Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ... Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

site.icomp.org.my
from site.icomp.org.my More from this publisher
30.07.2015 Views

provide family plannong>inong>g services ong>andong> (b) why communitiesdid not access family plannong>inong>g services.In all three groups of provong>inong>ces, staff attitudes arementioned as a reason why health staff do not dispensecontraceptives. In ong>theong> non-project ong>andong> UNFPA focusprovong>inong>ces, ong>theong> most important factor is ong>theong> religious beliefsof staff, whereas ong>inong> ong>theong> PFPP provong>inong>ces lack of supply isong>theong> primary reason.So far as ong>theong> reason why communities do not accesscontraceptives is concerned, lack of supply is agaong>inong>mentioned as ong>theong> maong>inong> reason ong>inong> ong>theong> PFPP provong>inong>ces,whereas community religious beliefs is ong>theong> maong>inong> reasongiven ong>inong> ong>theong> oong>theong>r groups of provong>inong>ces.In Tables 2 ong>andong> 3, ong>theong> responses have been pooled withoutconsideration for particular provong>inong>ces. Table 2 shows thatong>theong> attitudes of health providers is perceived by healthstaff ong>theong>mselves as ong>theong> maong>inong> reason why health staff do notsupply contraceptives, followed by ong>theong> lack of supply ong>andong>IEC materials. Table 3 ong>inong>dicates that “fear” is perceived byhealth workers to be ong>theong> maong>inong> reason why ong>theong> communitydoes not seek access to family plannong>inong>g services, followedby lack of awareness ong>andong> religious beliefs.Although ong>theong> selection of respondents ong>inong> this survey wasnot based on scientific samplong>inong>g methods, ong>theong> healthworkers consulted were all well-ong>inong>formed ong>andong> experiencedong>inong> ong>theong> provision of family plannong>inong>g services. Aside fromthose comong>inong>g from provong>inong>ces that had never participated ong>inong>a major family plannong>inong>g project, most of ong>theong>se respondentshad been ong>inong>volved ong>inong> ong>theong> implementation of projectsaimed at improvong>inong>g access to family plannong>inong>g ong>andong> oong>theong>rreproductive health services. It should not be concludedfrom ong>theong>se data that ong>theong> various family plannong>inong>g projectshad not made positive contributions towards improvedaccess. For example, ong>theong> vasectomy traong>inong>ong>inong>g provided underong>theong> UNFPA project provided a foundation for a muchwider vasectomy traong>inong>ong>inong>g programme throughout ong>theong>country ong>andong> that programme has been quite successful.Similarly, ong>theong> PFPP project contributed substantially to ong>theong>renovation of clong>inong>ics, providong>inong>g a confidential, private spaceong>inong> which nurses were able to discuss issues ong>andong> dispenseadvice. The PFPP project also changed procedures toensure that clients could access services at any time ong>andong>on all suitable opportunities, raong>theong>r than FP clong>inong>ics beong>inong>gopen only at certaong>inong> hours.The ong>inong>terpretation of ong>theong> data ong>inong> Tables 1-3 presents achallenge as ong>theong> questions ong>inong> ong>theong> questionnaire were notdesigned to test a particular approach to service delivery.It is apparent, however, that ong>theong> “attitudes” of healthstaff ong>theong>mselves play a significant role ong>inong> limitong>inong>g access.Conversely, ong>theong> attitudes of ong>theong> community, particularlyreligious views, constraong>inong> potential clients from seekong>inong>gservices. Male attitudes do not feature significantly amongong>theong> most important reasons given for clients not seekong>inong>gaccess, but ong>theong>y are mentioned. The large number of healthstaff who mentioned “fear” ong>andong> “lack of awareness” as ong>theong>two most important reasons for lack of community accessis consistent with ong>theong> results of ong>theong> two DHS that havebeen conducted (see ong>theong> section below under ong>theong> headong>inong>g“Current patterns of contraceptive use ong>andong> unmet need”).The significance of attitudes ong>andong> religious beliefs fromboth ong>theong> supply ong>andong> demong>andong> side raises issues concernong>inong>gong>theong> role of Church-based health facilities ong>inong> restrictong>inong>gaccess to family plannong>inong>g. The survey reported that nursesong>inong> Catholic-run health centres were frustrated ong>andong> angeredby ong>theong>ir ong>inong>ability to offer modern family plannong>inong>g. 6 Thefact that so many village aid posts had closed or wereunable to offer services meant that more women weregoong>inong>g to Church-operated health centres. The nursong>inong>gstaff were unable to provide tubal ligation even to high-riskmultiparous moong>theong>rs ong>inong> areas where maternal mortalitywas high. They had also found that ong>theong> ovulation methodthat ong>theong>y were teachong>inong>g was unsuitable ong>andong> unreliable forilliterate village women. Some nurses secretly distributedcontraceptives that came ong>inong> ong>theong> health kits ong>andong> did notrecord dispensong>inong>g ong>theong>m. On ong>theong> oong>theong>r hong>andong>, supervisorsensured that no order for contraceptives was added tomedical requisitions. Oong>theong>r nurses workong>inong>g ong>inong> Catholichealth centres reported that ong>theong>y would “get sacked” if ong>theong>ysecretly distributed family plannong>inong>g methods (Burdon etal., 2002).Government policy is to encourage Church-operated healthcentres to contong>inong>ue offerong>inong>g ong>theong> ovulation method as anacceptable alternative where religious precepts prohibitedong>theong> use of modern contraception. This somewhat passiveapproach is questionable when viewed from a humanrights perspective. One practical solution that has beenachieved ong>inong> at least one provong>inong>ce is for Church-run healthcentres to refer potential clients to a nearby aid post whereong>theong>y know that FP services are available. This solution canwork only where ong>theong> Church is at least willong>inong>g to cooperateong>andong> where aid posts are actually functionong>inong>g ong>andong> are beong>inong>gsupplied with commodities.A number of oong>theong>r issues to do with ong>theong> barriers to accessto contraception were highlighted by ong>theong> 2002 review, ong>andong>still need to be addressed, ong>inong>cludong>inong>g:Service providers are unaware that ong>theong> family plannong>inong>gpolicy ong>andong> ong>theong> law allows contraceptives to be suppliedto any person above 16 years of age regardless of maritalstatus.Some family plannong>inong>g staff are still askong>inong>g for writtenconsent from husbong>andong>s, even though this is neiong>theong>r a354

TableTable1TableTable2TableTable3355

TableTable1TableTable2TableTable3355

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!