IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0165627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Determining Quality of Care in Family Planning Services in Africa: A Systematic Review of Mixed Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Gizachew Assefa Tessema
  • Judith Streak Gomersall
  • Mohammad Afzal Mahmood
  • Caroline O Laurence

Abstract

Background: Improving use of family planning services is key to improving maternal health in Africa, and provision of quality of care in family planning services is critical to support higher levels of contraceptive uptake. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence on factors determining the quality of care in family planning services in Africa. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative studies undertaken in Africa, published in English, in grey and commercial literature, between 1990 and 2015 were considered. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using standardized tools. Findings from the quantitative studies were summarized using narrative and tables. Client satisfaction was used to assess the quality of care in family planning services in the quantitative component of the review. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesize the qualitative study findings. Results: From 4334 records, 11 studies (eight quantitative, three qualitative) met the review eligibility criteria. The review found that quality of care was influenced by client, provider and facility factors, and structural and process aspects of the facilities. Client’s waiting time, provider competency, provision/prescription of injectable methods, maintaining privacy and confidentiality were the most commonly identified process factors. The quality of stock inventory was the most commonly identified structural factor. The quality of care was also positively associated with privately-owned facilities. The qualitative synthesis revealed additional factors including access related factors such as ‘pre-requisites to be fulfilled by the clients and cost of services, provider workload, and providers’ behaviour. Conclusion: There is limited evidence on factors determining quality of care in family planning services in Africa that shows quality of care is influenced by multiple factors. The evidence suggests that lowering access barriers and avoiding unnecessary pre-requisites for taking contraceptive methods are important to improve the quality of care in family planning services. Strategies to improve provider behavior and competency are important. Moreover, strategies that minimize client waiting time and ensure client confidentiality should be implemented to ensure quality of care in family planning services. However, no strong evidence based conclusions and recommendations may be drawn from the evidence. Future studies are needed to identify the most important factors associated with quality of care in family planning services in a wider range of African countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Gizachew Assefa Tessema & Judith Streak Gomersall & Mohammad Afzal Mahmood & Caroline O Laurence, 2016. "Factors Determining Quality of Care in Family Planning Services in Africa: A Systematic Review of Mixed Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165627
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165627
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165627&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0165627?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gizachew Assefa Tessema & Judith Streak Gomersall & Mohammad Afzal Mahmood & Caroline O Laurence, 2016. "Factors Determining Quality of Care in Family Planning Services in Africa: A Systematic Review of Mixed Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Kerry Dwan & Carrol Gamble & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham & the Reporting Bias Group, 2013. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-37, July.
    3. Abdel-Tawab, Nahla & Roter, Debra, 2002. "The relevance of client-centered communication to family planning settings in developing countries: Lessons from the Egyptian experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(9), pages 1357-1368, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gizachew Assefa Tessema & Judith Streak Gomersall & Mohammad Afzal Mahmood & Caroline O Laurence, 2016. "Factors Determining Quality of Care in Family Planning Services in Africa: A Systematic Review of Mixed Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claire Godard-Sebillotte & Mélanie Le Berre & Tibor Schuster & Miguel Trottier & Isabelle Vedel, 2019. "Impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Mari Nagai & Saverio Bellizzi & John Murray & Jacqueline Kitong & Esperanza I Cabral & Howard L Sobel, 2019. "Opportunities lost: Barriers to increasing the use of effective contraception in the Philippines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Kellia Chiu & Quinn Grundy & Lisa Bero, 2017. "‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    4. E. Decullier & P. V. Tang & L. Huot & H. Maisonneuve, 2021. "Why an automated tracker finds poor sharing of clinical trial results for an academic sponsor: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1239-1248, February.
    5. Jamie J Kirkham & Kerry M Dwan & Anette Blümle & Erik von Elm & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight: Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-8, June.
    6. Je-Young Lee & Minkyung Baek, 2023. "Effects of Gamification on Students’ English Language Proficiency: A Meta-Analysis on Research in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Eijgermans, D.G.M. & Fang, Y. & Jansen, D.E.M.C. & Bramer, W.M. & Raat, H. & Jansen, W., 2021. "Individual and contextual determinants of children’s and adolescents’ mental health care use: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    8. Dengsheng Wu & Huidong Wu & Jianping Li, 2024. "Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4275-4293, July.
    9. Anette Blümle & Tobias Haag & James Balmford & Gerta Rücker & Martin Schumacher & Nadine Binder, 2020. "A multi-state model analysis of the time from ethical approval to publication of clinical research studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    10. John Copas, 2022. "Akaike Memorial Lecture 2020: Some of the challenges of statistical applications," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(4), pages 615-637, August.
    11. Zhou-min Yuan & Mingxin Yao, 2022. "Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6191-6207, November.
    12. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    14. Jaithri Ananthapavan & Gary Sacks & Marj Moodie & Rob Carter, 2014. "Economics of Obesity — Learning from the Past to Contribute to a Better Future," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.
    16. Humam Saltaji & Susan Armijo-Olivo & Greta G Cummings & Maryam Amin & Carlos Flores-Mir, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955–2013," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Fujian Song & Yoon Loke & Lee Hooper, 2014. "Why Are Medical and Health-Related Studies Not Being Published? A Systematic Review of Reasons Given by Investigators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-8, October.
    18. Tinashe Dune & Jacqueline Ullman & Tania Ferfolja & Jack Thepsourinthone & Shirali Garga & Zelalem Mengesha, 2020. "Are Services Inclusive? A Review of the Experiences of Older GSD Women in Accessing Health, Social and Aged Care Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Arnaud Vaganay, 2016. "Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Chuan Hong & Georgia Salanti & Sally C. Morton & Richard D. Riley & Haitao Chu & Stephen E. Kimmel & Yong Chen, 2020. "Testing small study effects in multivariate meta‐analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1240-1250, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0165627. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.