Skip to main content

Table 5 Multivariate regression results for association between segmentation and quality of care outcomes, Dosso, 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

Model

Key variables

Received information about different methods

Asked about method preference

Shown demonstration kit of methods

Interaction with provider

Quality Score

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Coef (SE)

Model 1, Full sample

Arm 1

2.93

1.13–7.61*

2.51

1.14–5.51*

4.85

1.63–14.46**

3.59

1.10–11.70*

0.17 (0.07)**

Arm 2

1.18

0.46–2.97

0.83

0.39–1.74

3.98

1.36–11.64*

2.29

0.71–7.36

0.09 (0.07)

Arm 3 (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

New user

3.97

3.23–4.87***

3.60

2.85–4.56**

3.19

2.57–3.96***

1.39

1.12–1.71**

0.16 (0.01)***

Continuing user (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Model 2, New users on day of interview

Arm 1

3.65

1.17–11.31*

2.09

0.62–7.02

5.97

1.53–23.32**

2.85

0.87–9.32+

0.15 (0.07)*

Arm 2

1.43

0.49–4.13

0.85

0.28–2.57

6.75

1.79–25.44**

2.76

0.86–8.87+

0.12 (0.07)+

Arm 3 (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Never used

5.40

3.36–7.96***

10.56

6.16–18.08***

4.75

3.26–6.94***

2.72

1.89–3.92***

0.24 (0.02)***

Ever use (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Model 3, Arms 1 and 2, Full sample

Arm 1

2.08

0.83–5.22

2.59

1.19–5.64*

1.04

0.40–2.72

1.31

0.37–4.62

0.05 (0.06)

Arm 2 (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

New user

3.1

2.30–4.17***

2.2

1.56–3.11***

2.76

2.06–3.69***

1.11

0.83–1.47

0.11 (0.02)***

Continuing user (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Segmented

5.18

3.75–7.16***

5.59

3.73–8.36***

4.38

3.18–6.04***

2.69

1.97–3.69***

0.25 (0.02)***

Missing segment

1.6

1.03–2.49*

0.97

0.59–1.59

1.52

0.92–2.51

2.10

1.32–3.32**

0.09 (0.03)***

Not segmented (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Model 4, Arms 1 and 2, new users on day of interview

Arm 1

2.78

0.90–8.63+

3.77

0.97–14.57+

1.00

0.28–3.50

1.02

0.30–3.49

0.03 (0.06)

Arm 2 (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Never used

5.66

3.17–10-11***

5.15

2.46–10.79***

4.11

2.49–6.79***

3.68

2.45–6.04***

0.22 (0.02)***

Ever use (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  

Segmented

4.05

2.35–6.98***

6.65

3.12–14-14***

3.13

1.86–5.26***

1.59

0.95–2.63+

0.17 (0.03)***

Missing segment

0.96

0.39–2.33

0.27

0.09–0.77*

0.72

0.28–1.85

1.17

0.49–2.83

−0.01 (0.04)

Not segmented (ref)

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

  
  1. Note, all models control for age, education, and parity; +p ≤ 0.10; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001. Model 1 n’s: Information: n = 2638; Preference: n = 2626; Mallette: n = 2661; Interaction: n = 2623; Score: n = 2674. Model 2 n’s: Information: n = 1226; Preference: n = 1221; Mallette: n = 1239; Interaction: n = 1236; Score: n = 1250. Model 3 n’s: Information: n = 1526; Preference: n = 1509; Mallette: n = 1535; Interaction: n = 1512; Score: n = 1547. Model 4 n’s: Information: n = 742; Preference: n = 736; Mallette: n = 745; Interaction: n = 745; Score: n = 755
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us