ArticleMaternal and child health journal2022
Supporting Staff in Southern Family Planning Clinics: Challenges and Opportunities.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- "So that I can trust them with my body:" How people with low incomes who may become pregnant define and prioritize quality reproductive health care.Contraception · 2024Article
- Opportunities for improving abortion care: a key stakeholder analysis of best practices for addressing the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive people seeking abortions.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Providers' experiences with abortion care: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- "We just need to create as many avenues for access as we possibly can": Clinician and administrator attitudes toward telehealth medication abortion in the U.S. South.Contraception: X · 2024Article
- Gentlemen seek harmony but not uniformity: The heterogeneity of entrepreneurial team and organizational resilience.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to identify key challenges and opportunities to better support non-clinician clinic staff at family planning centers in Southern US states.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 15 individuals in clinic staff and leadership positions at family planning centers in seven Southern states.
resultsTurnover had negative impacts on both clinic functioning as well as patient care. Participants identified several challenges related to recruitment and retention in family planning health centers in the South, including the conservative contextual landscape, the perceived value of support staff, gaps in communication, and rural locations. In response to these challenges, staff also identified key strategies to better support and retain health center workers. These included prioritizing investment in management, creating career advancement opportunities, prioritizing staff retention, and creating space for self-care. Health center staff and leadership who used these strategies to support and retain staff noted improvements in the effectiveness of staff work as well as increases in patient volume. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Study findings provide key areas for intervention including providing development opportunities, commitment from leadership to recognize and invest in staff and supporting self-care. Focusing on ensuring internal organizational justice for staff may also facilitate resilience to external challenging environments. Better supporting clinic staff is likely also important for quality services and ensures the full workforce involved in providing family planning care can work at full capacity.
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.