(last updated: 2020-07-14 20:12:41)

Potential data viz exploration for women’s access to family planning programs

Objectives:
1. communicate multi-dimensional access. The bigger/more round web, the better/more balanced access. (Note: Radar chart is useful specifically for XYZ)
2. visualize how this multi-dimensional access varies by sub-group.

Caveats:
1. In each dimension, a potential candidate metric is used. Part of this exercise is to identify/revise the candidates. So, they are not final. A few domains still have relatively poor data. Nevertheless, the metrics used here are:

• FP.agency: percent of women who have full score in the FP agency index (i.e., who strongly agreed with each of the following five statements: )
  
• Information: percent of women who ever heard of specific 5 methods: IUD, implant, injectables, pills, and male condoms
  
• Affordability.insurance: percent of women who have health insurance (pretty bad…)
  
• Method.choice: percent of women who live in a community with at least on SDPs that have the five methods + have equipment/personnel to insert/remove IUD and implant + had no history of stock out in the past three months
  
• Service quality 1: percent of FP clients who reported the communication was clear, they were allowed to ask questions, and they understood (index based on three questions).
  
• Service quality 2: percent of FP clients who reported her provider discussed advantage/disadvantage of the method [she adopted].

Questions
1. Is it potentially useful?
2. Too simple to have one metric in each domain? We can have 2 metrics per domain. Not more than that.
3.

1. Among all women

2. By women’s background characteristics: education as an example

3. By women’s FP demand, contraceptive use, and sexual activity status

Note: * Service quality is not included.