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