Informal and out-of-pocket payments for public-sector contraceptive care in remote Madagascar.

IF 2.3
Katherine Tumlinson, Sein Kim, Emilia Goland, Brooke W Bullington, Stephanie Chung, Brian Frizzelle, Eunice Kioko, Ginger Golub, Erica Felker-Kantor, Mickael Randriamanjaka, Andry Rabemanantsoa, Daniel Crapper, Sean Sylvia, Tara Templin
{"title":"Informal and out-of-pocket payments for public-sector contraceptive care in remote Madagascar.","authors":"Katherine Tumlinson, Sein Kim, Emilia Goland, Brooke W Bullington, Stephanie Chung, Brian Frizzelle, Eunice Kioko, Ginger Golub, Erica Felker-Kantor, Mickael Randriamanjaka, Andry Rabemanantsoa, Daniel Crapper, Sean Sylvia, Tara Templin","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2026.111521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Informal payments at public facilities can undermine contraceptive access, yet little is known about how often women pay out of pocket (OOP) for family planning-or how much.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a descriptive analysis using data collected in 2023 from Alaotra Mangoro, Atsinanana, and Vatovavy Fitovinany in Madagascar. We triangulated: (1) a population-based survey of women aged 15-49 [n = 1199]; analytic subsample: current modern method users who obtained methods in the prior 12 months from public facilities [n = 219] or community health workers (CHWs) [n = 91]; (2) client exit interviews with women seeking contraception at public facilities [n = 118]; (3) CHWs interviews on typical charges [n = 214]; and (4) 107 facility audits. Outcomes were any OOP payment and the amount paid. Population-survey respondents were also asked if any payment was \"unofficial.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among facility-sourced users in the population survey, 86% reported paying OOP (median USD 0.56; range 0-1.8). Amounts varied by method (higher for implants, lower for pills). Among CHW-sourced users, 99% paid with amounts broadly similar to facilities overall. In client exit interviews, 53% of clients reported paying, with amounts also lower (median USD 0.11). About 40% of facility-sourced users perceived their payment as unofficial; reports of \"unofficial\" payments were lower among CHW users.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Informal payments for contraception appear common and non-trivial in remote Madagascar, despite free-of-charge contraception policy in public-sector facilities. Program responses could include transparent fee charters, strengthened supervision and grievance mechanisms, and routine monitoring of OOP payments across facilities to safeguard contraceptive autonomy.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Informal and out-of-pocket payments create significant financial barriers to family planning, even under free-of-charge contraception policies in public-sector facilities. To ensure equitable access and support contraceptive autonomy, policy efforts should prioritize accountability mechanisms, including standardized fee disclosure, routine verification of client payments, and rigorous supervision of community-level service delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":" ","pages":"111521"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13498305/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2026.111521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Informal payments at public facilities can undermine contraceptive access, yet little is known about how often women pay out of pocket (OOP) for family planning-or how much.

Study design: We conducted a descriptive analysis using data collected in 2023 from Alaotra Mangoro, Atsinanana, and Vatovavy Fitovinany in Madagascar. We triangulated: (1) a population-based survey of women aged 15-49 [n = 1199]; analytic subsample: current modern method users who obtained methods in the prior 12 months from public facilities [n = 219] or community health workers (CHWs) [n = 91]; (2) client exit interviews with women seeking contraception at public facilities [n = 118]; (3) CHWs interviews on typical charges [n = 214]; and (4) 107 facility audits. Outcomes were any OOP payment and the amount paid. Population-survey respondents were also asked if any payment was "unofficial."

Results: Among facility-sourced users in the population survey, 86% reported paying OOP (median USD 0.56; range 0-1.8). Amounts varied by method (higher for implants, lower for pills). Among CHW-sourced users, 99% paid with amounts broadly similar to facilities overall. In client exit interviews, 53% of clients reported paying, with amounts also lower (median USD 0.11). About 40% of facility-sourced users perceived their payment as unofficial; reports of "unofficial" payments were lower among CHW users.

Conclusions: Informal payments for contraception appear common and non-trivial in remote Madagascar, despite free-of-charge contraception policy in public-sector facilities. Program responses could include transparent fee charters, strengthened supervision and grievance mechanisms, and routine monitoring of OOP payments across facilities to safeguard contraceptive autonomy.

Implications: Informal and out-of-pocket payments create significant financial barriers to family planning, even under free-of-charge contraception policies in public-sector facilities. To ensure equitable access and support contraceptive autonomy, policy efforts should prioritize accountability mechanisms, including standardized fee disclosure, routine verification of client payments, and rigorous supervision of community-level service delivery.

马达加斯加偏远地区公共部门避孕护理的非正式和自费支付。
目标:在公共设施的非正式支付可能会破坏避孕药具的获取,但很少有人知道妇女多久为计划生育支付一次现金(OOP),或者支付多少。研究设计:我们使用2023年在马达加斯加的Alaotra Mangoro、Atsinanana和Vatovavy Fitovinany收集的数据进行了描述性分析。我们采用三角法:(1)对15-49岁的女性进行基于人群的调查[n= 1199];分析子样本:在过去12个月内从公共设施[n=219]或社区卫生工作者(CHWs)获得方法的当前现代方法使用者[n=91];(2)对在公共设施寻求避孕的妇女进行客户退出访谈[n=118];(3) chw对典型收费的访谈[n=214];(4)设施审核107项。结果是任何OOP支付和支付的金额。人口调查的受访者还被问及是否有“非官方”的支付。结果:在人口调查的设施来源用户中,86%的人表示支付OOP(中位数为0.56美元,范围为0-1.8)。剂量因方法而异(植入较高,药片较低)。在使用卫生设施的用户中,99%的用户支付的金额与整个设施大致相同。在客户离职面谈中,53%的客户报告付款,金额也较低(中位数为0.11美元)。大约40%的设施来源用户认为他们的付费是非官方的;CHW用户中“非官方”付款的报告较少。结论:尽管公共部门设施实行免费避孕政策,但在马达加斯加偏远地区,避孕费用的非正式支付似乎很常见,而且不是微不足道的。项目应对措施可包括透明收费章程、加强监督和申诉机制,以及对各设施的OOP支付进行常规监测,以保障避孕自主权。所涉问题说明:即使在公共部门设施实行免费避孕政策的情况下,非正式和自付付款对计划生育造成重大的财政障碍。为确保公平获取和支持避孕自主,政策工作应优先考虑问责机制,包括标准化费用披露、对客户付款的常规核查以及对社区一级服务提供的严格监督。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书