BackgroundA key component of universal health coverage is the ability to access quality healthcare without financial hardship. Poorer individuals are less likely to receive care than wealthier individuals, leading to important differences in health outcomes, and a needed focus on equity. To improve access to healthcare while minimizing financial hardships or inequitable service delivery we need to understand where individuals of different wealth seek care. To ensure progress toward SDG 3, we need to specifically understand where individuals seek reproductive, maternal, and child health services.MethodsWe analyzed Demographic and Health Survey data from Bangladesh, Cambodia, DRC, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia. We conducted weighted descriptive analyses on current users of modern FP and the youngest household child under age 5 to understand and compare country-specific care seeking patterns in use of public or private facilities based on urban/rural residence and wealth quintile.ResultsModern contraceptive prevalence rate ranged from 8.1% to 52.6% across countries, generally rising with increasing wealth within countries. For relatively wealthy women in all countries except Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Senegal and Zambia, the private sector was the dominant source. Source of FP and type of method sought across facilities types differed widely across countries. Across all countries women were more likely to use the public sector for permanent and long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Wealthier women demonstrated greater use of the private sector for FP services than poorer women.Overall prevalence rates for diarrhea and fever/ARI were similar, and generally not associated with wealth. The majority of sick children in Haiti did not seek treatment for either diarrhea or fever/ARI, while over 40% of children with cough or fever did not seek treatment in DRC, Haiti, Mali, and Senegal. Of all children who sought care for diarrhea, more than half visited the public sector and just over 30% visited the private sector; differences are more pronounced in the lower wealth quintiles.ConclusionsUse of the private sector varies widely by reason for visit, country and wealth status. Given these differences, country-specific examination of the role of the private sector furthers our understanding of its utility in expanding access to services across wealth quintiles and providing equitable care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0763-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measuring and tracking the quality of healthcare is a critical part of improving service delivery, clinic efficiency and health outcomes. However, no standardized or widely accepted tool exists to assess the quality of clinic-based family planning services in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this literature review was to identify widely used public domain quality assessment tools with existing or potential application in clinic-based family planning programmes. Using PubMed, PopLine, Google Scholar and Google, key terms such as ‘quality assessment tool’, ‘quality assessment method’, ‘quality measurement’, ‘LMIC’, ‘developing country’, ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health’ were searched for articles, identifying 20 relevant tools. Tools were assessed to determine the type of quality components assessed, divided into structure and process components, level of application (national or facility), health service domain that can be assessed by the tool, cost and current use of the tool. Tools were also assessed for shortcomings based on application in a low- and middle-income clinic-based family planning programme, including personnel required, re-assessment frequency, assessment of structure, process and outcome quality, comparability of data over time and across facilities and ability to benchmark clinic results to a national benchmark. No tools met all criteria, indicating a critical gap in quality assessment for low- and middle-income family planning programmes. To achieve Universal Health Coverage, agreed on in the Sustainable Development Goals and to improve system-wide healthcare quality, we must develop and widely adopt a standardized quality assessment tool.

Purpose: Poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias are believed to compromise adolescent and young adult sexual and reproductive health service quality. The results of focus group discussions with global youth leaders and sexual and reproductive health implementing organizations indicated that poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias serve as key barriers to care access for the youth. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to describe how poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias impose barriers on young people seeking sexual and reproductive health services and to examine how point of service evaluations have assessed these factors. Results: 4544 peer-reviewed publications were screened, of which 95 met the inclusion criteria. To these articles, another 16 grey literature documents were included, resulting in a total of 111 documents included in the review. Conclusion: Poor privacy and confidentiality practices and provider bias represent significant barriers for young people seeking sexual and reproductive health services across diverse geographic and sociocultural contexts. The authors found that present evaluation methods do not appropriately account for the importance of these factors and that new performance improvement indicators are needed.

Background: Improving facility-based quality for maternal and neonatal care is the key to reducing morbidity and mortality rates in low-and middle-income countries. Recent guidance from WHO and others has produced a large number of indicators to choose from to track quality. Objective: To explore how to translate complex global maternal and neonatal health standards into actionable application at the facility level. Methods: We applied a two-step process as an example of how the 352 indicators in WHO's 2016 Standards for Improving Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Health Facilities might be reduced to only those with the strongest evidence base, associated with outcomes, and actionable by facility managers. We applied Hill criteria and assessed whether indicators were within the control of facility managers. We next conducted a rapid review of supporting literature and applied GRADE analysis, retaining those with scores of 'moderate' or 'high'. To understand the utility and barriers to measuring this limited set of indicators in practice, we undertook a case study of hypothetical measurement application in two districts in Bangladesh, interviewing 25 clinicians, managers, and other stakeholders. Results: From the initial 352 indicators, 56 were retained. The 56 indicators were used as a base for interviews. Respondents emphasized the practical challenges to the use of complex guides and the need for parsimonious and actionable sets of quality indicators. Conclusions: This work offers one way to move towards a reduced quality indicator set, beginning from current WHO guidance. Despite study limitations, this work provides evidence of the need for reduced and evidence-based sets of quality indicators if guides are to be used to improve quality in practice. We hope that future research will build on and refine our efforts. Measuring quality effectively so that evidence guides and improves practice is the first step to assuring safe maternal and neonatal care.

Background: The first few years of life is the most crucial period of life as this age is known for accelerated growth and development. Various studies in India have shown that respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections are the leading cause of morbidity in infants. These infectious diseases are affected by several sociodemographic factors such as birth weight, gestational age, birth order, immunization status, day care attendance and socio-economic status of the family.Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted in the urban field practice area of department of community medicine MRMC, Kalaburagi from June 2016-October 2016. House to house survey using pre-structured and pretested questionnaire method was done.Results: Out of 104 infants in the present study it was found that majority 53% were females and 49% were males. Majority 61.5% of the infants belonged to low socioeconomic class and majority 54.8% of them were from nuclear families, most 62.5% of the infants had 1-2 siblings in the family and 34.6% had no siblings, 51% of the mothers were illiterate and majority 54.8% of the fathers were literate. Among all the morbidities majority 36.50% had fever. No significant association was found between various social factors.Conclusions: Though no significant association was found between morbidity and socio-demographic factors, but the socio demographic factors which showed more prevalence of morbidity among infants were females, number of siblings in the family and lower socio economic class. As these infants are the future citizens of the country hence their health should be the utmost priority for us and their health needs should be properly addressed.