Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Health Services Research and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Provider imposed restrictions to clients’ access to family planning in urban Uttar Pradesh, India: a mixed methods study

Lisa M Calhoun1*, Ilene S Speizer12, Rajiv Rimal3, Pooja Sripad4, Nilesh Chatterjee5, Pranita Achyut6 and Priya Nanda6

Author Affiliations

1 Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA

2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

3 Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

4 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

5 Center for Communication Programs, Johns Hopkins University, Lucknow, India

6 International Center for Research on Women, Delhi, India

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Health Services Research 2013, 13:532  doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-532

Published: 23 December 2013

Abstract

Background

Medical barriers refer to unnecessary policies or procedures imposed by health care providers that are not necessarily medically advised; these restrictions impede clients’ access to family planning (FP). This mixed methods study investigates provider imposed barriers to provision of FP using recent quantitative and qualitative data from urban Uttar Pradesh, India.

Methods

Baseline quantitative data were collected in six cities in Uttar Pradesh, India from service delivery points (SDP), using facility audits, exit interviews, and provider surveys; for this study, the focus is on the provider surveys. More than 250 providers were surveyed in each city. Providers were asked about the FP methods they provide, and if they restrict clients’ access to each method based on age, parity, partner consent, or marital status. For the qualitative research, we conducted one-on-one interviews with 21 service providers in four of the six cities in Uttar Pradesh. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Results

The quantitative findings show that providers restrict clients’ access to spacing and long-acting and permanent methods of FP based on age, parity, partner consent and marital status. Qualitative findings reinforce that providers, at times, make judgments about their clients’ education, FP needs and ability to understand FP options thereby imposing unnecessary barriers to FP methods.

Conclusions

Provider restrictions on FP methods are common in these urban Uttar Pradesh sites. This means that women who are young, unmarried, have few or no children, do not have the support of their partner, or are less educated may not be able to access or use FP or their preferred method. These findings highlight the need for in-service training for staff, with a focus on reviewing current guidelines and eligibility criteria for provision of methods.

Keywords:
Provider barriers; Family planning; Eligibility barriers; Uttar Pradesh; Urban; India