| Literature DB >> 30699156 |
Pilar Torres-Pereda1, Ileana B Heredia-Pi1, Midiam Ibáñez-Cuevas1, Leticia Ávila-Burgos1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Family planning (FP) is one of the key services provided by health care systems. Extending beyond matters of sexual and reproductive health, its area of influence impacts directly on the development of individuals and nations. After 60 years of intense FP activities in Mexico, and in light of recent restructuring of health service supply and financing, services need to be assessed from a user perspective.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30699156 PMCID: PMC6353096 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the population interviewed.
| Users | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Average (years) | 25.9 | |
| Variable | Characteristic | N | % |
| Age groups | 15–19 | 19 | 0.23 |
| 20–24 | 21 | 0.24 | |
| 25–29 | 25 | 0.30 | |
| 30–34 | 9 | 0.10 | |
| 35–39 | 9 | 0.10 | |
| 40–44 | 2 | 0.02 | |
| 45–49 | 1 | 0.01 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
| Sex | Women | 82 | 0.95 |
| Men | 4 | 0.05 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
| Marital status | Married | 36 | 0.42 |
| Single | 10 | 0.12 | |
| Free union | 38 | 0.44 | |
| Divorced | 1 | 0.01 | |
| Widowed | 1 | 0.01 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
| Educational level | Elementary school | 21 | 0.24 |
| Middle school | 34 | 0.4 | |
| High school | 25 | 0.29 | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 5 | 0.06 | |
| No schooling | 1 | 0.01 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
| Main occupation | Home | 63 | 0.74 |
| Remunerated job | 19 | 0.22 | |
| Unemployed | 2 | 0.02 | |
| Student | 2 | 0.02 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
| Area of residence | Rural | 50 | 0.58 |
| Urban | 36 | 0.42 | |
| Total | 86 | 1 | |
Source: prepared by the author based on the information collected during the interviews
FP quality components.
Summary of user perceptions by type of user.
| FP quality components | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of user | Access | CM availability | Interpersonal relations | Information provided to users | |||
| To services | To CMs | Availability | Free choice | Respectful attitude | On CMs, HIV and STIs | On BTL | |
| “Easy” access—with normalized barriers | Offering mediated by hierarchical mechanisms; differential offering of CMs to regular FP users vs. CPOE patients | The implant, one of the most preferred and requested but least available methods | Limited freedom of choice under conditions of inverse availability | Dependency on the part of users | Scarce and erroneous (on CMs and HIV) | Scarce and erroneous | |
| Offering mediated by hierarchical mechanisms; offering steered towards using the | Without free choice–offering of IUD only | Nonconsensual imposition; human rights violations | Reports ranging from lack of information to the violation of human rights | ||||
Source: Prepared by the author based on information gathered during interviews