Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement. RESULTS: We screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements. CONCLUSION: To measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.

Accurate measures of process quality of care­or how well clinicians deliver services according to standards of care­are important to monitor, evaluate and improve service quality. Periodic surveys of health facilities or provider are the main source of national or regional quality of care data in many low- and middle-income countries. Many tools are used for these surveys: exit interviews with patients, observations of the visits by a clinician-assessor, simulated or mystery patients, and others. Implementers must select the appropriate and feasible tools for their program, context and setting but there is little information on how well different tools measure the same quality of care indicators.This review summarizes the current literature on the validity of measurements from different family planning quality of care tools. We found only eight studies, but we were able to see some differences important to consider when selecting the most appropriate tool. For instance, patients reported different events through an exit interview than what was documented by the assessor during the same visit. Exit interviews may be more appropriate to measure client experience or satisfaction rather than specifics of the care received. Knowing these differences will help implementers choose an appropriate tool depending on the focus of the quality assessment. This review contributes to the body of knowledge on improving quality of care measurements, resulting in better data to improve family planning services for patients.

Family planning science and practice lessons from the 2018 International Conference on Family Planning.

Background Since 2009, the International Conference on Family Planning (ICFP) has served as an opportunity for the global reproductive health community to share FP advances and practice lessons in the areas of research, programming, and advocacy. The purpose of this paper was to synthesize the key results and findings presented by members of the FP community at the 2018 ICFP Conference. Methods More than 700 abstracts from all 15 conference tracks were reviewed and 64 abstracts total were selected for this paper based on the novelty and urgency of the findings. The content analysis of conference abstracts were grouped into six final thematic areas. Results 1 ) Investing in family planning for a lifetime of returns. FP continues to face a shortage of funding. Domestically based and locally owned funding models provide alternative financing solutions. 2) Addressing inequities in family planning for key populations. Various populations still face challenges in accessing FP. Youth-inclusive and user-centered programming show promise in addressing such challenges. 3) Reproductive justice, Unsafe abortions tend to be more common among younger, poor, uneducated and rural women. Legislation is still needed to facilitate a culture of safe abortions. 4) Couple dynamics and decision-making. Couples who share equitable responsibility in decision-making processes are more likely to use contraceptives; couple disagreement influences women's decisions to covertly use FP. 5) Male involvement in  programming. Male champions can successfully promote uptake of FP. Gender-transformative programming promotes gender equity and impacts behavior change. 6) Breakthroughs in novel contraceptives and systems improvement in family planning. Recent advances include user-centered contraceptive technologies that allow for self-administration and information systems which optimize supply chain management. Conclusion The research, advocacy, and programmatic abstracts at ICFP 2018 highlighted research advances, showcased implementation science wins, and provided evidence of critical knowledge gaps in global FP access and use.