Use of family planning and child health services in the private sector: an equity analysis of 12 DHS surveys.

BACKGROUND: A key component of universal health coverage is the ability to access quality healthcare without financial hardship. Poorer individuals are less likely to receive care than wealthier individuals, leading to important differences in health outcomes, and a needed focus on equity. To improve access to healthcare while minimizing financial hardships or inequitable service delivery we need to understand where individuals of different wealth seek care. To ensure progress toward SDG 3, we need to specifically understand where individuals seek reproductive, maternal, and child health services. METHODS: We analyzed Demographic and Health Survey data from Bangladesh, Cambodia, DRC, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia. We conducted weighted descriptive analyses on current users of modern FP and the youngest household child under age 5 to understand and compare country-specific care seeking patterns in use of public or private facilities based on urban/rural residence and wealth quintile. RESULTS: Modern contraceptive prevalence rate ranged from 8.1% to 52.6% across countries, generally rising with increasing wealth within countries. For relatively wealthy women in all countries except Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Senegal and Zambia, the private sector was the dominant source. Source of FP and type of method sought across facilities types differed widely across countries. Across all countries women were more likely to use the public sector for permanent and long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Wealthier women demonstrated greater use of the private sector for FP services than poorer women. Overall prevalence rates for diarrhea and fever/ARI were similar, and generally not associated with wealth. The majority of sick children in Haiti did not seek treatment for either diarrhea or fever/ARI, while over 40% of children with cough or fever did not seek treatment in DRC, Haiti, Mali, and Senegal. Of all children who sought care for diarrhea, more than half visited the public sector and just over 30% visited the private sector; differences are more pronounced in the lower wealth quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the private sector varies widely by reason for visit, country and wealth status. Given these differences, country-specific examination of the role of the private sector furthers our understanding of its utility in expanding access to services across wealth quintiles and providing equitable care.

Developing and validating an abortion care quality metric for facility and out-of-facility settings: an observational cohort study in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Background: Despite progress in assuring provision of safe abortion, substantial disparities remain in quality of abortion care around the world. However, no consistent, valid, reliable method exists to routinely measure quality in abortion care across facility and out-of-facility settings, impeding learning and improvement. To address this need, the Abortion Service Quality Initiative developed the first global standard for measuring quality of abortion care in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria in 2020-2022. Participants included sites and providers offering abortion care, including health facilities, pharmacies, proprietary and patent medicine vendors (PPMVs), and hotlines, and clients aged 15-49 receiving abortion care from a selected site. 111 structure and process indicators were tested, which originated from a review of existing abortion quality indicators and from qualitative research to develop additional client-centred quality indicators. The indicators were tested against 12 clinical and client experience outcomes at the site-level (such as abortion-related deaths) and client-level (such as whether the client would recommend the service to a friend) that were expected to result from the abortion quality indicators. Indicators were selected for the final metric based on predictive validity assessed using Bayesian models to test associations between indicators and outcomes, content validity, and performance. Findings: We included 1915 abortion clients recruited from 131 sites offering abortion care across the three countries. Among the 111 indicators tested, 44 were associated with outcomes in Bayesian analyses and an additional 8 were recommended for inclusion by the study's Resource Group for face validity. These 52 indicators were evaluated on content validity, predictive validity, and performance, and 29 validated indicators were included in the final abortion care quality metric. The 29 validated indicators were feasibility tested among 53 clients and 24 providers from 9 facility sites in Ethiopia and 57 clients and 6 PPMVs from 9 PPMV sites in Nigeria. The median time required to complete each survey instrument indicated feasibility: 10 min to complete the client exit survey, 16 min to complete the provider survey, and 11 min to complete the site checklist. Overall, the indicators performed well. However, all providers in the feasibility test failed two indicators of provider knowledge to competently complete the abortion procedure, and these indicators were subsequently revised to improve performance. Interpretation: This study provides 29 validated abortion care quality indicators to assess quality in facility, pharmacy, and hotline settings in low-income and middle-income countries. Future research should validate the Abortion Care Quality (ACQ) Tool in additional abortion care settings, such as telemedicine, online medication abortion (MA) sellers, and traditional abortion providers, and in other geographical and legal settings. Funding: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation.

Exploring and Monitoring Privacy, Confidentiality, and Provider Bias in Sexual and Reproductive Health Service Provision to Young People: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias are believed to compromise adolescent and young adult sexual and reproductive health service quality. The results of focus group discussions with global youth leaders and sexual and reproductive health implementing organizations indicated that poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias serve as key barriers to care access for the youth. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted to describe how poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias impose barriers on young people seeking sexual and reproductive health services and to examine how point of service evaluations have assessed these factors. RESULTS: 4544 peer-reviewed publications were screened, of which 95 met the inclusion criteria. To these articles, another 16 grey literature documents were included, resulting in a total of 111 documents included in the review. CONCLUSION: Poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias represent significant barriers for young people seeking sexual and reproductive health services across diverse geographic and sociocultural contexts. The authors found that present evaluation methods do not appropriately account for the importance of these factors and that new performance improvement indicators are needed.

Translating international guidelines for use in routine maternal and neonatal healthcare quality measurement.

BACKGROUND: Improving facility-based quality for maternal and neonatal care is the key to reducing morbidity and mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries. Recent guidance from WHO and others has produced a large number of indicators to choose from to track quality. OBJECTIVE: To explore how to translate complex global maternal and neonatal health standards into actionable application at the facility level. METHODS: We applied a two-step process as an example of how the 352 indicators in WHO's 2016 Standards for Improving Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Health Facilities might be reduced to only those with the strongest evidence base, associated with outcomes, and actionable by facility managers. We applied Hill criteria and assessed whether indicators were within the control of facility managers. We next conducted a rapid review of supporting literature and applied GRADE analysis, retaining those with scores of 'moderate' or 'high'. To understand the utility and barriers to measuring this limited set of indicators in practice, we undertook a case study of hypothetical measurement application in two districts in Bangladesh, interviewing 25 clinicians, managers, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: From the initial 352 indicators, 56 were retained. The 56 indicators were used as a base for interviews. Respondents emphasized the practical challenges to the use of complex guides and the need for parsimonious and actionable sets of quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This work offers one way to move towards a reduced quality indicator set, beginning from current WHO guidance. Despite study limitations, this work provides evidence of the need for reduced and evidence-based sets of quality indicators if guides are to be used to improve quality in practice. We hope that future research will build on and refine our efforts. Measuring quality effectively so that evidence guides and improves practice is the first step to assuring safe maternal and neonatal care.

Review of quality assessment tools for family planning programmes in low- and middle-income countries.

Measuring and tracking the quality of healthcare is a critical part of improving service delivery, clinic efficiency and health outcomes. However, no standardized or widely accepted tool exists to assess the quality of clinic-based family planning services in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this literature review was to identify widely used public domain quality assessment tools with existing or potential application in clinic-based family planning programmes. Using PubMed, PopLine, Google Scholar and Google, key terms such as 'quality assessment tool', 'quality assessment method', 'quality measurement', 'LMIC', 'developing country', 'family planning' and 'reproductive health' were searched for articles, identifying 20 relevant tools. Tools were assessed to determine the type of quality components assessed, divided into structure and process components, level of application (national or facility), health service domain that can be assessed by the tool, cost and current use of the tool. Tools were also assessed for shortcomings based on application in a low- and middle-income clinic-based family planning programme, including personnel required, re-assessment frequency, assessment of structure, process and outcome quality, comparability of data over time and across facilities and ability to benchmark clinic results to a national benchmark. No tools met all criteria, indicating a critical gap in quality assessment for low- and middle-income family planning programmes. To achieve Universal Health Coverage, agreed on in the Sustainable Development Goals and to improve system-wide healthcare quality, we must develop and widely adopt a standardized quality assessment tool.