Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 19–26 | Cite as

Accessibility of Family Planning Services: Impact of Structural and Organizational Factors

  • Lorraine V. Klerman
  • Kay A. Johnson
  • Chiang-hua Chang
  • Phyllis Wright-Slaughter
  • David C. Goodman
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether selected structural and organizational characteristics of publicly available family planning facilities are associated with greater availability.

Methods: A survey was sent to 726 publicly available family planning facilities in four states. These included local health departments, federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Planned Parenthood sites, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding women’s health centers. Usable responses were obtained from 526 sites for a response rate of 72.5%. Availability variables included the provision of primary care services; the contraceptives offered; professional staffing; scheduling, waiting time, and transportation; and cultural congruence and competency. The structural and organizational variables were state, type of organization, and funding source.

Results: Some states were more likely to offer emergency contraception while others were more likely to have weekend hours. FQHCs were most likely to provide primary care and Planned Parenthood sites most likely to offer emergency contraception. Title X funding was associated with increased likelihood of providing emergency contraception and staffing by midlevel practitioners and registered nurses.

Conclusions: This study found that availability varied by structural and organizational variables, many of which are determined by federal and state policies. Revising some of these policies might increase utilization of family planning facilities.

Keywords

Family planning Unintended births Teenage births Community health centers Title X 

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Access to Health Care in America. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodman DC, Klerman LV, Johnson KA, Chang C, Marth N. Geographic Access to Family Planning Facilities and the Risk of Unintended and Teenage Pregnancy. Matern Child Health J. (refernce to be filled in)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cutright P, Jaffee FS, Impact of Family Planning Programs on Fertility: The U.S. Experience. New York, NY, Praeger Publishers, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torres A, Forrest JD. Family Planning Clinic Services n U.S. Counties, 1983. Fam Plann Perspec 1987;19:54–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Averett SL, Rees DI, Argys LM. The Impact of Government Policies and Neighborhood Characteristics on Teenage Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1773–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frost JJ, Frohwirth L, Purcell A. The Availability and Use of Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics: U.S. Trends, 1994–2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2004;36:206–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindberg LD, Frost JJ, Sten C, Dailard C. The Provision and Funding of Contraceptive Services at Publicly Funded Family Planning Agencies: 1995–2003. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2006;38:37–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sonenstein FL, Punia S, Scarcella CA. Future Directions for Family Planning Research: A Framework for Title X Family Planning Service Delivery Improvement Research. Washington, DC, Urban Institute, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gold RB. Doing More for Less: Study Says State Medicaid Family Planning Expansions are Cost-Effective. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 2004:7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brindis CD, Llewelyn L, Marie K, Blum M, Biggs A, Maternowska C. Meeting the Reproductive Health Care Needs of Adolescents. California’s Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program. J Adoles Health 2003;325:79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFarlane DR, Meier KJ. The Politics of Fertility Control. New York, NY, Seven Bridges Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson KA, Posner, SF, Biermann J, Cordero J, Atrash HK, Parker CS, Boulet S, Curtis MG. Recommendations to Improve Preconception Health and Health Care—United States. A Report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. MMWR 2006;55: No. RR-6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Alan Guttmacher Institute. Medicaid: A Critical Source of Support for Family Planning in the United States. Issue Brief, April 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alan Guttmacher Institute. Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives. State Policies in Brief. February 14, 2006. Accesses at: http:/www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/February 28, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W, Peterson L, Piccinino L. Fertility, Family Planning, and Women’s Health: New Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorraine V. Klerman
    • 1
  • Kay A. Johnson
    • 2
  • Chiang-hua Chang
    • 2
  • Phyllis Wright-Slaughter
    • 2
  • David C. Goodman
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Child, Youth and Family Policy, The Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences and the Department of PediatricsDartmouth Medical SchoolHanoverUSA
  3. 3.Dartmouth Medical SchoolHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations