How do pro-social tendencies and provider biases affect service delivery? Evidence from the rollout of self-injection of DMPA-SC in Nigeria.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY BMC Women's Health Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1186/s12905-025-03613-6
Calvin Chiu, Aminat Tijani, Madeline Griffith, Emily Himes, Sneha Challa, Chioma Okoli, Shakede Dimowo, Ayobambo Jegede, Jenny X Liu
{"title":"How do pro-social tendencies and provider biases affect service delivery? Evidence from the rollout of self-injection of DMPA-SC in Nigeria.","authors":"Calvin Chiu, Aminat Tijani, Madeline Griffith, Emily Himes, Sneha Challa, Chioma Okoli, Shakede Dimowo, Ayobambo Jegede, Jenny X Liu","doi":"10.1186/s12905-025-03613-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inconsistent provision of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) for self-injection (SI) undermines efforts to improve women's reproductive health agency and access to self-care. In Nigeria, providers feel pro-social responsibility as frontline health workers to support their clients' wellbeing. However, their pronatalist beliefs censure premarital sexual activity and inhibit access to contraceptives for young, unmarried women. How pro-social tendencies and provider biases interact to affect service delivery is a critical but underexplored question.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study comparing stated pro-social tendencies and intentions to dispense DMPA-SC for SI (N = 81 in-depth interviews (IDIs)) with actual dispensing behavior during mystery client (MC) visits (N = 162 post-interaction surveys) across private and public facilities in Lagos, Enugu and Plateau. Qualitative analysis of providers' pro-social tendencies, biases, and reasons for not offering DMPA-SC for SI complemented quantitative analysis exploring the associations between pro-social tendencies and dispensing behavior.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Providers showed substantial levels of both pro-social tendencies and bias against young, unmarried women. High levels of stated intentions to dispense in IDIs (91% to older, married women vs 78% to young, unmarried women) did not translate to actual willingness to dispense in MC visits (30% to older, married women vs 27% to young, unmarried women). Young, unmarried actors were twice as likely to perceive differential treatment from providers (33%) relative to older, married women actors (17%). From IDIs, providers expressed biases about the appropriateness of family planning and SI specifically based on a client's age, marital status, parity, and covert use. In some cases, pro-social tendencies reinforced bias when providers sought to uphold social norms as a gatekeeper; in other cases, pro-social tendencies on self-defined client needs helped overcome bias. Providers described other factors that deterred them from dispensing DMPA-SC for SI, including elements of self-care that posed risks to their practice or business.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Provider biases may limit provision of DMPA-SC for SI, which could affect contraceptive equity and women's control over their own fertility, especially for younger, unmarried women. Targeted interventions that effectively address provider biases against young, unmarried women, potentially leveraging providers' underlying pro-social tendencies, may help ensure equity in client access to contraceptive self-care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9204,"journal":{"name":"BMC Women's Health","volume":"25 Suppl 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Women's Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-025-03613-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inconsistent provision of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) for self-injection (SI) undermines efforts to improve women's reproductive health agency and access to self-care. In Nigeria, providers feel pro-social responsibility as frontline health workers to support their clients' wellbeing. However, their pronatalist beliefs censure premarital sexual activity and inhibit access to contraceptives for young, unmarried women. How pro-social tendencies and provider biases interact to affect service delivery is a critical but underexplored question.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study comparing stated pro-social tendencies and intentions to dispense DMPA-SC for SI (N = 81 in-depth interviews (IDIs)) with actual dispensing behavior during mystery client (MC) visits (N = 162 post-interaction surveys) across private and public facilities in Lagos, Enugu and Plateau. Qualitative analysis of providers' pro-social tendencies, biases, and reasons for not offering DMPA-SC for SI complemented quantitative analysis exploring the associations between pro-social tendencies and dispensing behavior.

Results: Providers showed substantial levels of both pro-social tendencies and bias against young, unmarried women. High levels of stated intentions to dispense in IDIs (91% to older, married women vs 78% to young, unmarried women) did not translate to actual willingness to dispense in MC visits (30% to older, married women vs 27% to young, unmarried women). Young, unmarried actors were twice as likely to perceive differential treatment from providers (33%) relative to older, married women actors (17%). From IDIs, providers expressed biases about the appropriateness of family planning and SI specifically based on a client's age, marital status, parity, and covert use. In some cases, pro-social tendencies reinforced bias when providers sought to uphold social norms as a gatekeeper; in other cases, pro-social tendencies on self-defined client needs helped overcome bias. Providers described other factors that deterred them from dispensing DMPA-SC for SI, including elements of self-care that posed risks to their practice or business.

Conclusions: Provider biases may limit provision of DMPA-SC for SI, which could affect contraceptive equity and women's control over their own fertility, especially for younger, unmarried women. Targeted interventions that effectively address provider biases against young, unmarried women, potentially leveraging providers' underlying pro-social tendencies, may help ensure equity in client access to contraceptive self-care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Women's Health
BMC Women's Health OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
444
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Women''s Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the health and wellbeing of adolescent girls and women, with a particular focus on the physical, mental, and emotional health of women in developed and developing nations. The journal welcomes submissions on women''s public health issues, health behaviours, breast cancer, gynecological diseases, mental health and health promotion.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing surgical anxiety and postoperative pain: a comprehensive evaluation of psychological and gynecological determinants. Cranial venous sinus thrombosis following early spontaneous abortion: a case report and literature review. Global prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women with skin diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Association between depression and perceived health status in Korean adult women: a nationwide cross-sectional study. The sleep quality in women with surgical menopause compared to natural menopause based on Ardakan Cohort Study on Aging (ACSA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1