IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4201-d370676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural Quality of Services and Use of Family Planning Services in Primary Health Care Facilities in Ethiopia. How Do Public and Private Facilities Compare?

Author

Listed:
  • Gizachew Assefa Tessema

    (School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
    Department of Reproductive Health, Institute of Public Health, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
    School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6201, Australia)

  • Mohammad Afzal Mahmood

    (School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia)

  • Judith Streak Gomersall

    (School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
    South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Yibeltal Assefa

    (School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

  • Theodros Getachew Zemedu

    (Health System and Reproductive Health Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa 1242, Ethiopia
    Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia)

  • Mengistu Kifle

    (Federal Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, 1234, Ethiopia)

  • Caroline O. Laurence

    (School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia)

Abstract

Background: Family planning (FP) is among the important interventions that reduce maternal mortality. Poor quality FP service is associated with lower services utilisation, in turn undermining the efforts to address maternal mortality. There is currently little research on the quality of FP services in the private sector in Ethiopia, and how it compares to FP services in public facilities. Methods: A secondary data analysis of two national surveys, Ethiopia Services Provision Assessment Plus Survey 2014 and Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey 2016, was conducted. Data from 1094 (139 private, 955 public) health facilities were analysed. In total, 3696 women were included in the comparison of users’ characteristics. Logistic regression was conducted. Facility type (public vs. private) was the key exposure of interest. Results: The private facilities were less likely to have implants (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 0.06; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.03, 0.12), trained FP providers (AOR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.41) and FP guidelines/protocols (AOR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.54) than public facilities but were more likely to have functional cell phones (AOR = 8.20; 95% CI: 4.95, 13.59) and water supply (AOR = 3.37; 95% CI: 1.72, 6.59). Conclusion: This study highlights the need for strengthening both private and public facilities for public–private partnerships to contribute to increased FP use and better health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gizachew Assefa Tessema & Mohammad Afzal Mahmood & Judith Streak Gomersall & Yibeltal Assefa & Theodros Getachew Zemedu & Mengistu Kifle & Caroline O. Laurence, 2020. "Structural Quality of Services and Use of Family Planning Services in Primary Health Care Facilities in Ethiopia. How Do Public and Private Facilities Compare?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4201-:d:370676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4201/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4201/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4201-:d:370676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.