ArticleBMC women's health2025
Understanding patient perspectives on the quality of family planning care: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC women's health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2024, the United States (US) Office of Population Affairs updated federal guidelines for the provision of quality family planning (QFP) services, outlining six guiding principles-person-centered, evidence-based, inclusive, accessible, sex- and body-positive, and trauma-informed care-to promote equitable, high-quality sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. This study explores patients' SRH care preferences and the extent to which asserted preferences are aligned with the systems-level definition of quality advanced in the QFPs.
methodsWe conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of data; the original study used a qualitative methodology where data were collected in a series of semi-structured interviews between 2018 and 2021. Interview participants were recruited through a survey conducted at publicly supported sexual and reproductive health clinics in Arizona and Iowa. Eligible individuals were those who opted into qualitative follow-up after taking a baseline survey at publicly funded sexual and reproductive health clinics in Arizona and Iowa (n = 80). We completed a content analysis of participant interview responses to identify themes that pertained to several domains of sexual and reproductive health care quality and preferences.
resultsWe found substantial overlap between participants' preferences for care and the 2024 Quality Family Planning guiding principles. Participants described their preferences for and experiences of care that were person-centered (feeling respected and listened to), inclusive (identities respected and considered), accessible (clinic wait times and appointment availability), sex-positive (were not judged or stigmatized), and confidential. Evidence-based and trauma-informed care, quality counseling, and informed consent were less prevalent in our findings, though largely because they were not assessable by patients or were not explicitly covered in the interviews.
conclusionsPatient preferences are largely in keeping with the recommendations for providing quality family planning services, especially around the domains of person-centered care and accessibility. These guidelines should be adopted by clinics across the country to ensure that patients receive the highest quality family planning care possible and be able to achieve their reproductive autonomy.
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.