolkit by adapting a digital-first content distribution strategy” could benefit from additional justification. In the 20+ years since BCS’s inception, a number of digital counseling and decision support tools have been successfully introduced into FP programs. Scoping these other tools and arguing a case for BCS+’s digital evolution within that broader context would strengthen your case.
We agree that the emphasis on digital distribution can be minimized, and have instead focused on how the existing BCS+ content can serve as a valuable foundational public good, and continue to be a resource for future such FP decision support tools. We have revised the text as follows: “Supporting providers to be able to supply quality integrated FP counseling services is paramount to improving equitable person-centred care – in line with the FP2030 guiding principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on decades of iterative refinements and scale-up, the BCS+ toolkit can increasingly be regarded as a global public good that continues to be adapted and updated to reflect new biomedical products, meet context-specific counseling needs, and promote women’s informed contraceptive choices.”

A final, very minor point: On page 6, final paragraph, you suggest additional methods be added to the BCS+. Consider more consistency in using brand names vs generic titles, where possible (e.g. Sayana Press vs DMPA-SC).
Thank you. We have edited this line accordingly.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Kantorová V, Wheldon MC, Ueffing P, et al.: Estimating progress towards meeting women’s contraceptive needs in 185 countries: A Bayesian hierarchical modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(2): e1003026. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Cahill N, Sonneveldt E, Stover J, et al.: Modern contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand satisfied among women of reproductive age who are married or in a union in the focus countries of the Family Planning 2020 initiative: a systematic analysis using the Family Planning Estimation Tool. Lancet. 2018; 391(10123): 870–882. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communications Programs (CCP), Knowledge for Health Project: Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers (2018 Update). CCP and WHO. 2018. Reference Source

[4] 4. Cavallaro FL, Benova L, Owolabi OO, et al.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of counselling strategies for modern contraceptive methods: what works and what doesn’t? BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020; 46(4): 254–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Hopkins J, Collins L: How linked are national HIV and SRHR strategies? A review of SRHR and HIV strategies in 60 countries. Health Policy Plan. 2017; 32(suppl_4): iv57–iv66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Warren CE, Hopkins J, Narasimhan M, et al.: Health systems and the SDGs: lessons from a joint HIV and sexual and reproductive health and rights response. Health Policy Plan. 2017; 32(suppl_4): iv102–iv107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. World Health Organization: The Glion Call to Action on Family Planning and HIV/AIDS in Women and Children. 2004. Reference Source

[8] 8. UNFPA, UNAIDS, FHI: The New York Call to Commitment: Linking HIV/AIDS and Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2004. Reference Source

[9] 9. Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator: PEPFAR Blueprint: Creating an AIDS-Free Generation. U.S. Department of State, 2012. Reference Source

[10] 10. Inter-agency Task Team for Prevention and Treatment of HIV Infection in Pregnant Women, Mothers, and their Children: Preventing HIV and Unintended Pregnancies: Strategic Framework 2011-2015. World Health Organization. 2011. Reference Source

[11] 11. Mayhew SH, Warren CE, Ndwiga C, et al.: Health systems software factors and their effect on the integration of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services. Lancet HIV. 2020; 7(10): e711–e720. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Leon FR: Peru: Providers’ Compliance with Quality of Care Norms. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 1999. Reference Source

[13] 13. Baumgartner JN, Green M, Weaver MA, et al.: Integrating family planning services into HIV care and treatment clinics in Tanzania: evaluation of a facilitated referral model. Health Policy Plan. 2014; 29(5): 570–579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Kim YM, Kols A, Martin A, et al.: Promoting informed choice: evaluating a decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers in Mexico. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2005; 31(4): 162–171. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Foreit JR: Systematic Screening: A Strategy for Determining and Meeting Clients’ Reproductive Health Needs. FRONTIERS Program Brief. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2006. Reference Source

[16] 16. León F, Vernon R, Martin A, et al.: The Balanced Counseling Strategy: A Toolkit for Family Planning Service Providers. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2008. Reference Source

[17] 17. Leon F, Roca S, Rios A, et al.: One-Year Client Impacts of Quality of Care Improvements Achieved in Peru. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2003. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Leon FR, Brambila C, Cruz M, et al.: Providers’ Compliance with the Balanced Counseling Strategy in Guatemala. Stud Fam Plann. 2005; 36(2): 117–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Leon F, Brambila C, de la Cruz M, et al.: Effects of IGSS’ Job Aids-Assisted Balanced Counseling Algorithms on Quality of Care and Client Outcomes. FRONTIERS Final Report. Washington, DC: Population Council. 2004. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria Wheel for Contraceptive Use. 3rd Edition + 2008 Update. World Health Organization. 2008.

[21] 21. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Fourth Edition, 2009. World Health Organization. 2010. Reference Source

[22] 22. World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Fifth Edition, 2015. World Health Organization. 2015. Reference Source

[23] 23. Liambila W, Warren C, Mullick S, et al.: Feasibility, acceptability, effect, and cost of integrating counseling and testing for HIV within family planning services in Kenya. Reprod Health. Published online January 1, 2008. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Liambila W, Askew I, Mwangi J, et al.: Feasibility and effectiveness of integrating provider-initiated testing and counselling within family planning services in Kenya. AIDS. 2009; 23 Suppl 1: S115–121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Church K, Warren CE, Birdthistle I, et al.: Impact of Integrated Services on HIV Testing: A Nonrandomized Trial among Kenyan Family Planning Clients. Stud Fam Plann. 2017; 48(2): 201–218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Warren CE, Mayhew SH, Vassall A, et al.: Study protocol for the Integra Initiative to assess the benefits and costs of integrating sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Kenya and Swaziland. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1): 973. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Hussain SA, Ogundimu F, Bhattarai S: Mobile Phone-Based Chatbot for Family Planning and Contraceptive Information. In: Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Healthcare Applications. Springer, Cham. 2019: 342–352. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Agarwal S, Lasway C, L’Engle K, et al.: Family Planning Counseling in Your Pocket: A Mobile Job Aid for Community Health Workers in Tanzania. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016; 4(2): 300–310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Whitcomb A: Increasing Family Planning Uptake in Kenya through a Digital Marketplace: A Case Study in Human Centered Design. Duke University; 2017. Reference Source

[30] 30. Gobee Group: Distribution Strategy for the BCS+ Toolkit: Prepared by Gobee Group for the Population Council. 2020.

[31] 31. Ross J, Stover J: Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982–2009. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013; 1(2): 203–212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Ali M, Tran NT, Kabra R, et al.: Strengthening contraceptive counselling: gaps in knowledge and implementation research. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021; bmjsrh-2021–201104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Harrison PF, Hemmerling A, Romano J, et al.: Developing multipurpose reproductive health technologies: an integrated strategy. AIDS Res Treat. 2013; 2013: 790154. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] 34. Eisinger RW, Dieffenbach CW, Fauci AS: HIV viral load and transmissibility of HIV infection: undetectable equals untransmittable. JAMA. 2019; 321(5): 451–452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al.: Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5): 399–410. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Family Planning and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Data Booklet. 2019. Reference Source

Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus

Abstract

Keywords

Disclaimer

Background

Background on BCS and BCS+

Table 1. Content of Balanced Counseling Strategy (BCS) and Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) editions.

Figure 1. Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) toolkit (Third edition).

Development, testing, and updating of BCS and BCS+

Table 2. Components of the Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) toolkit (Third edition).

Evaluations of BCS and BCS+

BCS and BCS+ use and adaptations

Discussion and conclusion

Data availability

Author contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

Thank you!