| Literature DB >> 30541528 |
Anna Galle1, Heleen Vermandere2, Sally Griffin3, Málica de Melo3, Lino Machaieie3, Dirk Van Braeckel2, Olivier Degomme2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Mozambique, both the government and partners have undertaken efforts over the last decade to improve FP (family planning) services, especially through training health care providers and promoting the uptake of LARCs (Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives). Despite this, uptake of FP methods has not increased significantly. This study aims to examine women's knowledge on LARCs, including their main sources of information, and the quality of care of FP services in rural areas.Entities:
Keywords: Family planning services; Long acting reversible contraceptives; Mozambique; Quality of care; Satisfaction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30541528 PMCID: PMC6291923 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-018-0692-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Fig. 2Knowledge of IUDs and Implants among female FP clients
Sample Size calculation
| Socio Demographic Data | Manhiça & Marracuene Districts |
|---|---|
| Populationa | 242.617 |
| Womena | 130.017 |
| Women of reproductive age (national 41.8%b) | 54.347 |
| Using contraceptives (national 12.1%b) | 6576 |
| Sample for 10% dissatisfaction rate | 136 |
adata from DPS
bbased on data from DHS 2011
Sociodemographic characteristics
| n | Unweighted % | Weighted % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographic Characteristics | |||
| District | |||
| Manhiça | ( | 42.89 | 62.00 |
| Marracuene | ( | 57.11 | 38.00 |
| Marital Status | |||
| In a relationship | ( | 82.89 | 84.77 |
| Single | ( | 17.11 | 15.23 |
| Age | |||
| <= 21 | ( | 18.25 | 19.49 |
| > 21 & < = 25 | ( | 20.19 | 25.81 |
| > 25 & < = 35 | ( | 42.58 | 35.90 |
| > 35 years | ( | 18.98 | 18.80 |
| Awareness of Family Planning | |||
| Heard about FP before the consultation | |||
| Yes | ( | 96.33 | 96.82 |
| No | ( | 3.67 | 3.18 |
| Received FP information in the last 3 months | |||
| Yes | ( | 75.00 | 67.86 |
| No | ( | 25.00 | 32.14 |
Fig. 1Percentage of women who received information regarding the method during consultation and percentage of women who received the method during consultation per round. Pill = Oral Contraceptives. Depo = Injectable Contraceptives
Choice of methods, interpersonal relations, follow -up and continuity, and constellation of services
| n | Unweighted % | Weighted % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of Method | |||
| Received preferred method | |||
| Yes | ( | 94.84 | 94.56 |
| No | ( | 5.16 | 5.44 |
| Why not received | |||
| Don’t know | ( | 4.76 | 9.69 |
| Not available | ( | 33.33 | 25.84 |
| Not recommended by provider | ( | 23.81 | 18.04 |
| Other reasons | ( | 38.10 | 46.43 |
| Satisfied with the method received | |||
| Yes | ( | 97.32 | 97.50 |
| No | ( | 2.68 | 2.50 |
| Interpersonal Relations | |||
| Satisfied in general | |||
| Yes | ( | 97.79 | 98.20 |
| No | ( | 2.21 | 1.80 |
| Treated with respect | |||
| Yes | ( | 99.76 | 99.48 |
| No | ( | 0.24 | 0.52 |
| Felt comfortable | |||
| Yes | ( | 99.03 | 99.11 |
| No | ( | 0.97 | 0.89 |
| Would you recommend the service | |||
| Don’t know | ( | 0.49 | 0.75 |
| Don’t recommend | ( | 0.24 | 5.88 |
| Recommend moderately | ( | 16.34 | 18.55 |
| Highly recommend | ( | 82.93 | 74.82 |
| Follow-up and Continuity | |||
| Informed where to go in case of problems | |||
| Yes | ( | 68.61 | 72.41 |
| No | ( | 31.39 | 27.59 |
| Informed about follow-up visit | |||
| Yes | ( | 99.02 | 98.53 |
| No | ( | 0.98 | 1.47 |
| Constellation of Services | |||
| Transport to health facility | |||
| On foot | ( | 72.57 | 81.44 |
| Minibus | ( | 26.94 | 15.35 |
| Others | ( | 0.49 | 3.20 |
| Travel time to the facility | |||
| < 15 min | ( | 29.88 | 32.71 |
| 15-30 min | ( | 32.10 | 34.52 |
| 30-60 min | ( | 28.40 | 19.74 |
| > 60 min | ( | 9.63 | 13.03 |
| Waiting time acceptable | |||
| Yes | ( | 77.91 | 82.70 |
| No | ( | 22.09 | 17.30 |
| Convenient opening hours | |||
| Yes | ( | 98.78 | 99.23 |
| No | ( | 1.22 | 0.07 |
| Health exams conducted | |||
| Yes | ( | 11.20 | 11.36 |
| No | ( | 88.80 | 88.64 |
Information given to clients
| Information | n | Weighted % | Weighted % | X2 Test of independence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Consultation | ( | First Time | Follow-up | |
| Information about usage | ||||
| Yes | ( | 88.23 | 83.60 | X2 = 1.2688 |
| No | ( | 11.77 | 16.40 | |
| Information potential side effects | ||||
| Yes | ( | 50.30 | 46.96 | X2 = 0.3452 |
| No | ( | 49.70 | 53.04 | |
| Received any material about FP | ||||
| Yes | ( | 2.02 | 5.64 | X2 = 1.983 |
| No | ( | 97.98 | 93.36 | |
Fig. 3Percentage of female FP users that received information in last 3 months for each source per round. * difference according to round P < 0.05
Linear Regression Model
| Estimate | Std. Error | t-value | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect: | ||||
| Intercept | 0.726 | 0.371 | 1.960 | 0.078 . |
| Received health Promotion in clinic | −0.864 | 0.265 | −3.257 | 0.008 ** |
| Received info by Community Campaigns | 0.087 | 0.227 | 0.385 | 0.708 |
| Received info by Outreach Activities | 0.522 | 0.222 | 2.354 | 0.040 * |
| Received info by Mass Media | 0.060 | 0.184 | 0.328 | 0.749 |
Levels of significance:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01