Understanding client and provider perspectives of antenatal care service quality: a qualitative multi-method study from Tanzania.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
entrez:
6
7
2019
pubmed:
6
7
2019
medline:
12
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Measures of quality of care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rarely include experience of care. This gap in service quality metrics may be driven by a lack of understanding of client and provider perspectives. Understanding these perspectives is a critical first step in not only improving metrics, but also in improving service delivery. This study identifies the items antenatal care (ANC) clients and health care providers in Tanzania associate with a quality ANC service and explores the experience of care domain from both client and provider perspectives. We conducted semi-structured interviews with15 providers and 35 clients in Tanzania that included a free-listing activity to elicit items clients and providers associate with quality ANC services. We analyzed the free-listing for rank order and frequency to identify the most salient items, which were included in the second phase of data collection. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with a pile sort activity with the same 15 providers and 32 new clients to understand the importance of the items identified in the free-listing. We used a thematic analysis driven by the framework approach to analyze interview data. Both clients and providers perceived quality of ANC as being comprised of items related to experience of care, provision of care, and cross-cutting essential physical and human resources. The free-listing findings illuminated that the experience of care was equally important to clients and providers as the availability of physical and human resources and the content of the care delivered. In addition, clients and providers perceived that a positive patient care experience - marked by good communication, active listening, keeping confidentiality, and being spoken to politely - increased utilization of health services and improved health outcomes. The experience of care in LMICs is an overlooked, yet critically important topic. Understanding the experience of care from those who receive and deliver services is key to measuring and improving the quality of ANC. Our research highlights the importance of incorporating experience of care into future quality improvement activities and quality measures. By doing so, we identify barriers and facilitating factors of practical use to policy-makers and governments in LMICs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Measures of quality of care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rarely include experience of care. This gap in service quality metrics may be driven by a lack of understanding of client and provider perspectives. Understanding these perspectives is a critical first step in not only improving metrics, but also in improving service delivery. This study identifies the items antenatal care (ANC) clients and health care providers in Tanzania associate with a quality ANC service and explores the experience of care domain from both client and provider perspectives.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews with15 providers and 35 clients in Tanzania that included a free-listing activity to elicit items clients and providers associate with quality ANC services. We analyzed the free-listing for rank order and frequency to identify the most salient items, which were included in the second phase of data collection. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with a pile sort activity with the same 15 providers and 32 new clients to understand the importance of the items identified in the free-listing. We used a thematic analysis driven by the framework approach to analyze interview data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both clients and providers perceived quality of ANC as being comprised of items related to experience of care, provision of care, and cross-cutting essential physical and human resources. The free-listing findings illuminated that the experience of care was equally important to clients and providers as the availability of physical and human resources and the content of the care delivered. In addition, clients and providers perceived that a positive patient care experience - marked by good communication, active listening, keeping confidentiality, and being spoken to politely - increased utilization of health services and improved health outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The experience of care in LMICs is an overlooked, yet critically important topic. Understanding the experience of care from those who receive and deliver services is key to measuring and improving the quality of ANC. Our research highlights the importance of incorporating experience of care into future quality improvement activities and quality measures. By doing so, we identify barriers and facilitating factors of practical use to policy-makers and governments in LMICs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31275570
doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.01101
pii: jogh-09-011101
pmc: PMC6596286
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
011101Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: The authors completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Health Policy Plan. 2002 Mar;17(1):42-8
pubmed: 11861585
Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:513-59
pubmed: 15760300
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2006 Nov;19(3):385-7
pubmed: 17178522
Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 May-Jun;26(3):w296-309
pubmed: 17389637
Tanzan J Health Res. 2009 Oct;11(4):196-204
pubmed: 20734699
Hum Resour Health. 2012 Feb 22;10:3
pubmed: 22357353
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Apr 13;12:29
pubmed: 22502640
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Lancet. 2014 Sep 27;384(9949):1226-35
pubmed: 24965818
Lancet. 2014 Sep 20;384(9948):e42-4
pubmed: 24965825
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Oct;71(5):522-54
pubmed: 25027409
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Sep 18;14:400
pubmed: 25230739
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Jul;20(7):934-40
pubmed: 25726853
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1045-9
pubmed: 25929823
PLoS Med. 2015 Jun 30;12(6):e1001847; discussion e1001847
pubmed: 26126110
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 11;10(8):e0135621
pubmed: 26262840
Health Policy Plan. 2016 May;31(4):547-9
pubmed: 26420642
Lancet. 2016 May 14;387(10032):2049-59
pubmed: 26477328
Glob Health Action. 2015 Oct 22;8:28567
pubmed: 26498576
Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Apr;28(2):233-9
pubmed: 26823050
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010506
pubmed: 27418960
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Sep;4(9):e594-6
pubmed: 27539798
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 31;12(1):e0171236
pubmed: 28141840
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Nov 1;95(11):738-748
pubmed: 29147054
Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Apr;10(2):93-104
pubmed: 9690882