Premium
Provision of Contraceptive and Related Services By Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics, 2003
Author(s) -
Lindberg Laura Duberstein,
Frost Jennifer J.,
Sten Caroline,
Dailard Cynthia
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
perspectives on sexual and reproductive health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.818
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1931-2393
pISSN - 1538-6341
DOI - 10.1111/j.1931-2393.2006.tb00262.x
Subject(s) - receipt , family planning , medicine , family medicine , reproductive health , population , abstinence , service (business) , emergency contraception , business , environmental health , psychiatry , accounting , marketing , research methodology
CONTEXT: In addition to contraceptive services, publicly funded family planning clinics provide low‐income women with a range of reproductive diagnostic, treatment and educational services. Nationally representative information about the scope of services available from clinics is needed to formulate policy and programmatic recommendations. METHODS: In 2003, more than 1,000 U.S. clinics responded to an eight‐page survey on service availability and clinic policies. Differences in the proportions of clinics reporting each service or policy were examined by clinic type and receipt of Title X funding. RESULTS: Nearly all clinics offer pills, injectables and condoms; 75% offer the patch; and 80% offer emergency contraception. Most clinics (73%) typically use a conventional Pap smear for initial cervical cancer screenings; 27% use liquid‐based Pap tests. For follow‐up, 68% of clinics use liquid‐based or other advanced testing. Virtually all clinics screen at least some clients for chlamydia; Planned Parenthood and Title X‐funded clinics, more than others, tend to focus screening efforts on sexually active women aged 25 and younger. Single‐dose treatments are provided by 58% of clinics. Nine in 10 clinics offer HIV testing on‐site, most of them to any client who requests it. Services targeted to specific populations include counseling about abstinence for minors (91%); non‐reproductive health services for men (36%); and availability of staff such as translators (81%) and bilingual administrative (59%) or clinical personnel (57%) for non‐English‐speaking clients. CONCLUSIONS: More public funding is imperative for clinics to keep up with the demands of new technologies and a diverse client base.