Need for Standardized Measure of Modern Method Availability: Assessment of Indicators Using Health Facility Data from Three Country Contexts.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Studies in Family Planning Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1111/sifp.12220
Janine Barden-O'Fallon, Rashida-E Ijdi
{"title":"Need for Standardized Measure of Modern Method Availability: Assessment of Indicators Using Health Facility Data from Three Country Contexts.","authors":"Janine Barden-O'Fallon,&nbsp;Rashida-E Ijdi","doi":"10.1111/sifp.12220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept of contraceptive method choice is complex and difficult to measure, usually requiring multiple metrics that represent the service environment, access, and acceptability. One of the most used measures for the family planning service delivery environment is method availability, or specifically, the contraceptive options that are available to clients at any given family planning service delivery point. Despite the importance of the measure, indicator definitions vary widely and are not standardized. We identified six versions of the method availability indicator and calculated each version using Service Provision Assessment data from three countries with varying family planning profiles, health service structures, and from different geographic areas: Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti. We compared method availability estimates by urban/rural location, facility type, and across country context. Our results showed a wide variability in method availability estimates depending on the indicator used. Generally, indicators requiring a particular mix of method types had lower estimates of method availability than indicators only requiring a minimum number of methods. Results are discussed and recommendations are made to standardize indicator language and guidance. We further recommend the standardization of an indicator with a minimum mix of method types to ensure that a variety of method preferences can be met.</p>","PeriodicalId":22069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Family Planning","volume":"54 1","pages":"251-263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Family Planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12220","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The concept of contraceptive method choice is complex and difficult to measure, usually requiring multiple metrics that represent the service environment, access, and acceptability. One of the most used measures for the family planning service delivery environment is method availability, or specifically, the contraceptive options that are available to clients at any given family planning service delivery point. Despite the importance of the measure, indicator definitions vary widely and are not standardized. We identified six versions of the method availability indicator and calculated each version using Service Provision Assessment data from three countries with varying family planning profiles, health service structures, and from different geographic areas: Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti. We compared method availability estimates by urban/rural location, facility type, and across country context. Our results showed a wide variability in method availability estimates depending on the indicator used. Generally, indicators requiring a particular mix of method types had lower estimates of method availability than indicators only requiring a minimum number of methods. Results are discussed and recommendations are made to standardize indicator language and guidance. We further recommend the standardization of an indicator with a minimum mix of method types to ensure that a variety of method preferences can be met.

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
现代方法可用性标准化衡量的必要性:利用三个国家卫生设施数据评估指标。
避孕方法选择的概念复杂且难以衡量,通常需要多个指标来代表服务环境、可及性和可接受性。计划生育服务提供环境中最常用的措施之一是方法可得性,或具体地说,是在任何给定的计划生育服务提供点向客户提供的避孕选择。尽管衡量指标很重要,但指标的定义差异很大,没有标准化。我们确定了方法可用性指标的六个版本,并使用来自三个国家的服务提供评估数据计算每个版本,这些国家的计划生育概况、卫生服务结构各不相同,并且来自不同的地理区域:孟加拉国、刚果民主共和国和海地。我们比较了城市/农村位置、设施类型和国家背景下的方法可用性估计。我们的结果显示,根据所使用的指标,方法可用性估计有很大的可变性。一般来说,需要特定方法类型混合的指标比只需要最少方法数量的指标对方法可用性的估计要低。对结果进行了讨论,并提出了规范指标语言和指导的建议。我们进一步建议标准化一个指标,尽量减少方法类型的混合,以确保能够满足各种方法偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Studies in Family Planning publishes public health, social science, and biomedical research concerning sexual and reproductive health, fertility, and family planning, with a primary focus on developing countries. Each issue contains original research articles, reports, a commentary, book reviews, and a data section with findings for individual countries from the Demographic and Health Surveys.
期刊最新文献
Unwanted Family Planning Including Unwanted Sterilization: Preliminary Prevalence Estimates for India. The Reliability of Contraceptive Discontinuation Reporting in Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Uganda. Contraceptive Care Visit Objectives and Outcomes: Evidence From Burkina Faso, Pakistan, and Tanzania. Estimating the Social Visibility of Abortions in Uganda and Ethiopia Using the Game of Contacts Women's Perspectives on the Unique Benefits and Challenges of Self‐Injectable Contraception: A Four‐Country In‐Depth Interview Study in Sub‐Saharan Africa
×
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