印度拉贾斯坦邦、古吉拉特邦和昌迪加尔医学院基于权利的生殖服务:混合方法实施研究的基线结果。

IF 2.2 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Madhu Gupta, Kirti Iyengar, Neena Singla, Kiranjit Kaur, Madhur Verma, Rimpi Singla, Minakshi Rohilla, Vanita Suri, Neelam Aggarwal, Tarundeep Singh, Swarnika Pal, Anchal Dhiman, Poonam Goel, N K Goel, Reena Pant, Kusum Lata Gaur, Hanslata Gehlot, Indra Bhati, Manoj Verma, Sudesh Agarwal, Rekha Acharya, Keerti Singh, Madhubala Chauhan, Radha Rastogi, Renu Bedi, Poornima Pancholi, Bipin Nayak, Bhavesh Modi, Kanaklata Nakum, Atul Trivedi, Shonali Aggarwal, Sangita Patel
{"title":"印度拉贾斯坦邦、古吉拉特邦和昌迪加尔医学院基于权利的生殖服务:混合方法实施研究的基线结果。","authors":"Madhu Gupta, Kirti Iyengar, Neena Singla, Kiranjit Kaur, Madhur Verma, Rimpi Singla, Minakshi Rohilla, Vanita Suri, Neelam Aggarwal, Tarundeep Singh, Swarnika Pal, Anchal Dhiman, Poonam Goel, N K Goel, Reena Pant, Kusum Lata Gaur, Hanslata Gehlot, Indra Bhati, Manoj Verma, Sudesh Agarwal, Rekha Acharya, Keerti Singh, Madhubala Chauhan, Radha Rastogi, Renu Bedi, Poornima Pancholi, Bipin Nayak, Bhavesh Modi, Kanaklata Nakum, Atul Trivedi, Shonali Aggarwal, Sangita Patel","doi":"10.1186/s40834-024-00316-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a need to assess and strengthen reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools that play a key role in medical education and service delivery. This study presents the findings of baseline assessment across nine schools in two states and one union territory with objective to assess, identify the gaps and improve the status of reproductive rights and evidence-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted in nine medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Chandigarh a Union territory in India from October 2018 to June 2019. In-depth interviews with 33 faculty from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were conducted. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation) model of behaviours was used to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators of reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services. Reproductive health services provided to 104 women for family planning and abortion were observed quantitatively using a pre-tested checklist.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Providers' preference bias in recommending contraceptive methods to specific clients (wherein sterilisation was offered to women with two or more children and IUCD to women with one child) was observed as barrier to reproductive rights. The facilitators of rights based reproductive services included well-informed faculty regarding providing dignified and respectful care. Barriers included infrastructure gaps, high workload, insufficient human resources affecting privacy, and lower awareness and decision-making power of clients. Family planning counselling using the cafeteria approach was offered in 69.4% of cases, 31.6% of women seeking abortion services were offered counselling on both family planning and abortion. Sterilisation or IUD insertion was a pre-condition in 36.8% of women requesting an abortion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Right-based reproductive services around family planning counselling and abortion services were delivered partially despite the medical schools' trained faculty, mainly due to provider bias, high workload, and less autonomy and lower awareness of reproductive rights among women.</p>","PeriodicalId":93956,"journal":{"name":"Contraception and reproductive medicine","volume":"9 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rights-based reproductive services in medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Chandigarh, India: baseline findings of mixed-methods implementation research.\",\"authors\":\"Madhu Gupta, Kirti Iyengar, Neena Singla, Kiranjit Kaur, Madhur Verma, Rimpi Singla, Minakshi Rohilla, Vanita Suri, Neelam Aggarwal, Tarundeep Singh, Swarnika Pal, Anchal Dhiman, Poonam Goel, N K Goel, Reena Pant, Kusum Lata Gaur, Hanslata Gehlot, Indra Bhati, Manoj Verma, Sudesh Agarwal, Rekha Acharya, Keerti Singh, Madhubala Chauhan, Radha Rastogi, Renu Bedi, Poornima Pancholi, Bipin Nayak, Bhavesh Modi, Kanaklata Nakum, Atul Trivedi, Shonali Aggarwal, Sangita Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40834-024-00316-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a need to assess and strengthen reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools that play a key role in medical education and service delivery. This study presents the findings of baseline assessment across nine schools in two states and one union territory with objective to assess, identify the gaps and improve the status of reproductive rights and evidence-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted in nine medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Chandigarh a Union territory in India from October 2018 to June 2019. In-depth interviews with 33 faculty from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were conducted. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation) model of behaviours was used to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators of reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services. Reproductive health services provided to 104 women for family planning and abortion were observed quantitatively using a pre-tested checklist.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Providers' preference bias in recommending contraceptive methods to specific clients (wherein sterilisation was offered to women with two or more children and IUCD to women with one child) was observed as barrier to reproductive rights. The facilitators of rights based reproductive services included well-informed faculty regarding providing dignified and respectful care. Barriers included infrastructure gaps, high workload, insufficient human resources affecting privacy, and lower awareness and decision-making power of clients. Family planning counselling using the cafeteria approach was offered in 69.4% of cases, 31.6% of women seeking abortion services were offered counselling on both family planning and abortion. Sterilisation or IUD insertion was a pre-condition in 36.8% of women requesting an abortion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Right-based reproductive services around family planning counselling and abortion services were delivered partially despite the medical schools' trained faculty, mainly due to provider bias, high workload, and less autonomy and lower awareness of reproductive rights among women.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception and reproductive medicine\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception and reproductive medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-024-00316-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception and reproductive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-024-00316-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:印度医学院在医学教育和服务提供方面发挥着关键作用,有必要评估和加强印度医学院以生殖权利为基础的计划生育和人工流产服务。本研究介绍了对两个邦和一个中央直辖区的九所学校进行基线评估的结果,目的是评估、找出差距并改善印度医学院的生殖权利及循证计划生育和人工流产服务状况:2018 年 10 月至 2019 年 6 月,在印度拉贾斯坦邦、古吉拉特邦和昌迪加尔联邦领地的九所医学院开展了一项趋同平行混合方法研究。对来自妇产科系的 33 名教师进行了深入访谈。采用COM-B(能力、机会和动机)行为模型来定性识别基于生殖权利的计划生育和人工流产服务的障碍和促进因素。使用预先测试的核对表,对 104 名妇女接受的计划生育和人工流产生殖健康服务进行了定量观察:观察发现,服务提供者在向特定客户推荐避孕方法时存在偏好偏差(向有两个或两个以上孩子的妇女提供绝育手术,向有一个孩子的妇女提供宫内节育器),这是生殖权利的障碍。以权利为基础的生殖服务的促进因素包括教师在提供有尊严和受尊重的护理方面的充分知情。障碍包括基础设施差距、工作量大、人力资源不足影响隐私,以及客户的意识和决策权较低。69.4%的案例采用自助餐厅方式提供计划生育咨询,31.6%寻求堕胎服务的妇女同时获得了计划生育和堕胎方面的咨询。在 36.8%的堕胎妇女中,绝育或放置宫内节育器是前提条件:结论:尽管医学院拥有训练有素的师资队伍,但围绕计划生育咨询和人工流产服务提供的以权利为基础的生殖服务仍有部分不足,主要原因是提供者的偏见、工作量大、自主性较差以及妇女对生殖权利的认识较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rights-based reproductive services in medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Chandigarh, India: baseline findings of mixed-methods implementation research.

Introduction: There is a need to assess and strengthen reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools that play a key role in medical education and service delivery. This study presents the findings of baseline assessment across nine schools in two states and one union territory with objective to assess, identify the gaps and improve the status of reproductive rights and evidence-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools.

Methods: A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted in nine medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Chandigarh a Union territory in India from October 2018 to June 2019. In-depth interviews with 33 faculty from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were conducted. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation) model of behaviours was used to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators of reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services. Reproductive health services provided to 104 women for family planning and abortion were observed quantitatively using a pre-tested checklist.

Findings: Providers' preference bias in recommending contraceptive methods to specific clients (wherein sterilisation was offered to women with two or more children and IUCD to women with one child) was observed as barrier to reproductive rights. The facilitators of rights based reproductive services included well-informed faculty regarding providing dignified and respectful care. Barriers included infrastructure gaps, high workload, insufficient human resources affecting privacy, and lower awareness and decision-making power of clients. Family planning counselling using the cafeteria approach was offered in 69.4% of cases, 31.6% of women seeking abortion services were offered counselling on both family planning and abortion. Sterilisation or IUD insertion was a pre-condition in 36.8% of women requesting an abortion.

Conclusions: Right-based reproductive services around family planning counselling and abortion services were delivered partially despite the medical schools' trained faculty, mainly due to provider bias, high workload, and less autonomy and lower awareness of reproductive rights among women.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信