Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31238935›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Choice of contraceptive methods in public and private facilities in rural India.

Arupendra Mozumdar, Vandana Gautam, Abhishek Gautam, Arnab Dey, Uttamacharya, Ruhi Saith, Pranita Achyut, Abhishek Kumar, Kumudha Aruldas, Amit Chakraverty and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Arupendra MozumdarPopulation Council, New Delhi, India. amozumdar@popcouncil.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2170-2656
Vandana GautamOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, India.
Abhishek GautamInternational Center for Research on Women, New Delhi, India.
Arnab DeySambodhi Research and Communications Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
UttamacharyaInternational Center for Research on Women, New Delhi, India.
Ruhi SaithOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, India.
Pranita AchyutInternational Center for Research on Women, New Delhi, India.
Abhishek KumarPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Kumudha AruldasPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Amit ChakravertySambodhi Research and Communications Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Dinesh AgarwalIPE Global, New Delhi, India.
Ravi VermaInternational Center for Research on Women, New Delhi, India.
Priya NandaBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, New Delhi, India.
Suneeta KrishnanBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, New Delhi, India.
Niranjan SaggurtiPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1083531Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1142878Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1142884Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP142874
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClient-centric quality of care (QoC) in family planning (FP) services are imperative for contraceptive method adoption and continuation. Less is known about the choice of contraceptive method in India beyond responses to the three common questions regarding method information, asked in demographic and health surveys. This study argues for appropriate measurement of method choice and assesses its levels and correlates in rural India.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with new acceptors of family planning method (N = 454) recruited from public and private health facilities in rural Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the two most populous states in India. The key quality of care indicator 'method choice' was assessed using four key questions from client-provider interactions that help in making a choice about a particular method: (1) whether the provider asked the client about their preferred method, (2) whether the provider told the client about at least one additional method, (3) whether the client received information without any single method being promoted by the provider, and (4) client's perception about receipt of method choice. The definition of method choice in this study included women who responded "yes" to all four questions in the survey. The relationship between contraceptive communication and receipt of method choice was assessed using logistic regression analyses, after adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.

resultsAlthough 62% of clients responded to a global question and reported that they received the method of their choice, only 28% received it based on responses about client-provider interactions. Receipt of the information on side-effects of the selected method (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 7.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 3.96-13.86) and facility readiness to provide a range of contraceptive choice (AOR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.48-4.83) were significantly associated with receipt of method choice.

conclusionsFindings demonstrated that women's choice of contraceptive could be improved in rural India if providers give full information prior to and during the acceptance of a method and if facilities are equipped to provide a range of choice of contraceptive methods.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorRural Health ServicesAdolescentAdultContraceptionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiaPregnancyPrivate SectorPublic SectorYoung AdultFamily planningIndiaMethod choiceQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID31238935
PMCPMC6593496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.