Client-provider interaction: understanding client experience with family planning service providers through the mystery client approach in India

References

• Conference on Human Rights. United Nations’ International Conference on Human Rights, at Tehran, Iran; 1968.
   Google Scholar
• ICPD. International Conference on Population and Development, at Cairo, Egypt; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• IPPF. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights. IPPF; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• UNFPA. State of world population 2012. By choice, not by chance. Family Planning, Human Rights and Development; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• FP2020. Family planning 2020: rights and empowerment principles for family planning. Washington (DC): Rights and Empowerment Working Group; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hardee K, Kumar J, Newman K, et al. Voluntary, human rights-based family planning: a conceptual framework. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45(1):1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00373.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar J, Hardee K. Rights-based family planning: 10 resources to guide programming. Resource guide. Washington (DC): Population Council, The Evidence Project; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Abdel-Tawab N, Roter D. The relevance of client-centered communication to family planning settings in developing countries: lessons from the Egyptian experience. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(9):1357–1368. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00101-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Hardee K. Revising the FP quality of care framework in the context of rights-based family planning. Stud Fam Plann. 2018;49(2):171–179. doi: 10.1111/sifp.12052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanc AK, Curtis SL, Croft TN. Monitoring contraceptive continuation: links to fertility outcomes and quality of care. Stud Fam Plann. 2002;33:127–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2002.00127.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanogo D, RamaRao S, Jones H, et al. Improving quality of care and use of contraceptives in Senegal. Afr J Reprod Health. 2003;7:57–73. doi: 10.2307/3583214
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jain A, Aruldas K, Tobey E, et al. Adding a Question about method switching to the method information index Is a better Predictor of contraceptive continuation. Glob Health: Sci Pract. 2019;7(2):289–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (WHO/RHR) and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP), Knowledge for Health Project. Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers (2018 update). Baltimore and Geneva: CCP and WHO, 2018. Available from: https://www.fphandbook.org/sites/default/files/global-handbook-2018-full-web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Delbanco TL, Daley J. Through the patients’ eyes: strategies toward more successful contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(3 Suppl):41S–47S. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00243-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce J. Fundamental elements of the quality of care: a simple framework. Stud Fam Plann. 1990;21(2):61–91. doi: 10.2307/1966669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymundo CM, Cruz GT. FP client-worker interaction as an ingredient of quality of care. Philipp Popul J. 1993;9(1–4):56–73.
   Google Scholar
• Harris S, Reichenbach L, Hardee K. Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences? Open Access J Contracept. 2016;7:97–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson PL, Do M, Agha S. Measuring client satisfaction and the quality of family planning services: a comparative analysis of public and private health facilities in Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:203. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tessema GA, Mahmood MA, Gomersall JS, et al. Client and facility level determinants of quality of care in family planning services in Ethiopia: multilevel modelling. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozumdar A, Gautam V, Gautam A, et al. Choice of contraceptive methods in public and private facilities in rural India. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):421. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4249-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey A, Shakya HB, Chandurkar D, et al. Discordance in self-report and observation data on mistreatment of women by providers during childbirth in Uttar Pradesh, India. Reprod Health. 2017;14:149. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0409-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh A, Chhugani M, Jame MM. Direct observation on respectful maternity care in India: a cross sectional study on health professionals of three different health facilities in New Delhi. Int J Sci Res.. 2016;7(5):821–825.
   Google Scholar
• Sugunadevi G. Quality of antenatal care services at subcentres: an infrastructure, process and outcome evaluation in a district in Tamil Nadu. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017;4(11):4071–4077. doi: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20174647
   Google Scholar
• Rana MJ, Jain AK. Do Indian women receive adequate information about contraception? J Biosoc Sci. 2019;52(3):338–352. doi: 10.1017/S0021932019000488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik S, Telma S, Lundgren R. Options of maintaining quality family planning counselling: Strategies for refresher training. Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22(2):145–150. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• León FR, Lundgren R, Huapaya A, et al. Challenging the courtesy bias interpretation of favorable clients’ perceptions of family planning delivery. Eval Rev. 2007;31(1):24–42. doi: 10.1177/0193841X06289044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tumlinson K, Speizer IS, Curtis SL, et al. Accuracy of standard measures of family planning service quality: findings from the simulated client method. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45(4):443–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00007.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India. Mumbai:IIPS. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Family planning – a global handbook for providers 2018 edition; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers – a resource for high-quality counselling. World Health Organization. Department of Reproductive Health and Research; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• NRHM. Induction training module for ASHAs: A consolidated version of modules 1 to 5 for newly selected ASHAs. New Delhi: National Rural Health Mission. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Schwandt HM, Speizer IS, Corroon M. Contraceptive service provider imposed restrictions to contraceptive access in Urban Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(278):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Calhoun LM, Speizer IS, Rimal R, et al. Provider imposed restrictions to clients’ access to family planning in urban Uttar Pradesh, India: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(532):1472–6963. (Electronic).
   Google Scholar
• NRHM. Implementation guide on RCH II ARSH strategy: for state and district programme managers. New Delhi Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Mchome Z, Richards E, Nnko S, et al. A ‘mystery client’ evaluation of adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in health facilities from two regions in Tanzania. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):1–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyayou Y, Berhane Y, Zerihun L. Socio-cultural factors in decisions related to fertility in remotely located communities: the case of the Suri ethnic group. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2004;18(3):171–174.
   Google Scholar
• Stanback J, Twumbah KA. Why do family planning providers restrict access to services? An examination in Ghana. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2001;27(1):37–41. doi: 10.2307/2673804
   Google Scholar
• Lewis N. Quality of care in family planning service delivery in Kenya: clients’ and providers’ perspective. Nairobi: Population Council, Africa Operations Research and Technical Assistance Project; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Santhya KG, Jejeebhoy SJ. Early marriage and HIV/AIDS: risk factors among young women in India. Econ Polit Wkly. 2007;42(14):1291–1297.
   Google Scholar
• Keesara SR, Juma PA, Harper CC. Why do women choose private over public facilities for family planning services? A qualitative study of post-partum women in an informal urban settlement in Kenya. BMC Health Ser Res. 2015;15:335. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0997-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilson L, Magomi M, Mkangaa E. The structural quality of Tanzanian primary health facilities. Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73(1):105–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar