ArticleReproductive health2023
Qualitative assessment of providers' experiences with a segmentation counseling tool for family planning in Niger.
Article in Reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Providers' views on hormonal family planning methods for young women: a qualitative study from Dosso, Niger.Gates open research · 2022Article
- Assessment of segmentation and targeted counseling on family planning quality of care and client satisfaction: a facility-based survey of clients in Niger.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study examines experiences with a family planning segmentation counseling tool that is used during the provision of family planning services. Based on answers to a series of questions, women are segmented into one of five categories of family planning users and counseled based on their identified segment. This study aimed to qualitatively assess provider perspectives on implementation of the tool.
methodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews took place in the Dosso region of Niger among 16 family planning providers who had been trained in segmentation and were currently using the segmentation tool. The facilities chosen for interviews were part of a larger mixed methods study assessing the impact of using the segmentation approach. Interview questions focused on training, supervision, how segmentation occurs at the health facility, how segmentation changes provider-client interactions, and any difficulties faced with implementation. Interviews were translated and transcribed into French and data were coded and thematically analyzed.
resultsAll providers in the study reported positive outcomes associated with segmentation. While providers acknowledged that the segmentation approach added time to the clinic visit, they did see the benefit of this extra time in providing more meaningful interactions between clients and providers, leaving clients with a deeper understanding of family planning and of the different methods available. The implementation of the tool did not change other aspects of service delivery, except that a segmentation sheet was required to be filled in and kept in each patient's file. Difficulties reported included translating the segmentation tool questions into local languages, training enough health care providers and avoiding stock outs of the segmentation sheets.
conclusionThe segmentation process is of benefit to family planning clients in Niger and the scale-up of the strategy could bring higher quality services to women. If this approach is brought to scale the implementation challenges uncovered need to be addressed, especially adequate training. Further research is needed to determine if segmentation leads to changes in family planning use outcomes.
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.