| Literature DB >> 33061685 |
Karen Weidert1, Koffi B Tekou2, Ndola Prata1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Provision of high-quality contraceptive counseling and services is essential to ensure family planning (FP) programs are rights-based and voluntary. Togo's modern contraceptive use has steadily increased with almost a quarter of the method mix attributed to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC). The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of LARC provision in Togo.Entities:
Keywords: FP services; LARC; Togo; method information index; quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 33061685 PMCID: PMC7520155 DOI: 10.2147/OAJC.S257385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Access J Contracept ISSN: 1179-1527
Figure 1Trends in contraceptive use in intervention and nonintervention areas between baseline household data collection in 2014 and operations research in 2016 in Lomé, Togo.
Figure 2Contraceptive method mix in intervention and nonintervention areas based on household data collected during operations research in August 2016 in Lomé, Togo.
Description and Source of Data for Study Outcome and Independent Quality of Service Variables
| Measures | Variable | Description | Measurement | Source Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary study outcome | LARC uptake | Women who left the FP visit with a modern contraceptive method | LARC=1 | Client exit interview |
| Program performance | Method Information Index (MII) | 1. Informed about other methods | MII=1 if YES for all 3 questions | Client exit interview |
| Program capacity | Contraceptive availability (condoms, pills, injectables, implants, IUD) | Facility has key modern methods available without stock outs in the last six months | Excellent availability=1 | Facility audit |
| Facility equipment | Facility has all necessary equipment for IUD and implant insertion | All equipment=1 | Facility audit | |
| Supervisory visits | Facility has received a supervisory visit in the past three months | Yes=1 | Facility audit | |
| Provider attitudes | Provider reported two or more restrictions on method provided (eg age, parity, marital status for modern methods) | Highly restrictive=1 | Provider survey | |
| Provider training | Received in-service training last two years | At least one training=1 | Provider survey |
Characteristics of Study Sample and Their Association with LARC Uptake Among Study Sample
| Client Characteristics | Method Adoption (%) | Total | Pearson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LARC | Other Modern | χ2 | ||
| Sociodemographic | n=130 | n=539 | n=669 | |
| Age | 0.09 | |||
| 15–24 | 28.5 | 19.9 | 21.5 | |
| 25–34 | 52.3 | 56.4 | 55.6 | |
| 35+ | 19.2 | 23.8 | 22.9 | |
| Education | 0.86 | |||
| Up to primary | 48.5 | 49.4 | 49.2 | |
| Secondary + | 51.5 | 50.7 | 50.8 | |
| Marital Status | 0.60 | |||
| Not currently married | 6.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | |
| Currently married | 93.9 | 95.0 | 94.8 | |
| Number living children | 0.65 | |||
| None | 3.9 | 2.2 | 2.5 | |
| 1–3 | 73.9 | 77.9 | 77.1 | |
| 4–6 | 21.5 | 19.1 | 19.6 | |
| 7+ | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | |
| Wealth index (terciles) | 0.75 | |||
| Poorest | 32.3 | 34.1 | 33.8 | |
| Middle | 33.9 | 30.4 | 31.1 | |
| Richest | 33.9 | 35.4 | 35.1 | |
| Age of provider | 0.01 | |||
| 20–39 | 65.4 | 52.7 | 55.2 | |
| 40+ | 34.6 | 47.3 | 44.8 | |
| Provider type | 0.32 | |||
| Midwife | 68.5 | 63.8 | 64.7 | |
| Other clinician | 31.5 | 36.2 | 35.3 | |
Figure 3Percent of LARC adopters receiving quality FP services among LARC adopters in study sites in Lomé, Togo.
Percent of Clients Exposed to Quality FP and Unadjusted and Adjusted Mixed Effects Model Results for LARC Uptake, with Facility as a Random Intercept in Lomé, Togo
| Indicator | Client Exposure to Quality FP | Unadjusted | Adjusted for Other Quality Measuresa | Adjusted for Client and Provider Characteristicsb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |
| Program Capacity | |||||||
| Supervisory visit in last three months | 82.1 | 4.1* | 1.49–11.33 | 1.5* | 1.48–2.51 | 1.44* | 1.48–2.39 |
| Provider attitudes (highly restrictive) | 51.9 | 1.67 | 0.77–3.70 | ||||
| Method availability (excellent) | 67.9 | 0.38 | −0.54–1.3 | ||||
| Adequate equipment (all) | 52.3 | 0.32 | −0.54–1.19 | ||||
| Provider attended at least one in-service training | 48.9 | −0.11 | −0.93–0.69 | ||||
| Program performance | |||||||
| Method Information Index (yes MII) | 28.3 | 7.9** | 5.05–12.51 | 2.1** | 1.62–2.52 | 2.1** | 1.61–2.51 |
Notes: *p<0.01; **p<0.001. aAdjusted for quality measures with p<0.05 in unadjusted models. bAdjusted characteristics significant at bivariate level with p<0.2 (client age and provider age).