Client, provider, and visit factors associated with quality in contraceptive counseling in Mexico: an exploratory cross-sectional analysis

• Published in: Reproductive health Vol. 18; no. 1; p. 244
• Main Authors: Walker, Kay, Prata, Ndola, Lahiff, Maureen, Quintero, Ximena, Holt, Kelsey
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 09.12.2021; BioMed Central
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Birth control; Child; Contraceptive Agents; Contraceptives; Counseling; Cross-Sectional Studies; Family Planning Services; Health counseling; Human rights; Humans; Medical care; Mexico; Personal relationships; Quality management; Quality of care; Reproductive health; Surveys; Womens health; Young Adult; Mexico; Disrespect and abuse; Post-partum; Contraceptive counseling; Contraceptives; Family planning; Human rights; Mexico; Youth; Quality of care
• ISSN: 1742-4755; 1742-4755
• DOI: 10.1186/s12978-021-01291-9

Monitoring clients' experiences with contraceptive care is vital to inform quality improvement efforts and ensure fulfillment of individuals' human rights. The Quality of Contraceptive Counseling (QCC) Scale is a previously validated scale that comprehensively measures individuals' experiences receiving counseling in three subscales: Information Exchange, Interpersonal Relationship, and Disrespect and Abuse. We sought to better understand the correlation of client, provider, and visit factors with client-reported quality of contraceptive counseling in the public sector in two Mexican states using the QCC Scale. This cross-sectional survey study used the QCC Scale total score and subscale scores as outcome variables. Explanatory variables included clients' age, LGBTTTIQ status, relationship status, number of children, education, and occupation; providers' gender and type of provider; and the reason for visit. Linear and logistic regression models assessed bivariate associations. Multivariable, multilevel mixed-effects models with clinic as a random effect were fit. All models used complete cases (n = 470). In the multilevel mixed-effects analyses, patients aged 35+ years reported worse Information Exchange (coefficient - 0.29, p = 0.01). Clients receiving care post-partum reported worse Information Exchange (coefficient - 0.25, p = 0.02) and worse total scores (coefficient - 0.15, p = 0.04) compared to clients seeking contraceptive information or methods. Clients who had 1+ children reported better Information Exchange (coefficient 0.21, p = 0.01) than those with no children. Though Disrespect and Abuse subscale scores were overall high (indicating high quality of care), we found a significant association between age and report of such negative experiences: clients in increasing age categories had increasingly higher adjusted odds of reporting no disrespect and abuse (aORs compared to the youngest group were 2.50 for those aged 19-24 years, p = 0.04; 4.53 for those 25-34 years, p = 0.01; and 6.11 for those 35+ years, p = 0.01.) CONCLUSIONS: Our findings align with previous results that younger clients have lower adjusted odds of reporting high-quality services in Mexico. There is a need for continued work supporting youth-friendly services in Mexico, and efforts should aim to ensure zero tolerance for disrespectful or coercive provider behaviors, such as pressuring or scolding clients. Improvements are also needed to ensure quality in counseling for post-partum clients, those aged 35+ years, and those without children.