Accessibility of federally funded family planning services in South Carolina and Alabama. 2021

Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
Center for Applied Research and Evaluation in Women's Health, Department of Health Services Management & Policy, College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 70264, Johnson City, TN 37614, United States.

This study operationalized the five dimensions of health care access in the context of contraceptive service provision and used this framework to examine access to contraceptive care at health department (HD) (Title X funded) and federally qualified health center (FQHC) (primarily non-Title X funded) clinics in South Carolina and Alabama. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2017/18 that assessed clinic-level characteristics, policies, and practices related to contraceptive provision. Provision of different contraceptive methods was examined between clinic types. Survey items were mapped to the dimensions of access and internal consistency for each scale was tested with Cronbach's alpha. Scores of access were developed and differences by clinic type were evaluated with an independent t-test. The overall response rate was 68.3% and the sample included 235 clinics. HDs (96.9%) were significantly more likely to provide IUDs and/or Impants on-site than FQHCs (37.4%) (P < 0.0001). Scales with the highest consistency were Availability: Clinical Policy (24 items) (alpha = 0.892) and Acceptability (43 items) (alpha = 0.834). HDs had higher access scores than FQHCs for the Availability: Clinical Policy scale (0.58, 95% CL 0.55, 0.61) vs (0.29, 95% CL 0.25, 0.33) and Affordability: Administrative Policy scale (0.86, 95% CL 0.83, 0.90) vs (0.47, 95% CL 0.41, 0.53). FQHCs had higher access scores than HDs for Affordability: Insurance Policy (0.78, 95% CL 0.72, 0.84) vs (0.56, 95% CL 0.53, 0.59). These findings highlight strengths and gaps in contraceptive care access. Future studies must examine the impact of each dimension of access on clinic-level contraceptive utilization.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
January 1976, New England law review,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
June 2014, Reproductive health,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
January 1976, Family planning perspectives,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
January 1974, Family planning perspectives,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
February 2014, Contraception,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
August 1965, Journal of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
December 1973, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
January 1984, Studies in family planning,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
November 1987, American journal of public health,
Kate E Beatty, and Michael G Smith, and Amal J Khoury, and Shimin Zheng, and Liane M Ventura, and Glory Okwori
June 2015, Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health,
Copied contents to your clipboard!