Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evidence-based family planning services among publicly funded providers in Texas.
Vohra-Gupta, Shetal; Ela, Elizabeth; Vizcarra, Elsa; Petruzzi, Liana J; Hopkins, Kristine; Potter, Joseph E; White, Kari.
Affiliation
  • Vohra-Gupta S; Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. sgupta@austin.utexas.edu.
  • Ela E; Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23Rd Street, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
  • Vizcarra E; Texas Policy Evaluation Project, The University of Texas at Austin, 116 Inner Campus Dr., Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
  • Petruzzi LJ; Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23Rd Street, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
  • Hopkins K; Texas Policy Evaluation Project, The University of Texas at Austin, 116 Inner Campus Dr., Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
  • Potter JE; Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
  • White K; Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23Rd Street, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 1498, 2022 Dec 09.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36482413
BACKGROUND: Healthy Texas Women (HTW) is a fee-for-service family planning program that excludes affiliates of abortion providers. The HTW network includes providers who participate in Title X or the state Family Planning Program (FPP) and primary care providers without additional family planning funding (HTW-only). The objective of this study is to compare client volume and use of evidence-based practices among HTW providers. METHODS: Client volume was determined from administrative data on unduplicated HTW clients served in fiscal year (FY) 2017. A sample of 114 HTW providers, stratified by region, completed a 2018 survey about contraceptive methods offered, adherence to evidence-based contraceptive provision, barriers to offering IUDs and implants, and counseling/referrals for pregnant patients. Differences by funding source were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Although HTW-only providers served 58% of HTW clients, most (72%) saw < 50 clients in FY2017. Only 5% of HTW providers received Title X or FPP funding, but 46% served ≥ 500 HTW clients. HTW-only providers were less likely than Title X providers to offer hormonal IUDs (70% vs. 92%) and implants (66% vs 96%); offer same-day placement of IUDs (21% vs 79%) and implants (21% vs 83%); and allow patients to delay cervical cancer screening when initiating contraception (58% vs 83%; all p < 0.05). There were few provider-level differences in counseling/referrals for unplanned pregnancy (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HTW-only providers served fewer clients and were less likely to follow evidence-based practices. Program modifications that strengthen the provider network and quality of care are needed to support family planning services for low-income Texans.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Family Planning Services Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Female / Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2022 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Family Planning Services Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Female / Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2022 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States