Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2023 Jun 21;11(3). doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00470.
Provider bias has become an important topic of family planning research over the past several decades. Much existing research on provider bias has focused on the ways providers restrict access to contraception. Here, we propose a distinction between the classical "downward" provider bias that discourages contraceptive use and a new conception of "upward" provider bias that occurs when providers pressure or encourage clients to adopt contraception.
Using cross-sectional data from reproductive-aged women in Burkina Faso, we describe lifetime prevalence of experiencing provider encouragement to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity (a type of upward provider bias) and provider discouragement from using contraception due to provider perceptions of low parity (a type of downward provider bias). We also examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of provider encouragement to use contraception due to perceptions of high parity.
Sixteen percent of participants reported that a provider had encouraged them to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity, and 1% of participants reported that a provider had discouraged them from using contraception because of provider perceptions of low parity. Being married, being from the rural site, having higher parity, and having attended the 45th-day postpartum check-up were associated with increased odds of being encouraged to use contraception due to provider perceptions of high parity.
We find that experiences of upward provider bias linked to provider perceptions of high parity were considerably more common in this setting than downward provider bias linked to perceptions of low parity. Research into the mechanisms through which upward provider bias operates and how it may be mitigated is imperative to promote contraceptive autonomy.
在过去几十年中,提供者偏见已成为计划生育研究的重要课题。现有许多关于提供者偏见的研究都集中在提供者限制避孕措施的获取途径上。在这里,我们提出了一种区分,即将经典的“向下”提供者偏见(即阻止人们使用避孕药具)与新的“向上”提供者偏见(即提供者施压或鼓励客户采用避孕药具)区分开来。
我们使用布基纳法索育龄妇女的横断面数据,描述了由于提供者认为生育过多而导致的经历提供者鼓励使用避孕药具的终生患病率(一种向上的提供者偏见),以及由于提供者认为生育过低而导致的经历提供者劝阻使用避孕药具的终生患病率(一种向下的提供者偏见)。我们还检查了社会人口特征与因提供者认为生育过多而鼓励使用避孕药具的经历之间的关联。
16%的参与者报告说,由于提供者认为生育过多,提供者鼓励他们使用避孕药具,1%的参与者报告说,由于提供者认为生育过低,提供者劝阻他们使用避孕药具。已婚、来自农村地区、生育次数较高以及参加第 45 天产后检查与因提供者认为生育过多而鼓励使用避孕药具的可能性增加有关。
我们发现,与因提供者认为生育过低而导致的向下的提供者偏见相比,与因提供者认为生育过高而导致的向上的提供者偏见相关的经验更为普遍。研究向上的提供者偏见的运作机制以及如何减轻这种偏见对于促进避孕自主至关重要。