| Literature DB >> 25623610 |
Rebecca S Geary1, Emily L Webb2, Lynda Clarke3, Shane A Norris4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few§These authors contributed equally to this work. youth-friendly health services worldwide have been scaled up or evaluated from young people's perspectives. South Africa's Youth Friendly Services (YFS) programme is one of the few to have been scaled up. This study investigated young people's experiences of using sexual and reproductive health services at clinics providing the YFS programme, compared to those that did not, using the simulated client method.Entities:
Keywords: South Africa; adolescent health services; simulated client; youth friendly
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25623610 PMCID: PMC4306747 DOI: 10.3402/gha.v8.26080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Summary of simulated client scenarios
| Scenario | Details |
|---|---|
| Advice on condoms | The young man has heard that condoms can break and would like to know how reliable they are. The young man would also like a demonstration of how to put a condom on correctly. The young man is sexually active with a girlfriend. They use condoms (this information is only given if requested). |
| Advice on contraceptive methods | The young woman would like to know about how to prevent pregnancy. The young woman currently uses condoms (this information is only given if requested) but would like to learn about other methods. The young woman is sexually active with a boyfriend. They use condoms (this information is only given if requested). |
Clinic and simulated client characteristics
| Clinic characteristics (N=15) | % (N) |
|---|---|
| YFS provided | |
| Yes | 46.67 (7) |
| No | 53.33 (8) |
| Clinic size | |
| Small (<6 nurses) | 53.33 (8) |
| Large (>10 nurses) | 46.67 (7) |
| Clinic authority | |
| Local | 53.33 (8) |
| Provincial | 46.67 (7) |
| groundBREAKER peer educator | |
| Yes | 26.67 (4) |
| No | 73.33 (11) |
| Simulated client characteristics (N=7) | |
| Simulated client gender | |
| Female | 57.00 (4) |
| Male | 42.00 (3) |
| Population group | |
| Black | 100.00 (7) |
| Maternal education at birth | |
| Secondary | 100.00 (7) |
| Maternal age at birth | |
| <19 | 14.29 (1) |
| 20–24 | 28.57 (2) |
| 25–29 | 28.57 (2) |
| 30–34 | 14.29 (1) |
| ≥35 | 14.29 (1) |
| Household SES | |
| 1 | 0.00 (0) |
| 2 | 28.57 (2) |
| 3 | 28.57 (2) |
| 4 | 0.00 (0) |
| 5 | 28.57 (2) |
| Missing | 14.29 (1) |
SES=Socio-economic status, derived by principal components analysis of household assets (electricity, television, car, fridge, washing machine, and telephone) collected from caregivers at enrolment into the cohort.
Characteristics of the clinic visits (N=56)
| YFS not provided % (N) | YFS provided % (N) | All clinics % (N) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic visit level variables (N=56) | ||||
| Healthcare worker seemed happy to talk about contraceptives or condoms | ||||
| No | 0.00 (0) | 14.81 (4) | 7.14 (4) | |
| No discussion | 13.79 (4) | 0.00 (0) | 7.14 (4) | 0.013 |
| Yes | 86.21 (25) | 85.19 (23) | 85.71 (48) | |
| Simulated client felt respected by the healthcare worker | ||||
| No | 3.45 (1) | 11.11 (3) | 7.14 (4) | 0.343 |
| Yes | 96.55 (28) | 88.89 (24) | 92.86 (52) | |
| Simulated client perceived the clinic to have convenient opening hours | ||||
| No | 13.79 (4) | 11.11 (3) | 12.50 (7) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 86.21 (25) | 88.89 (24) | 87.50 (49) | |
| Simulated client was told consultation would be confidential | ||||
| No | 65.52 (19) | 62.96 (17) | 64.29 (36) | 0.842 |
| Yes | 34.48 (10) | 37.04 (10) | 35.71 (20) | |
| Simulated client felt consultation would be confidential | ||||
| No | 20.69 (6) | 22.22 (6) | 21.43 (12) | 0.889 |
| Yes | 79.31 (23) | 77.78 (21) | 78.57 (44) | |
| Simulated client felt that the consultation area afforded privacy | ||||
| No | 24.14 (7) | 18.52 (5) | 21.43 (12) | 0.609 |
| Yes | 75.86 (22) | 81.48 (22) | 78.57 (44) | |
| Consultation was interrupted | ||||
| Yes | 13.79 (4) | 33.33 (9) | 23.21 (13) | 0.116 |
| No | 86.21 (25) | 66.67 (18) | 76.79 (43) | |
| Number of interruptions | ||||
| 0 | 86.21 (25) | 66.67 (18) | 76.79 (43) | |
| 1 | 6.90 (2) | 22.22 (6) | 14.29 (8) | |
| 2 | 0.00 (0) | 7.41 (2) | 3.57 (2) | 0.125 |
| 3 | 3.45 (1) | 3.70 (1) | 3.57 (2) | |
| 4 | 3.45 (1) | 0.00 (0) | 1.79 (1) | |
| Simulated client felt that the healthcare worker gave them their full attention | ||||
| No | 17.24 (5) | 14.81 (4) | 16.07 (9) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 82.76 (24) | 85.19 (23) | 83.93 (47) | |
| Simulated client felt that the healthcare worker was interested in their questions | ||||
| No | 24.14 (7) | 18.52 (5) | 21.43 (12) | 0.609 |
| Yes | 75.86 (22) | 81.48 (22) | 78.57 (44) | |
| The healthcare worker gave advice or condoms | ||||
| No | 13.79 (4) | 3.70 (1) | 8.93 (5) | 0.353 |
| Yes | 86.21 (25) | 96.30 (26) | 91.07 (51) | |
| Simulated client felt comfortable talking to the healthcare worker about contraceptives, or felt comfortable during the condom demonstration | ||||
| No | 6.90 (2) | 3.70 (1) | 5.36 (3) | |
| No demonstration or discussion | 13.79 (4) | 11.11 (3) | 12.50 (7) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 79.31 (23) | 85.19 (23) | 82.14 (46) | |
| Simulated client felt able to ask all the questions they had | ||||
| No | 31.03 (9) | 22.22 (6) | 26.79 (15) | 0.457 |
| Yes | 68.97 (20) | 77.78 (21) | 73.21 (41) | |
| Healthcare worker answered all the questions the simulated client asked | ||||
| No | 17.24 (5) | 7.41 (2) | 12.50 (7) | 0.424 |
| Yes | 82.76 (24) | 92.59 (25) | 87.50 (49) | |
| Simulated client rating of the clinic visit experience | ||||
| Excellent | 51.72 (15) | 66.67 (18) | 58.93 (33) | |
| Good but with room for improvement | 24.14 (7) | 22.22 (6) | 23.21 (13) | |
| Neither good nor bad | 6.90 (2) | 3.70 (1) | 5.36 (3) | 0.723 |
| Unsatisfactory | 10.34 (3) | 7.41 (2) | 8.93 (5) | |
| Very unsatisfactory | 6.90 (2) | 0.00 (0) | 3.57 (2) | |
Where any cell values are less than five, p-values are from Fisher’s exact test. Where cell values are five or more, p-values are from Pearson’s chi-squared test.
Statistically significantly associated with the provision of the YFS programme (p<0.05).
Crude and adjusted multilevel models of the association between the provision of the YFS programme and clinic visit score
| Clinic visit score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Mean (SD) | Regression coefficient | 95% CI |
| |
| Univariate multilevel model | ||||
| YFS provided | ||||
| No | 0.06 (1.47) | Reference | ||
| Yes | −0.13 (1.82) | −0.12 | −0.86, 0.62 | 0.748 |
| Multivariable multilevel model | ||||
| YFS provided | ||||
| No | 0.06 (1.47) | Reference | ||
| Yes | −0.13 (1.82) | −0.18 | −0.95, 0.60 | 0.656 |
| Simulated client gender | ||||
| Female | 0.81 (1.06) | Reference | ||
| Male | −0.93 (1.68) | −1.52 | −2.65, −0.38 | 0.009 |
| Healthcare worker age | ||||
| 20–29 | 1.38 (0.67) | |||
| 30–39 | 0.02 (1.37) | −0.59a | −1.15, −0.02 | 0.041 |
| 40+ | −0.72 (2.01) | |||
For ordered categorical exposures, where tests for trend performed better than categorical tests in univariate, multilevel models, the variable was fitted as a continuous variable for use in multivariable, multilevel models.
Crude and adjusted multilevel models of the association between the provision of the YFS programme and whether a simulated client would recommend a clinic
| Would recommend clinic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| % (N) | Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| |
| Univariate multilevel model | ||||
| YFS provided | ||||
| No | 86.21 (25) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Yes | 74.07 (20) | 0.46 | 0.12, 1.78 | 0.260 |
| Multivariable multilevel model | ||||
| YFS provided | ||||
| No | 86.21 (25) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Yes | 74.07 (20) | 0.48 | 0.11, 2.10 | 0.331 |
| Maternal age at birth | ||||
| ≤19 | 100.00 (4) | |||
| 20–24 | 87.50 (14) | 0.57 | 0.30, 1.06 | 0.076 |
| 25–29 | 85.71 (18) | |||
| 30–34 | 60.00 (3) | |||
| ≥35 | 60.00 (6) | |||
| Healthcare worker age | ||||
| 20–29 | 57.14 (4) | |||
| 30–39 | 78.12 (25) | 2.49 | 0.81, 7.66 | 0.113 |
| 40+ | 94.12 (16) | |||