衡量和监测计划生育护理质量:我们是否忽视了负面经验?

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Open access journal of contraception Pub Date : 2016-05-26 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAJC.S101281
Shannon Harris, Laura Reichenbach, Karen Hardee
{"title":"衡量和监测计划生育护理质量:我们是否忽视了负面经验?","authors":"Shannon Harris,&nbsp;Laura Reichenbach,&nbsp;Karen Hardee","doi":"10.2147/OAJC.S101281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite decades of emphasis on quality of care, qualitative research continues to describe incidents of poor quality client-provider interactions in family planning provision. Using an emerging framework on disrespect and abuse (D and A) in maternal health services, we reviewed the global published literature for quantitative tools that could be used to measure the prevalence of negative client experiences in family planning programs. The search returned over 7,000 articles, but only 12 quantitative tools included measures related to four types of D and A (non-confidential care, non-dignified care, non-consented care, or discrimination). We mapped individual measurement items to D and A constructs from the maternal health field to identify measurement gaps for family planning. We found significant gaps; current tools are not adequate for determining the prevalence or impact of negative client experiences in family planning programs. Programs need to invest in tools that describe all aspects of client experiences, including negative experiences, to increase accountability and maximize the impact of current investments in family planning programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":74348,"journal":{"name":"Open access journal of contraception","volume":"7 ","pages":"97-108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAJC.S101281","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Harris,&nbsp;Laura Reichenbach,&nbsp;Karen Hardee\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAJC.S101281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite decades of emphasis on quality of care, qualitative research continues to describe incidents of poor quality client-provider interactions in family planning provision. Using an emerging framework on disrespect and abuse (D and A) in maternal health services, we reviewed the global published literature for quantitative tools that could be used to measure the prevalence of negative client experiences in family planning programs. The search returned over 7,000 articles, but only 12 quantitative tools included measures related to four types of D and A (non-confidential care, non-dignified care, non-consented care, or discrimination). We mapped individual measurement items to D and A constructs from the maternal health field to identify measurement gaps for family planning. We found significant gaps; current tools are not adequate for determining the prevalence or impact of negative client experiences in family planning programs. Programs need to invest in tools that describe all aspects of client experiences, including negative experiences, to increase accountability and maximize the impact of current investments in family planning programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open access journal of contraception\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"97-108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAJC.S101281\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open access journal of contraception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S101281\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open access journal of contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S101281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

尽管几十年来一直强调护理质量,但定性研究继续描述计划生育服务中客户-提供者互动质量差的事件。利用一个关于孕产妇保健服务中不尊重和虐待(D和A)的新框架,我们回顾了全球发表的量化工具文献,这些工具可用于衡量计划生育方案中负面客户体验的普遍程度。搜索返回了7000多篇文章,但只有12个定量工具包括与四种D和A类型(非保密护理、非尊严护理、未经同意的护理或歧视)相关的措施。我们将个体测量项目映射到孕产妇健康领域的D和A结构,以确定计划生育的测量差距。我们发现了显著的差距;目前的工具不足以确定计划生育方案中客户负面体验的流行程度或影响。项目需要投资于能够描述客户体验的各个方面(包括负面体验)的工具,以加强问责制,并最大限度地发挥目前对计划生育项目投资的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?

Despite decades of emphasis on quality of care, qualitative research continues to describe incidents of poor quality client-provider interactions in family planning provision. Using an emerging framework on disrespect and abuse (D and A) in maternal health services, we reviewed the global published literature for quantitative tools that could be used to measure the prevalence of negative client experiences in family planning programs. The search returned over 7,000 articles, but only 12 quantitative tools included measures related to four types of D and A (non-confidential care, non-dignified care, non-consented care, or discrimination). We mapped individual measurement items to D and A constructs from the maternal health field to identify measurement gaps for family planning. We found significant gaps; current tools are not adequate for determining the prevalence or impact of negative client experiences in family planning programs. Programs need to invest in tools that describe all aspects of client experiences, including negative experiences, to increase accountability and maximize the impact of current investments in family planning programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Review of Publicly Available State Reimbursement Policies for Removal and Reinsertion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception. Patient Perceived Quality of Virtual Group Contraception Counseling. Prevalence of Depression Among Women Using Hormonal Contraceptives in Mogadishu, Somalia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Is There Still a Role for Sterilization by Tubal Ligation as a Contraceptive Method? Erratum: United States Government-Supported Family Planning and Reproductive Health Outreach in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Lessons Learned and Recommendations [Corrigendum].
×
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