IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v31y2007i1p24-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenging the Courtesy Bias Interpretation of Favorable Clients’ Perceptions of Family Planning Delivery

Author

Listed:
  • Federico R. León

    (Georgetown University Institute for Reproductive Health)

  • Rebecka Lundgren

    (Georgetown University Institute for Reproductive Health)

  • Ana Huapaya

    (Instituto de Salud Reproductiva, Lima, Peru)

  • Irit Sinai

    (Georgetown University Institute for Reproductive Health)

  • Victoria Jennings

    (Georgetown University Institute for Reproductive Health)

Abstract

Favorable client perceptions of provider’s interpersonal behavior in contraceptive delivery, documented in clinic exit questionnaires, appear to contradict results from qualitative evaluations and are attributed to clients’ courtesy bias. In this study, trained simulated clients requested services from Ministry of Health providers in three countries. Providers excelled in courteousness/respect in Peru and Rwanda; in India, providers were less courteous and respectful when the simulated clients chose the pill. Privacy and two-way communication were less prevalent in all three countries. The findings challenge the courtesy bias interpretation. Global results from qualitative studies may have expressed the views of the minority of clients who are not treated well by providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico R. León & Rebecka Lundgren & Ana Huapaya & Irit Sinai & Victoria Jennings, 2007. "Challenging the Courtesy Bias Interpretation of Favorable Clients’ Perceptions of Family Planning Delivery," Evaluation Review, , vol. 31(1), pages 24-42, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:31:y:2007:i:1:p:24-42
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X06289044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X06289044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X06289044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:31:y:2007:i:1:p:24-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.