Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality and satisfaction with services as reported by the clients by study arm, Dosso region, Niger, 2020

From: Assessment of segmentation and targeted counseling on family planning quality of care and client satisfaction: a facility-based survey of clients in Niger

  Arm 1 Arm 2 Arm 3
  n = 679a n = 898a n = 1143a
Quality of counseling
 Was given information about the different methods of FP (% yes)* 71.13 55.03 45.96
 Was asked about her preference for a method of FP (% yes)* 87.06 73.32 74.76
 The provider showed you the demonstration kit with the methods, the pictures of the methods, a poster with the methods or examples of the methods during your discussion (% yes) 40.48 37.18 20.14
 Interaction with provider - About the method you received, provider told you: a) how to use the method; b) about side effects of the method; c) what to do if you have problems with the method; and d) that you could change methods) - (% yes to all four)* 46.39 36.27 20.23
 Average quality score based on four items above (0–1) 0.60 0.50 0.40
Level of satisfaction
 Would you say that the time you spent waiting for your appointment was:
  No waiting time 33.43 34.23 22.05
  Reasonable 47.04 52.80 54.42
  Too long 19.53 12.98 23.53
 During your visit, how were you treated by the provider? (% “very well”) 32.25 52.46 32.98
 Are you very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied or not satisfied at all with your FP visit to the facility today? (% “very satisfied”) 25.67 44.68 27.56
 Average satisfaction score based on three items (no waiting time/reasonable coded 1 vs. too long coded zero) (0–1) 0.46 0.61 0.46
  1. aSome n’s smaller due to a small amount of missing information
  2. *p ≤ 0.05 for chi-square test between groups