Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 12;15(1):152.
doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0593-5.

Client and provider factors associated with integration of family planning services among maternal and reproductive health clients in Kigoma Region, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study, April-July 2016

M M Dynes  1 , E Bernstein  2 , D Morof  2 , L Kelly  2 , A Ruiz  3 , W Mongo  4 , P Chaote  5 , R N Bujari  6 , F Serbanescu  2
Affiliations

Client and provider factors associated with integration of family planning services among maternal and reproductive health clients in Kigoma Region, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study, April-July 2016

M M Dynes et al. Reprod Health. .

Abstract

Background: Integration of family planning (FP) services into non-FP care visits is an essential strategy for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality through reduction of short birth intervals and unplanned pregnancies.

Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted across 61 facilities in Kigoma Region, Tanzania, April-July 2016. Multilevel, mixed effects logistic regression analyses were conducted on matched data from providers (n = 330) and clients seeking delivery (n = 935), well-baby (n = 272), pregnancy loss (PL; n = 229), and other routine (postnatal, HIV/STI, other; n = 69) services. Outcomes of interest included receipt of FP information and a modern FP method (significance level p < 0.05).

Results: Clients had significantly greater odds of receiving FP information if the primary reason for seeking care was for PL versus (vs) any other types of care (aOR 1.97), had four or more pregnancies vs fewer (aOR 1.78), and had had a FP discussion with their partner vs no FP discussion (aOR 1.73). Clients had lower odds of receiving FP information if they were aged 40-49 vs 15-19 (aOR 0.50) and reported attending religious services at least weekly vs less frequently (aOR 0.61). Clients of providers who perceived that in-service training had helped vs had not helped job performance (aOR 2.27), and clients of providers having high vs low recent FP training index scores (aOR 1.58) had greater odds of receiving FP information. Clients had greater odds of receiving a modern method when they received information on two or more vs fewer methods (aOR 7.13), had had a FP discussion with their partner vs no discussion (aOR 5.87), if the primary reason for seeking care was for PL vs any other types of care (aOR 4.08), had zero vs one or more live births (aOR 3.92), made their own FP decisions vs not made own FP decisions (aOR 3.17), received FP information from two or more vs fewer sources (aOR 3.12), and were in the middle or high vs the low wealth tercile (aOR 1.99 and 2.30, respectively). Well-baby care clients, Other routine services clients, and married clients had significantly lower odds of receiving a method (aOR 0.14; aOR 0.08; and aOR 0.41, respectively) compared to their counterparts.

Conclusions: Strategies that better integrate FP into routine care visits, encourage women to have FP discussions with their partners and providers, increase FP training among providers, and expand FP options and sources of information may help reduce the unmet need for FP, and ultimately lower maternal and neonatal mortality.

Keywords: Contraception; Contraceptive methods; Family planning; Family planning counseling; Family planning integration; Multilevel modeling; Sub-Saharan Africa; Tanzania.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Receipt of Family Planning Information and a Modern Method by Care Type—Kigoma Region, Tanzania, April to July 2016 (n = 1505). *Other routine services included clients who sought postnatal care, HIV testing and treatment, sexually transmitted infection (STI) care, and others.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Percentage of Clients Who Received a Modern Family Planning Method by Number of Methods Information was Received about and Number of Sources Information was Received from—Kigoma Region, Tanzania, April to July 2016 (n = 1505)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. WHO. Trends in maternal mortality . 1990 To 2015. Estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, the World Bank & the UN population division. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
    1. Chola L, McGee S, Tugendhaft A, Buchmann E, Hofman K. Scaling up family planning to reduce maternal and child mortality: the potential costs and benefits of modern contraceptive use in South Africa. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130077. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130077. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmed S, Li Q, Liu L, Tsui A. Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):111–125. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60478-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collumbien M, Gerressu M, Cleland J. Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors. Geneva: WHO; 2004. Non-use and use of ineffective methods of contraception; pp. 1255–1320.
    1. Ganatra B, Faundes A. Role of birth spacing, family planning services, safe abortion services and post-abortion care in reducing maternal mortality. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36:145–155. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.07.008. - DOI - PubMed