Skip to main content

Table 5 Client satisfaction by facility type

From: Young peoples’ interface with providers of contraceptive care: a simulated client study in two Ugandan districts

  Health facility type
Satisfaction Total n(%) Public n (%) PNFP n (%) PFP n (%) Exact Chi-square, P- Value
Cleanness of facility  
 Dirty 20 (15.9) 5 (14.7) 0 (0.0) 15 (18.3) χ 2 = 8.4 p = 0.08
 Fairly clean 42 (33.3) 17 (50.0) 3 (30.0) 22 (26.8)
 Clean 64 (50.8) 12 (35.3) 7 (70.0) 45 (54.9)
Respectfulness of health staff  
 Disrespectful 15 (11.9) 5 (14.7) 0 (0.0) 10 (12.2) χ 2 = 4.6 p = 0.41
 Fairly respectful 48 (38.1) 12 (35.3) 2 (20.0) 34 (41.4)
 Respectful 63 (50.0) 17 (50.0) 8 (80.0) 38 (46.3)
Privacy during consultation with provider  
 No privacy 38 (30.2) 11 (32.3) 1 (10.0) 26 (31.7) χ 2 = 10.2 p = 0.04
 Some privacy 35 (27.8) 6 (17.6) 1 (10.0) 28 (34.1)
 Enough privacy 53 (42.0) 17 (50.0) 8 (80.0) 28 (31.1)
Overall satisfaction with the visit  
 Dissatisfied 43 (34.1) 15 (44.1) 2 (20.0) 26 (31.7) χ 2 = 5.2 p = 0.30
 Fairly satisfied 46 (34.5) 12 (35.3) 6 (60.0) 28 (34.1)
 Satisfied 37 (29.4) 7 (20.6) 2 (20.0) 28 (34.1)
  1. The score ranges from 1–5; levels of satisfaction were grouped into three to get categories of satisfaction. P-values based on Fisher’s exact test Note that the number of responses in some cells is too small. PNFP-private not for profit, and PFP-private for profit