Fig 1.
Differences between procedures and user autonomy.
Created by the authors—Based on [23].
Fig 2.
Side effects and complications of LNG-IUS vs. IMP-ENG.
Fig 3.
Comparison of pharmacological effects and preference trends for implants vs. LNG-IUS.
Created by the authors—Based on A) Pharmacological effects of implants vs. LNG-IUS [7,29,30]. B) Idealized graph showing user age and parity relative to the probability of subdermal implant or LNG-IUS being preferable [29]. Abbreviations: IUD, intrauterine device; LNG-IUD, levonorgestrel-releasing IUD; ENG, etonogestrel implant.
Fig 4.
A patient’s journey from device insertion to different scenarios based on user satisfaction.
Fig 5.
Added value provided by subdermal contraceptive implants.
Created by the authors of this study.
Table 1.
Summary of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (LARC) used in Brazil.
Table 2.
Comparison of costs related to LNG-IUS vs. ENG insertion and removal [37,44,45].
Table 3.
Medical eligibility criteria (MEC) for the initiation of LARC methods.
Table 4.
Five-year budget impact analysis: Cost comparison between the current scenario (Scenario 1) and the proposed scenario (Scenario 2).
Table 5.
Sensitivity analysis of the market shares of LARCs: LNG-IUS and ENG.
Table 6.
Scenario 1: Budget impact of a 20% decrease in the proposed market share of ENG.
Table 7.
Scenario 2: Budget impact of a 20% increase in the market share of ENG.
Table 8.
Patient groups for whom the subdermal IMP-ETN implant may be suitable, and conditions indicating suitability.
Fig 6.
Estimated disability-adjusted life years (DALY) of indicators of maternal and child health.
Created by the authors—Adapted from [52].