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
. 2023 Jun 21;11(3):e2200470.
doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00470. Print 2023 Jun 21.

Exploring Upward and Downward Provider Biases in Family Planning: The Case of Parity

Affiliations

Exploring Upward and Downward Provider Biases in Family Planning: The Case of Parity

Brooke W Bullington et al. Glob Health Sci Pract. .

Abstract

Introduction: Provider bias has become an important topic of family planning research over the past several decades. Much existing research on provider bias has focused on the ways providers restrict access to contraception. Here, we propose a distinction between the classical "downward" provider bias that discourages contraceptive use and a new conception of "upward" provider bias that occurs when providers pressure or encourage clients to adopt contraception.

Methods: Using cross-sectional data from reproductive-aged women in Burkina Faso, we describe lifetime prevalence of experiencing provider encouragement to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity (a type of upward provider bias) and provider discouragement from using contraception due to provider perceptions of low parity (a type of downward provider bias). We also examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of provider encouragement to use contraception due to perceptions of high parity.

Results: Sixteen percent of participants reported that a provider had encouraged them to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity, and 1% of participants reported that a provider had discouraged them from using contraception because of provider perceptions of low parity. Being married, being from the rural site, having higher parity, and having attended the 45th-day postpartum check-up were associated with increased odds of being encouraged to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity.

Conclusion: We find that experiences of upward provider bias linked to provider perceptions of high parity were considerably more common in this setting than downward provider bias linked to perceptions of low parity. Research into the mechanisms through which upward provider bias operates and how it may be mitigated is imperative to promote contraceptive autonomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

    1. Schuler SR, McIntosh EN, Goldstein MC, Pande BR. Barriers to effective family planning in Nepal. Stud Fam Plann. 1985;16(5):260–270. 10.2307/1966999. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bruce J. Fundamental elements of the quality of care: a simple framework. Stud Fam Plann. 1990;21(2):61–91. 10.2307/1966669. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shelton JD, Jacobstein RA, Angle MA. Medical barriers to access to family planning. Lancet. 1992;340(8831):1334–1335. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92505-A. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Solo J, Festin M. Provider bias in family planning services: a review of its meaning and manifestations. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2019;7(3):371–385. 10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00130. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Manzer JL, Bell AV. “We’re a little biased”: medicine and the management of bias through the case of contraception. J Health Soc Behav. 2021;62(2):120–135. 10.1177/00221465211003232. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances