Provider imposed restrictions to clients’ access to family planning in urban Uttar Pradesh, India: a mixed methods study

BMC Health Services Research

Priya Nanda³  Pranita Achyut³  Nilesh Chatterjee¹  Pooja Sripad⁶  Rajiv Rimal⁴  Ilene S Speizer²  Lisa M Calhoun⁵ 

[1]Center for Communication Programs, Johns Hopkins University, Lucknow, India

[2]Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

[3]International Center for Research on Women, Delhi, India

[4]Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

[5]Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA

[6]Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

关键词: India;    Urban;    Uttar Pradesh;    Eligibility barriers;    Family planning;    Provider barriers;   

Others  :  1134393
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-13-532

 received in 2013-02-11, accepted in 2013-11-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Medical barriers refer to unnecessary policies or procedures imposed by health care providers that are not necessarily medically advised; these restrictions impede clients’ access to family planning (FP). This mixed methods study investigates provider imposed barriers to provision of FP using recent quantitative and qualitative data from urban Uttar Pradesh, India.

Methods

Baseline quantitative data were collected in six cities in Uttar Pradesh, India from service delivery points (SDP), using facility audits, exit interviews, and provider surveys; for this study, the focus is on the provider surveys. More than 250 providers were surveyed in each city. Providers were asked about the FP methods they provide, and if they restrict clients’ access to each method based on age, parity, partner consent, or marital status. For the qualitative research, we conducted one-on-one interviews with 21 service providers in four of the six cities in Uttar Pradesh. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Results

The quantitative findings show that providers restrict clients’ access to spacing and long-acting and permanent methods of FP based on age, parity, partner consent and marital status. Qualitative findings reinforce that providers, at times, make judgments about their clients’ education, FP needs and ability to understand FP options thereby imposing unnecessary barriers to FP methods.

Conclusions

Provider restrictions on FP methods are common in these urban Uttar Pradesh sites. This means that women who are young, unmarried, have few or no children, do not have the support of their partner, or are less educated may not be able to access or use FP or their preferred method. These findings highlight the need for in-service training for staff, with a focus on reviewing current guidelines and eligibility criteria for provision of methods.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Calhoun et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bertrand JT, Hardee K, Magnani RJ, Angle MA: Access, quality of care and medical barriers in family planning programs. Int Fam Plan Perspect 1995, 21(2):64-69. 74
• [2]Shelton J, Angle M, Jacobstein R: Medical barriers to access to family planning. Lancet 1992, 340(8831):1334-1335.
• [3]Bruce J: Fundamental elements of the quality of care: a simple framework. Stud Fam Plann 1990, 21(2):61-91.
• [4]Speizer IS, Hotchkiss DR, Magnani RJ, Hubbard B, Nelson K: Do service providers in Tanzania unnecessarily restrict clients’ access to contraceptive methods? Int Fam Plan Perspect 2000, 26(1):13-20. 42
• [5]Stanback J, Twum-Baah KA: Why do family planning providers restrict access to services? An examination in Ghana. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2001, 27(1):37-41.
• [6]Stanback J, Diabete F, Dieng T, Duarte de Morales T, Cummings S, Traore M: Ruling out pregnancy among family planning clients: the impact of a checklist in three countries. Stud Fam Plann 2005, 36(4):311-315.
• [7]Best K: Medical barriers often unnecessary. In Network: Improving Reproductive Health Services. Volume 21, Number 3. FHI 360: Research Triangle Park, NC; 2002.
• [8]Shelton J: The provider perspective: human after all. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2001, 27(3):152-153. 161
• [9]Cottingham J, Mehta S: Medical barriers to contraceptive use. Reprod Health Matters 1993, 1(1):97-100.
• [10]Das J, Sohnesen TP: Variations in doctor effort: evidence from Paraguay. Health Aff 2007, 26(3):w324-w337.
• [11]Hansen PM, Peters DH, Edward A, Gupta S, Arur A, Niayesh H, Burnham G: Clinic-based family planning and reproductive health services in Africa: findings from situation analysis studies. Int J Qual Health Care 1998, 20(6):375-383.
• [12]Miller K, Miller R, Askew I, Horn MC, Ndhlovu L (Eds): Clinic-Based Family Planning and Reproductive Health Services in Africa: Findings from Situation Analysis Studies. New York: Population Council; 1998.
• [13]Senderowitz J: FOCUS on Young Adults: Making Reproductive Health Services Youth Friendly. Washington, DC: Pathfinder International; 1999.
• [14]Nare C, Katz K, Tolley E: Adolescents access to reproductive health and family planning services in Dakar (Senegal). Afr J Reprod Health 1997, 1(2):15-25.
• [15]Deodhar NS: What went wrong with public health in India. J Health Popul Dev Ctries 2000, 3(1):91-98.
• [16]Fowler C: Determinants of family planning availability misperceptions: perceived versus objective availability of reversible contraception in rural India. PhD thesis. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Department of Health Policy and Administration; 2001.
• [17]Schuler SR, McIntosh EN, Goldstein MC, Pande BR: Barriers to effective family planning in Nepal. Stud Fam Plann 1985, 16(5):260-270.
• [18]Yadav K, Jarhyan P, Gupta V, Pandav CS: Revitalizing rural health care delivery: can rural health practitioners be the answer? Indian J Community Med 2009, 34(1):3-5.
• [19]International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International: National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India: Volume I. Mumbai, India: IIPS; 2007.
• [20]National Urban Health Mission (2008-2012): Urban Health Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2008. Webpage: http://www.uhrc.in/downloads/Reports/NUHM-Draft.pdf webcite. Accessed May 7, 2012
• [21]Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner (India): Provisional Population Totals-Uttar Pradesh: Rural-urban distribution. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_up.html webcite. Accessed March 7, 2012
• [22]Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Government of India): State of Urban Health in Uttar Pradesh. http://uhrc.in/module-ContentExpress-display-ceid-84.html webcite. Accessed January 2, 2011
• [23]Nanda P, Achyut P, Mishra A, Calhoun L: Measurement, Learning and Evaluation of the Urban Health Initiative: Uttar Pradesh, India, Baseline Survey 2010 [TWP-3-2011]. Chapel Hill, NC: Measurement, Learning & Evaluation Project; 2011.
• [24]Speizer IS, Nanda P, Achyut P, Pillai G, Guilkey D: Family planning use among urban poor women from six cities of Uttar Pradesh, India. J Urban Health 2012, 89(4):639-658.
• [25]Division of Research Studies and Standards, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India: Standards for Female and Male Sterilization Services. Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi: Government of India; 2006.
• [26]Family Planning Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India: IUCD Reference Manual for Medical Officers. Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi: Government of India; 2007.
• [27]Family Planning Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India: IUCD Reference Manual for Nursing Personnel. Nirman Bhawan, New Delh: Government of India; 2007.
• [28]Levy T, Agarwal D, Miller P: Expanding Access and Demand for DMPA in Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand. Washington: U.S. Agency for International Development; 2009. http://www.ghtechproject.com/files/DMPA%20Evaluation%20Report_final%20edformat508_Sept%2009.pdf webcite Accessed on October 25, 2013
• [29]World Health Organization: Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, fourth edition, 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241563888_eng.pdf webcite
• [30]Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India: National Rural Health Mission: List of Drugs being provided in ASHA Kit. Accessed on October 25, 2013. Available at: http://nrhm.gov.in/communitisation/asha/list-of-drugs-being-provided-in-asha-kit.html webcite
• [31]Campbell M, Sahin-Hodoglugil NN, Potts M: Barriers to fertility regulation: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann 2006, 37(2):87-98.
• [32]Shelton JD, Bradshaw L, Hussein B, Zubair Z, Drexler T, McKenna MR: Putting unmet need to the test: community-based distribution of family planning in Pakistan. Int Fam Plan Perspect 1999, 25(4):191-195.
• [33]Dyson T, Moore M: On kinship structure, female autonomy and demographic behavior in India. Popul Dev Rev 1983, 9(1):35-60.
• [34]Gwatkin DR: Political will and family planning: The implications of India’s emergency experience. Popul Dev Rev 1979, 5(1):29-59.
• [35]Zavier F, Padmadas SS: Use of a spacing method before sterilization among couples in Kerala, India. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2000, 26(1):29-35.