在肯尼亚西部,提供者对避孕措施的使用施加限制。

Stephanie Chung, Brooke Bullington, Emilia Goland, Dickens O Onyango, Leigh Senderowicz, Abigael Mwanyiro, Claire W Rothschild, Ben Wekesa, Brian Frizzelle, Ginger Golub, Katherine Tumlinson
{"title":"在肯尼亚西部,提供者对避孕措施的使用施加限制。","authors":"Stephanie Chung, Brooke Bullington, Emilia Goland, Dickens O Onyango, Leigh Senderowicz, Abigael Mwanyiro, Claire W Rothschild, Ben Wekesa, Brian Frizzelle, Ginger Golub, Katherine Tumlinson","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Contraceptive providers unnecessarily restrict contraceptive use or inappropriately apply medical eligibility criteria for a variety of reasons, including knowledge gaps, personal bias, or fear of legal or social consequences. As prevalence of these restrictions is unknown, this analysis aims to document current patterns of provider-imposed restrictions on contraceptive methods at public facilities in Western Kenya and assess novel questions on medical restrictions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We surveyed 345 family planning providers across all 137 public healthcare facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya in 2022. The survey asked about non-clinically-indicated provider restrictions placed on six contraceptive methods, including sociodemographic and medical restrictions on contraceptive use. We use descriptive statistics to present the self-reported proportion of providers who impose incorrect sociodemographic or medical restrictions and use Chi-squared tests to explore associations with provider gender, age, time since last family planning training, and facility level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that providers commonly imposed sociodemographic restrictions on female permanent contraception and intrauterine devices, with fewer providers inappropriately restricting women seeking oral contraceptive pills, implants, injections, or male condoms. Few providers reported accurately applying weight, blood pressure, or breastfeeding related medical eligibility criteria, with many inappropriately restricting hormonal methods. Weight was the most common reason for restriction, with 50% of providers reportedly applying inappropriate weight-based restrictions to oral contraceptive pills, 60% to injectables, and 40% to implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Provider bias and inappropriate medical restrictions limit women's contraceptive choice in Kenya. More research is needed to address inappropriate provider restrictions, especially around patient age, weight, and partner consent.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>We find that providers are applying biased and/or inappropriate medical restrictions to contraceptive methods in Kisumu, Kenya, especially around patient weight. More research is needed to understand why many providers are applying medical eligibility criteria incorrectly, and how this impacts women's contraceptive choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":" ","pages":"110937"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provider-imposed restrictions on contraceptive use in Western Kenya.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie Chung, Brooke Bullington, Emilia Goland, Dickens O Onyango, Leigh Senderowicz, Abigael Mwanyiro, Claire W Rothschild, Ben Wekesa, Brian Frizzelle, Ginger Golub, Katherine Tumlinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Contraceptive providers unnecessarily restrict contraceptive use or inappropriately apply medical eligibility criteria for a variety of reasons, including knowledge gaps, personal bias, or fear of legal or social consequences. As prevalence of these restrictions is unknown, this analysis aims to document current patterns of provider-imposed restrictions on contraceptive methods at public facilities in Western Kenya and assess novel questions on medical restrictions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We surveyed 345 family planning providers across all 137 public healthcare facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya in 2022. The survey asked about non-clinically-indicated provider restrictions placed on six contraceptive methods, including sociodemographic and medical restrictions on contraceptive use. We use descriptive statistics to present the self-reported proportion of providers who impose incorrect sociodemographic or medical restrictions and use Chi-squared tests to explore associations with provider gender, age, time since last family planning training, and facility level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that providers commonly imposed sociodemographic restrictions on female permanent contraception and intrauterine devices, with fewer providers inappropriately restricting women seeking oral contraceptive pills, implants, injections, or male condoms. Few providers reported accurately applying weight, blood pressure, or breastfeeding related medical eligibility criteria, with many inappropriately restricting hormonal methods. Weight was the most common reason for restriction, with 50% of providers reportedly applying inappropriate weight-based restrictions to oral contraceptive pills, 60% to injectables, and 40% to implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Provider bias and inappropriate medical restrictions limit women's contraceptive choice in Kenya. More research is needed to address inappropriate provider restrictions, especially around patient age, weight, and partner consent.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>We find that providers are applying biased and/or inappropriate medical restrictions to contraceptive methods in Kisumu, Kenya, especially around patient weight. More research is needed to understand why many providers are applying medical eligibility criteria incorrectly, and how this impacts women's contraceptive choices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"110937\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110937\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110937","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:避孕药具提供者由于各种原因,包括知识差距、个人偏见或害怕法律或社会后果,不必要地限制避孕药具的使用或不适当地适用医疗资格标准。由于这些限制的普遍程度尚不清楚,本分析旨在记录肯尼亚西部公共设施中提供者对避孕方法施加限制的当前模式,并评估有关医疗限制的新问题。研究设计:我们在2022年对肯尼亚基苏木县所有137家公共医疗机构的345名计划生育提供者进行了调查。调查询问了关于非临床指示的提供者对六种避孕方法的限制,包括对避孕药具使用的社会人口和医疗限制。我们使用描述性统计来展示施加不正确的社会人口学或医学限制的提供者自我报告的比例,并使用卡方检验来探索提供者性别、年龄、自上次计划生育培训以来的时间和设施水平之间的关系。结果:我们发现供应商普遍对女性永久避孕和宫内节育器施加社会人口限制,较少的供应商不适当地限制女性寻求口服避孕药、植入物、注射或男性避孕套。很少有提供者报告准确地应用体重、血压或母乳喂养相关的医疗资格标准,许多不适当地限制激素方法。体重是最常见的限制原因,据报道,50%的提供者对口服避孕药实施了不适当的体重限制,60%对注射避孕药实施了不适当的体重限制,40%对植入避孕药实施了不适当的体重限制。结论:提供者偏见和不适当的医疗限制限制了肯尼亚妇女的避孕选择。需要更多的研究来解决不适当的提供者限制,特别是在患者年龄、体重和伴侣同意方面。启示:我们发现在肯尼亚基苏木,提供者对避孕方法应用有偏见和/或不适当的医疗限制,特别是在患者体重方面。需要更多的研究来了解为什么许多提供者不正确地应用医疗资格标准,以及这如何影响妇女的避孕选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Provider-imposed restrictions on contraceptive use in Western Kenya.

Objective: Contraceptive providers unnecessarily restrict contraceptive use or inappropriately apply medical eligibility criteria for a variety of reasons, including knowledge gaps, personal bias, or fear of legal or social consequences. As prevalence of these restrictions is unknown, this analysis aims to document current patterns of provider-imposed restrictions on contraceptive methods at public facilities in Western Kenya and assess novel questions on medical restrictions.

Study design: We surveyed 345 family planning providers across all 137 public healthcare facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya in 2022. The survey asked about non-clinically-indicated provider restrictions placed on six contraceptive methods, including sociodemographic and medical restrictions on contraceptive use. We use descriptive statistics to present the self-reported proportion of providers who impose incorrect sociodemographic or medical restrictions and use Chi-squared tests to explore associations with provider gender, age, time since last family planning training, and facility level.

Results: We find that providers commonly imposed sociodemographic restrictions on female permanent contraception and intrauterine devices, with fewer providers inappropriately restricting women seeking oral contraceptive pills, implants, injections, or male condoms. Few providers reported accurately applying weight, blood pressure, or breastfeeding related medical eligibility criteria, with many inappropriately restricting hormonal methods. Weight was the most common reason for restriction, with 50% of providers reportedly applying inappropriate weight-based restrictions to oral contraceptive pills, 60% to injectables, and 40% to implants.

Conclusions: Provider bias and inappropriate medical restrictions limit women's contraceptive choice in Kenya. More research is needed to address inappropriate provider restrictions, especially around patient age, weight, and partner consent.

Implications: We find that providers are applying biased and/or inappropriate medical restrictions to contraceptive methods in Kisumu, Kenya, especially around patient weight. More research is needed to understand why many providers are applying medical eligibility criteria incorrectly, and how this impacts women's contraceptive choices.

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
×
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