MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806501864

Assessing Family Planning Service Quality And User Experiences In Social Franchising Programme - Case Studies From Two Rural Districts In Pakistan.

2018· article· en· W2806501864 on OpenAlexaff
Syed Khurram Azmat, Moazzam Ali, Waqas Hameed, Muhammad Ali Awan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService providerContext (archaeology)MedicinePopulationQuality (philosophy)Private sectorHealth careMarketingBusinessService (business)Environmental healthEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies have documented the impact of quality family planning services on improved contraceptive uptake and continuation, however, relatively little is known about their quality of service provision especially in the context of social franchising. This study examined the quality of clinical services and user experiences among two models in franchised service providers in rural Pakistan. METHODS: This facility-based assessment was carried out during May-June 2015 at the 20 randomly selected social franchise providers from Chakwal and Faisalabad. In our case, a franchise health facility was a private clinic (mostly) run by a single provider, supported by an assistant. Within the selected health facilities, a total 39 user-provider interactions were observed and same users were interviewed separately. RESULTS: Most of the health facilities were in the private sector. Comparatively, service providers at Greenstar Social Marketing/Population Services International (GSM/PSI) model franchised facilities had higher number of rooms and staff employed, with more providers' ownership. Quality of service indices showed high scores for both Marie Stopes Society (MSS) and GSM/PSI franchised providers. MSS franchised providers demonstrated comparative edge in terms of clinical governance, better method mix and they were more user-focused, while PSI providers offered broader range of non-FP services. Quality of counselling services were similar among both models. Service providers performed well on all indicators of interpersonal care however overall low scores were noted in technical care. For both models, service providers attained an average score of 6.7 (out of the maximum value of 8) on waste disposal mechanism, supplies 12.5 (out of the maximum value of 15), user-centred facility 2.7 (out of the maximum value of 4), and clinical governance 6.5 (out of the maximum value of 11) and respecting clients' privacy. The exit interviews yielded high user satisfaction in both service models. CONCLUSIONS: The findings seem suggesting that the MSS and GSM/PSI service providers were maintaining high quality standards in provision of family planning information, services, and commodities but overall there was not much difference between the two models in terms of quality and satisfaction. The results demonstrate that service quality and client satisfaction are an important determinant of use of clinical contraceptive methods in Pakistan.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→