Provision of Contraceptive and Related Services By Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics, 2003

Authors

  • Laura Duberstein Lindberg,

    1. Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Jennifer J. Frost are senior research associates, and at the time of this analysis, Caroline Sten was research assistant, Guttmacher Institute, New York. Cynthia Dailard is senior public policy associate, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jennifer J. Frost,

    1. Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Jennifer J. Frost are senior research associates, and at the time of this analysis, Caroline Sten was research assistant, Guttmacher Institute, New York. Cynthia Dailard is senior public policy associate, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Caroline Sten,

    1. Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Jennifer J. Frost are senior research associates, and at the time of this analysis, Caroline Sten was research assistant, Guttmacher Institute, New York. Cynthia Dailard is senior public policy associate, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Cynthia Dailard

    1. Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Jennifer J. Frost are senior research associates, and at the time of this analysis, Caroline Sten was research assistant, Guttmacher Institute, New York. Cynthia Dailard is senior public policy associate, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC.
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

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.

Ancillary