Figures & Tables
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Calculating the Net Promoter Score
Source: How Likely: https://www.howlikely.com/resources/nps-what-exactly-is-it
- FIGURE 2
Two Net Promoter Score Implementation Approaches Tested in India
- FIGURE 3
Two Types of Net Promoter Score Rating Scales Tested in India
In El Salvador, a clinic supervisor and youth peer promoter tend a kiosk where the Net Promoter Score survey is set up for clients to provide feedback. © 2017 Moira Mendoza/International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region
Tables
India Kenya and Nigeria El Salvador Sample size N=188 N=590 N=226 What was tested Feasibility and acceptability of implementation approaches in low-resource clinical settings among clients with low-literacy levels Whether the methodology could be used to generate meaningful comparative information about the experience of different client groups Feasibility of a self-administered NPS survey using tablets with an online survey in DHIS 2 Description A convenience sample of 2 peri-urban clinics was selected based on client population (low literacy), client volume, proximity to reach both clinics in a single day, and willingness to participate.
Female clients exiting the clinic were asked how likely they are to recommend the service.
Interviewers alternated between face-to-face interviews and guiding the respondent to a drop box to circle her response in private as she exited the clinic.
The survey alternated between an 11-point numerical scale and an 11-point emoji-face scale.
Face-to-face interviews included an open-ended ‘why’ question. Twenty clients were contacted for follow-up via telephone.A convenience sample of 9 service delivery sites (6 in Kenya and 3 in Nigeria) was selected based on client volume for family planning services, representation of both static and outreach clinics, and willingness to participate.
The NPS question on likeliness to recommend services was inserted into an existing client profile survey.
Clients were surveyed via face-to-face interviews as they exited family planning services.A convenience sample of 3 clinics was selected based on proximity to the capital, client volume, and willingness to participate.
Volunteer youth peer promoters directed clients exiting the clinic to kiosks set up with tablets that were connected to an online survey in DHIS 2.
Clients chose to complete the survey by themselves on the tablet, with assistance from a youth promoter using the tablet, or by themselves using a paper-based survey.Variables included in NPS survey Consent to participate
Clinic name
Interviewer name
Approach:
∘ Interview: 49%
∘ Drop box: 51%
Scale:
∘ Emoji faces: 49%
∘ Numerical: 51%
Consent to follow-up: 96%
Likeliness to recommend services: mean 9.096
Why (interviews only)
Consent to participate
Country:
∘ Nigeria: 44%
∘ Kenya: 56%
Service delivery channel:
∘ Static: 48%
∘ Outreach: 52%
Service delivery site name
Interviewer name
Gender: 96% female
Age: mean 30.9 years
Family planning method received
Source of last method used
Method category:
∘ Long-acting or permanent method: 35%
∘ Short-acting reversible method: 65%
Family planning use profile:
∘ Adopter (first time or lapsed): 27%
∘ Provider continuer: 34%
∘ Provider changer: 39%
Reason for changing provider and/or method
Likeliness to recommend services: mean 8.45
Consent to participate
Clinic name
Administration method:
∘ Paper-based: 9%
∘ Self-administered on tablet: 42%
∘ Youth promoter-assisted on tablet: 49%
Age: mean 34.5 years
Gender: 89% female
Type of service
Likeliness to recommend services: mean 9.39
What could be improved
Abbreviations: DHIS 2, District Health Information System 2; NPS, Net Promoter Score.
- TABLE 2.
Two-Sample t Test Results Comparing Likeliness to Recommend Services of Client Groups
Client Group No. Mean Standard Deviation T-Value Calculator T Critical Values Degrees of Freedom P Value India (N=188) Implementation Approach Interview 92 9.52 1.09 3.11 2.61 131 .002 Drop box 96 8.69 5.75 Scale Type Numerical scale 95 8.94 4.00 1.16 2.60 185 .25 Emoji scale 93 9.26 3.24 Kenya and Nigeria (N=590) Age Cohort Adult clients 472 8.54 1.56 4.20 1.97 202 <.001 Youth clients 118 8.06 1.18 Clinic Type Outreach clinics 306 8.47 1.06 0.53 1.96 513 .60 Static clinics 284 8.42 2.03 Method Type Short-acting method 383 8.53 1.42 2.24 1.96 587 .03 Long-acting method 206 8.29 1.70 Insertion vs. Removal IUD/implant insertion 205 8.29 1.71 2.43 1.97 178 .02 IUD/implant removal 69 7.96 0.75 El Salvador (N=226) Age Cohort Adult clients 177 9.38 1.27 0.86 2.00 62 .40 Youth clients 48 9.58 2.25 Abbreviation: IUD, intrauterine device.
Notes: Adult clients were ages 25 and older; youth were under age 25.
In this issue
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Assessing the Generalizability of Client Experience Measurement Tools in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review
- Reducing caesarean section rates in Robson groups 1 and 3: a quality improvement initiative in a private Brazilian hospital
- Experiences With the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System Among Clients, Providers, and Key Opinion Leaders: A Mixed-Methods Study in Nigeria