Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality and satisfaction with services as reported by the clients by whether segmented or not, Arms 1 and 2, 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
  Not segmented Segmented Missing Not segmented Segmented Missing
Quality of counseling
 Was given information about the different methods of FP (% yes) 61.42 82.61 58.90* 32.27 83.38 29.41***
 Was asked about her preference for a method of FP (% yes) 83.51 91.64 81.43 61.16 92.42 27.45***
 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) 21.43 56.00 31.51*** 17.05 62.75 11.32***
 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) 32.99 55.25 44.36** 22.30 53.65 20.75**
 Average quality score (0–1) 0.49 0.70 0.52 0.33 0.73 0.22
Level of satisfaction
 Would you say that the time you spent waiting for your appointment was:
    No waiting time 29.95 30.21 45.27 32.05 35.91 39.62
    Reasonable 48.73 50.45 37.16 55.00 50.12 54.72
    Too long 21.32 19.34 17.57* 12.95 13.97 5.66
 During your visit, how were you treated by the provider? (% “very well”) 29.95 33.53 32.43 52.50 48.38 83.02
 Are you very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied or not satisfied at all with your FP visit to the facility today? (% “very satisfied”) 21.94 29.39 22.30 46.59 38.25 77.36+
 Average satisfaction score (0–1) 0.43 0.48 0.46 0.62 0.58 0.85
 Number of observationsa 197 334 148 444 401 53
  1. aSome n’s smaller due to a small amount of missing information. +p ≤ 0.10; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 for chi-square test between groups