Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality and satisfaction with services as reported by new 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) 78.87 91.18 66.67*** 42.64 86.46 24.24***
 Was asked about her preference for a method of FP (% yes) 90.00 97.08 72.22** 65.32 94.15 21.21***
 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) 22.54 64.91 44.44** 25.00 68.62 8.82***
 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) 38.57 53.14 33.33 22.14 54.66 20.59*
 Average quality score (0–1) 0.57 0.75 0.54 0.37 0.76 0.18
Level of satisfaction
 Would you say that the time you spent waiting for your appointment was:
  No waiting time 39.44 30.29 50.00 25.76 33.44 26.47
  Reasonable 47.89 45.14 30.56 58.33 50.31 64.71
  Too long 12.68 24.57 19.44 15.91 16.26 8.82
  During your visit, how were you treated by the provider? (% “very well”) 42.25 30.29 36.11 57.58 48.47 94.12*
  Are you very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied or not satisfied at all with your FP visit to the facility today? (% “very satisfied”) 28.17 28.74 22.22 48.48 38.46 88.24**
  Average satisfaction score (0–1) 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.63 0.57 0.91
  Number of observationsa 71 177 36 131 326 35
  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