Who Do Batswana Men Prefer: Male or Female Health Providers?

4Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services are rarely designed specifically to meet men’s needs. There is a general consensus among clinicians that males need access to SRH services. Studies have reported that men are often hesitant to go to health facilities because they feel uncomfortable being served by female providers. The study sought to determine whether men who participate in SRH services have specific preference for the gender of health workers for consultation on different types of services. A mixed-method design was employed. A combination of stratified proportional sampling of facilities and criterion purposive sampling of participants were used. Questionnaires were used to collect data from 390 participants, which were complemented with 10 in-depth interviews. Chi-square analysis with post hoc comparisons were used to determine whether there were significant differences in gender preference for specific services. Based on the data, Batswana males did not have any gender preference of the health provider for consultation on SRH services. The gender of the provider is of minor importance compared with other characteristics such as competence and confidentiality. However, the gender of the provider seems to be more important to younger men for delivery, sexually transmitted infections, voluntary counselling, and testing services. Further research is needed because the study was conducted in the city and the participants’ characteristics may be unique to an urban setting. Preferences for providers among demographic groups can be useful in informing resource prioritization and help direct program efforts to reach different subgroups of males.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Letshwenyo-Maruatona, S. (2017). Who Do Batswana Men Prefer: Male or Female Health Providers? American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(6), 1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315621727

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free