METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 452 antenatal mothers attending health clinics in Klang in April 2018. Probability sampling was used and data was collected by using a validated self-administered questionnaire. The dependent variable of the study was short IPI and the independent variables were sociodemographic, obstetric history and planning of pregnancy. Analysis of data collected in the study was performed by using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 24.

RESULTS: The prevalence of short IPI found in this study was 48%. Seven identified predictors of short IPI were: age less than 25 years old (Adjusted Odd Ratios; AOR 12.16, 95%CI: 4.72, 31.30), age of 26 to 30 years old (AOR 5.20, 95%CI: 2.62, 10.32), age of 31 to 35 years old (AOR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.50, 5.64), higher education (AOR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.34, 3.34), parity more than three (AOR 3.12, 95% CI: 1.42, 6.84), irregular menstruation (AOR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.40, 3.37) and unintended pregnancy (AOR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.88, 4.40).

OBJECTIVES: To examine the differentials and determinants of the utilization of private providers for family planning services.

METHOD: This study used the 2014 Malaysian Population and Family Survey data. Cross-tabulations and logistic regression were performed on 1,817 current users of modern methods.

RESULTS: Overall, 26% of modern method users obtained their supplies from private clinics/pharmacies and 15.2% from other sources, such as drug stores and sundry shops. The odds of utilizing the private sector for family planning services differ significantly across regions and socio-economic groups. The odds of obtaining supply from the private clinics/pharmacies were higher among the Chinese and urban women (AOR > 1), and it was lower among those from the eastern region (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73). Non-Bumiputera, urban, higher educated, and working women, and those whose husbands decided on family planning had higher odds of obtaining the supply from the other sources (AOR > 1).

METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team.

RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care.