Quality of Long-acting Reversible Contraception Provision in Lomé, Togo

Improving provider and client communication around family planning in Togo: Results from a cross-sectional survey

Previous research has shown that clients are better able to achieve their reproductive intentions when family planning (FP) services meet their needs and they have satisfying client provider interactions. There are several areas of quality provider-client communication, including providers taking a complete reproductive history of their clients to best gauge their needs, communication around alternative FP methods and side effects captured in the method information index, and communication around sexually transmitted infections and HIV risk as it relates to FP choices. This study examines data from a clinic-based intervention in Togo that focuses on strengthening health provider counseling related to FP, including improving in these three areas of provider-client communication. A clustered sampling approach was used to select 650 FP clients from 23 intervention facilities and 235 clients from 17 control facilities in the Lomé and Kara districts of Togo. The FP clients' interactions with providers were observed and clients exit interviews were conducted in December 2021. For each communication area measured through client interviews and observations, principal components analysis and Cronbach's alpha scores were used to ensure that the individual components could be indexed. Outcomes variables based on an index of sub-questions were then created for those who had fulfilled each of the components within an index. Multivariate multilevel mixed-effects logit models accounted for clients nested within facilities and included independent variables capturing client demographic and facility variables. Multivariate results show that all three outcome variables representing the three provider-client communication areas were statistically significantly better for FP clients in intervention clinics versus control clinics (p<0.05). The results speak to the emphasis that the Togo Ministry of Health has placed on building the provider capacity to provide quality counseling and administration of FP methods and working to assist in achieving health programming goals through well-designed interventions.

Do users of long-acting reversible contraceptives receive the same counseling content as other modern method users? A cross-sectional, multi-country analysis of women's experiences with the Method Information Index in six sub-Saharan African countries

Objective

There has been a growing focus on informed choice in contraceptive research. Because removal of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including implants and IUDs, requires a trained provider, ensuring informed choice in the adoption of these methods is imperative. We sought to understand whether information received during contraceptive counseling differed among women using LARC and those using other modern methods of contraception.

Study Design

We used cross-sectional data from Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda collected in 2019-2020 by the Performance Monitoring for Action project. We included 7969 reproductive-aged women who reported use of modern contraception. Our outcome of interest, information received during contraceptive counseling, was measured using a binary indicator of whether respondents answered "yes" to all 4 questions that make up the Method Information Index Plus (MII+). We used modified Poisson models to estimate the prevalence ratio between method type (LARC vs. other modern methods) and the MII+, controlling for individual- and facility-level covariates.

Results

Reported receipt of the full MII+ during contraceptive counseling ranged from 21% in the DRC to 51% in Kenya. In all countries, a higher proportion of LARC users received the MII+ compared to other modern method users. A greater proportion of LARC users answered "yes" to all questions that make up the MII+ at the time of counseling compared to other modern method users in DRC, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of reporting the full MII+ between users of LARC and other modern methods in Burkina Faso (Adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91, 1.48) and Côte d'Ivoire (aPR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.45).

Conclusion

Information received during contraceptive counseling was limited for all modern contraceptive users. LARC users had significantly higher prevalence of receiving the MII+ compared to other modern method users in the DRC, Kenya, and Uganda. Family planning programs should ensure that all women receive complete, unbiased contraceptive counseling.

Implications

Across 6 sub-Saharan African countries, a substantial proportion reproductive-aged women using contraception did not report receiving comprehensive counseling when they received their method. Women using long-acting reversible contraception received more information compared to women using other modern methods in the DRC, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda after controlling for individual- and facility-level factors.

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.