You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Do Service Providers in Tanzania Unnecessarily Restrict Clients' Access to Contraceptive Methods?
Ilene S. Speizer, David R. Hotchkiss, Robert J. Magnani, Brian Hubbard and Kristen Nelson
International Family Planning Perspectives
Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 13-20+42
Published by: Guttmacher Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2648285
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Family planning, Children, Birth control, Oral contraceptives, Condoms, Single status, Family planning services, Married status, Nurses, Intrauterine devices
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Context: Even where family planning services are physically accessible and economic barriers to access are few, medical barriers to contraceptive services-such as overspecialization, eligibility restrictions, process hurdles and provider bias-can limit women's use of services. Methods: Data from the 1996 Tanzania Service Availability Survey are used to analyze the prevalence of medical barriers by type of provider, by type of facility and by urban-rural location. Results: Relatively high proportions of providers restrict eligibility by age, particularly for oral contraceptives, the most widely used method among Tanzanian women. Between 79% and 81% of medical aides, trained midwives, maternal and child health aides and auxiliary staff (the most common types of family planning service providers in rural Tanzania) impose age restrictions for the pill. Among all providers, 10-13% report that there is at least one modern method they would never recommend, and 13% report having sent a client home until her next menses, an inappropriate process hurdle for the provision of most hormonal methods. In the aggregate, these restrictions severely limit access to contraceptives for certain groups of women. For example, young, unmarried women who are not menstruating at the time of their visit would encounter one or more barriers or process hurdles at more than 70% of urban facilities and at 80% of rural facilities. Conclusions: If preservice and in-service training and supervisory visits placed greater emphasis on compliance with the Tanzanian National Family Planning Program's service guidelines and standards, providers' unnecessary restrictions on contraceptive use might be reduced, and ultimately eliminated.
International Family Planning Perspectives © 2000 Guttmacher Institute