Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 17;20:221. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5066-1

Table 2.

Implementation strength indicators reported by the In-Charges versus observed by the interviewers with sensitivity and specificity of phone interview method

Implementation Strength Indicator Reported percentage (n/N) Observed Percentage (n/N) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%)
HFs who received FP supervision from someone external in previous 3 months 73 (38/52) 77 (40/52) 80 50
HFs who supervise their HWs with reinforcement of YFHS practice 49 (18/37) 22 (8/37) 100 66
HFs whose supervision checklist of HWs includes youth FP 69 (25/36) 89 (32/36) 75 31
HFs with FP guidelines 94 (50/53) 85 (45/53) 96 13
HFs with youth FP guidelines 57 (31/54) 45 (24/53) 73 52
HFs with FP job aids 86 (44/51) 61 (31/51) 94 25
HFs with FP pamphlets 75 (39/52) 73 (38/52) 89 50
HFs that provide
 Injectables 96 (51/53) 96 (51/53) 100 100
 Implants 88 (45/51) 96 (49/51) 95 100
HFs with current stocks of
 Injectables 96 (49/51) 96 (49/51) 100 100
 Implants 74 (39/53) 77 (41/53) 100 67
HFs with no stock-out in the previous 3 reporting months of
 Injectables 88 (45/51) 96 (49/51) 100 92
 Implants 87 (34/39) 92 (36/39) 67 92
HFs that have a private room for FP consultations 91 (48/53) 89 (47/53) 94 33
HFs have a space designated for youth consultations and activities 13 (7/53) 21 (11/53) 45 95