ArticleBMC health services research2025
Comparative perceptions of wait times for family planning services among contraceptive users and mystery clients in Kisumu, Kenya: a mixed methods analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong wait times at health facilities negatively affect contraceptive access and cause dissatisfaction with care. Conventional data collection methods, such as population-based surveys and exit interviews, may not accurately capture wait times due to methodological challenges including recall and social desirability bias.
methodsWe compared mystery client observations conducted in all public facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya with data from a population-based sample of women of reproductive age (18-49, n = 744) in Kisumu County. We compared recalled wait times from women who used public facilities in the last year for their last contraceptive method with wait times recorded by mystery clients (n = 401) presenting as first-time family planning users, and analyzed quotes from mystery clients who mentioned long waits.
resultsMost mystery clients reported wait times between 1-2 h (49%) or over 2 h (33%), whereas most women surveyed in their homes recalled being seen within 30 min at their most recent visit for family planning (74%). When stratified by facility type, mystery clients waited the longest at dispensaries and basic health centers (median wait time of 110 min) and the shortest wait times at primary and secondary care hospitals (median of 82.5 min). In the survey, women recalled waiting a median of 15 min at basic health centers, 20 min at dispensaries, and 30 min at hospitals. Common causes of long waits reported by mystery clients in qualitative data included late facility openings, late providers, or prioritization of other patients. More than half of mystery clients reported spending less than 5 min with providers (59%), compared to only 8% of women surveyed.
conclusionsTriangulation of data between different sources can provide a more nuanced understanding of long wait times, their causes, and how they impact contraceptive seekers. We find that in comparison, these different methods of data collection answer distinct questions about wait times, time spent with provider, and their impacts on contraceptive seekers. Both forms of data are useful to policy makers and stakeholders. We recommend data collection efforts aimed at improving quality of services and adherence to national guidelines consider supplementing standard data collection methods with mystery clients.
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.