Progress and gaps in reproductive health services in three humanitarian settings: mixed-methods case studies

Table 3 Functioning family planning (FP) service delivery point (n=63)

	Oral contraceptive pill (OCP)	Injectable contraceptive	IUD	Implant	Functioning FP service delivery point¹
Burkina Faso (n=28)
Hospital (n=3)	3 (100%)	3 (100%)	3 (100%)	3 (100%)	3 (100%)
Camp health center (n=4)	3 (100%) ND* (1)	3 (100%) ND* (1)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)
Non-camp health center (n=21)	17 (81%)	17 (81%)	1 (4.8%)	8 (40%) ND* (1)	1 (4.8%)
DRC (n=26)
Hospital (n=1)	1	1	1	1	1
Health center (n=25)	12 (48%)	10 (40%)	9 (36%)	5 (20%)	5 (20%)
South Sudan (n=9)
Hospital (n=1)	0	ID**	0	0	0
Health center (n=8)	1 (12.5%)	1 (12.5%)	0	0	0

*ND = no data
**ID = incomplete data. The hospital met all the indicators but data on availability of injectables at the time of the assessment were missing.
¹ Defined as a facility able to provide IUDs, implants, OCPs, and injectables. A facility was classified as able to provide each method if the following criteria were met: self-reported provision of the service in the previous 3 months, at least one provider trained in FP service provision, and presence of minimum essential supplies and equipment on the day of the assessment. See Additional file 2: Appendix B for details.

ISSN: 1752-1505