ReviewOpen access journal of contraception2016
Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?
Review in Open access journal of contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptation and validation of social accountability measures in the context of contraceptive services in Ghana and Tanzania.International journal for equity in health · 2020Trial
- "Do not leave me behind and do not put me in your box": family-planning access and care needs among women with migration histories in Berlin, Germany-a mixed-methods study.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Global scoping review of key domains of patient-reported experience of care measures across life stages and healthcare technical areas.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Operationalizing Client-Centered Care: A Strategic Framework and Measurement Approach to Guide Sexual and Reproductive Health Programming.Global health, science and practice · 2025Article
- Measuring Informed Choice for Contraception in Burkina Faso: Comparing self-rated and researcher-ascribed measures.Social indicators research · 2025Article
- Quality of care from the perspective of people obtaining abortion: a qualitative study in four countries.BMJ open · 2023Article
- The role of social accountability in changing service users' values, attitudes, and interactions with the health services: a pre-post study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Community perspectives on family planning service quality among users and non-users: a qualitative study from two cities in Burkina Faso.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Validation and Predictive Utility of a Person-Centered Quality of Contraceptive Counseling (QCC-10) Scale in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multicountry Study of Family Planning Clients and a New Indicator for Measuring High-Quality, Rights-Based Care.Studies in family planning · 2023Article
- Article
- Adaptation and validation of the quality of contraceptive counseling (QCC) scale for use in Ethiopia and India.PloS one · 2023Article
- Provider verbal disrespect in the provision of family planning in public-sector facilities in Western Kenya.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022Article
- Integrated delivery of family planning and childhood immunization services: a qualitative study of factors influencing service responsiveness in Malawi.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Integrated delivery of family planning and childhood immunisation services: a mixed methods assessment of service responsiveness.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- "I Got What I Came for": A Qualitative Exploration into Family Planning Client Satisfaction in Dosso Region, Niger.Open access journal of contraception · 2022Article
- "I was afraid they will be judging me and even deny me the service": Experiences of denial and dissuasion during abortion care in Ethiopia.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
- Client, provider, and visit factors associated with quality in contraceptive counseling in Mexico: an exploratory cross-sectional analysis.Reproductive health · 2021Article
- Community and health provider perspectives on the quality of family planning and contraceptive services in Kabwe District, Zambia.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Article
- Disrespectful care in family planning services among youth and adult simulated clients in public sector facilities in Malawi.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Client-provider interaction: understanding client experience with family planning service providers through the mystery client approach in India.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite decades of emphasis on quality of care, qualitative research continues to describe incidents of poor quality client-provider interactions in family planning provision. Using an emerging framework on disrespect and abuse (D and A) in maternal health services, we reviewed the global published literature for quantitative tools that could be used to measure the prevalence of negative client experiences in family planning programs. The search returned over 7,000 articles, but only 12 quantitative tools included measures related to four types of D and A (non-confidential care, non-dignified care, non-consented care, or discrimination). We mapped individual measurement items to D and A constructs from the maternal health field to identify measurement gaps for family planning. We found significant gaps; current tools are not adequate for determining the prevalence or impact of negative client experiences in family planning programs. Programs need to invest in tools that describe all aspects of client experiences, including negative experiences, to increase accountability and maximize the impact of current investments in family planning programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.