| Literature DB >> 17803805 |
Justin S White1, Ilene S Speizer.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zambia experienced declining aggregate fertility and increasing aggregate contraceptive use from 1990 to 2000. Yet, in rural Zambia, progress in family planning has lagged far behind the advances made in Zambia's urban areas. The contraceptive prevalence rate in Lusaka and other urban areas outstripped the rate in rural Zambia by nearly 25 percentage points (41.2 percent versus 16.6 percent) in 2001. The total fertility rate varied between urban and rural areas by 2.5 children (4.3 versus 6.9 children). This paper considers the urban-rural differentials in Zambia and assesses family planning outreach as a tool to narrow this divide.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17803805 PMCID: PMC2034555 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Total fertility rate (TFR) and contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) in Zambia, by year and type of residence
| Total | Urban | Rural | |
| Total fertility rate | |||
| 1992 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 7.1 |
| 1996 | 6.1 | 5.1 | 6.9 |
| 2001–02 | 5.9 | 4.3 | 6.9 |
| CPR, all methods, % | |||
| 1992 | 15.2 | 20.8 | 10.3 |
| 1996 | 25.9 | 33.3 | 20.9 |
| 2001–02 | 34.2 | 45.7 | 27.9 |
| CPR, modern methods, % | |||
| 1992 | 8.9 | 15.3 | 3.2 |
| 1996 | 14.4 | 23.6 | 8.2 |
| 2001–02 | 25.3 | 41.2 | 16.6 |
Socio-demographic characteristics of women in the full sample and the study sample, Zambia 2001/02
| Full sample (n = 7,658) | Study sample* (n = 4,927) | |
| Percentage of sample | 100.0 | 47.2 |
| Age | ||
| 15–24 | 45.4 | 39.3 |
| 25–34 | 30.7 | 35.4 |
| 35–39 | 10.0 | 11.3 |
| 40–44 | 7.9 | 8.3 |
| 45–49 | 6.1 | 5.7 |
| Educational attainment | ||
| No education | 12.1 | 13.0 |
| Primary | 58.0 | 60.0 |
| Secondary and higher | 30.0 | 27.0 |
| Urban | 40.1 | 38.2 |
| Currently working | 54.6 | 57.6 |
| Socioeconomic status** | ||
| Very low | 18.8 | 19.1 |
| Low | 18.2 | 18.3 |
| Medium | 18.8 | 20.0 |
| High | 18.8 | 20.0 |
| Very high | 25.4 | 22.6 |
| Religion | ||
| Catholic | 23.0 | 22.4 |
| Protestant | 75.3 | 75.6 |
| Muslim | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| No religion/other | 1.5 | 1.8 |
| Marital status | ||
| Never married | 24.8 | 14.0 |
| Married/cohabiting | 61.4 | 74.0 |
| Formerly married | 13.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of children | ||
| None | 27.0 | 15.2 |
| 1 | 17.4 | 20.1 |
| 2 | 14.3 | 16.7 |
| 3 | 12.0 | 13.8 |
| 4+ | 29.3 | 34.2 |
* Includes women who are fecund and sexually active; weighted percentages and unweighted n's presented. Some n's smaller than total due to missing data.
** The distribution of women across quintiles is not exactly 20 percent after taking into account the survey design and weighting of the sample.
Percentage of women in the study sample by selected family planning characteristics and type of residence, Zambia, 2001/02
| Study sample* | |||
| Total (n = 4,927) | Rural (n = 3,365) | Urban (n = 1,562) | |
| Contraceptive use ** | 34.4 | 28.7 | 43.7 |
| Using modern methods** | 23.2 | 14.7 | 37.0 |
| Type of method among users ** | |||
| Modern | |||
| Pill | 33.6 | 24.9 | 42.4 |
| Injectables | 12.6 | 9.3 | 16.0 |
| Condom | 16.3 | 14.7 | 17.9 |
| Sterilization | 5.3 | 3.5 | 7.2 |
| Other modern | 1.4 | 0.4 | 2.3 |
| Traditional | |||
| Withdrawal | 13.3 | 21.5 | 4.9 |
| Periodic abstinence | 3.5 | 4.2 | 2.9 |
| Lactational amenorrhea | 7.1 | 9.3 | 4.7 |
| Other traditional | 7.0 | 12.1 | 1.7 |
| Desire for more children ** | |||
| Wants more soon | 22.7 | 25.4 | 18.4 |
| Wants more later | 32.6 | 34.4 | 30.0 |
| Wants more, unsure of timing | 9.7 | 8.5 | 11.5 |
| Undecided/missing | 2.4 | 2.9 | 1.6 |
| Wants no more | 32.6 | 28.8 | 38.8 |
| Health worker visit last year ** | 10.3 | 11.9 | 7.6 |
| Heard family planning on radio recently ** | 46.5 | 33.4 | 67.7 |
| Approves of family planning ** | |||
| No | 10.4 | 13.1 | 6.0 |
| Yes | 85.2 | 81.1 | 91.8 |
| Don't know/missing | 4.4 | 5.8 | 2.2 |
| Amenorrheic | 28.8 | 36.0 | 17.1 |
* Includes women who are fecund, sexually active, and not currently amenorrheic. Weighted percentages and unweighted n's presented. Some n's smaller than total due to missing data.
** Significant difference between urban and rural women at 5 percent level, using Pearson's χ2 test.
Multivariate logistic regression odds ratios and confidence intervals for analyses of modern method use, total and stratified by type of residence, Zambia 2001/02
| Total (n = 4,927) | Rural (n = 3,365) | Urban (n = 1,562) | ||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Urban | 1.56 | 1.24–1.96 | ||||
| Health worker visit last year | 1.37 | 1.00–1.86 | 1.83 | 1.29–2.58 | 0.82 | 0.45–1.49 |
| Age | ||||||
| 15–24 (r) | ||||||
| 25–34 | 0.88 | 0.67–1.15 | 0.60 | 0.41–0.87 | 1.14 | .078–1.68 |
| 35–39 | 0.46 | 0.31–0.66 | 0.48 | 0.29–0.79 | 0.37 | 0.21–0.65 |
| 40–44 | 0.25 | 0.16–0.38 | 0.18 | 0.10–0.31 | 0.31 | 0.15–0.67 |
| 45–49 | 0.08 | 0.04–0.15 | 0.08 | 0.04–0.16 | 0.07 | 0.02–0.20 |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never married (r) | ||||||
| Married/cohabiting | 1.93 | 1.34–2.77 | 0.95 | 0.61–1.48 | 3.88 | 2.25–6.67 |
| Formerly married | 0.69 | 045–1.07 | 0.43 | 0.26–0.72 | 1.01 | 0.53–1.90 |
| Currently working | 0.98 | 0.83–1.15 | 0.83 | 0.66–1.05 | 1.15 | 0.91–1.44 |
| Socioeconomic status | ||||||
| Very low | 0.54 | 0.39–0.74 | 0.36 | 0.20–0.62 | 0.53 | 0.36–0.78 |
| Low | 0.54 | 0.40–0.74 | 0.39 | 0.26–0.61 | 0.61 | 0.36–1.06 |
| Medium | 0.59 | 0.44–0.78 | 0.43 | 0.27–0.66 | 0.60 | 0.42–0.86 |
| High | 0.59 | 0.44–0.78 | 0.39 | 0.26–0.59 | 0.72 | 0.47–1.10 |
| Very high (r) | ||||||
| Number of living children | ||||||
| 0 (r) | ||||||
| 1 | 2.07 | 1.48–2.89 | 3.11 | 1.88–5.15 | 1.61 | 1.00–2.61 |
| 2 | 2.53 | 1.69–3.79 | 3.96 | 2.38–6.59 | 1.87 | 1.02–3.45 |
| 3 | 3.22 | 2.08–4.99 | 5.44 | 2.93–10.10 | 2.46 | 1.31–4.59 |
| 4+ | 3.81 | 2.42–5.99 | 6.25 | 3.30–11.89 | 3.26 | 1.65–6.44 |
| Educational attainment | ||||||
| No education | 0.38 | 0.26–0.56 | 034 | 0.21–0.53 | 0.67 | 0.28–1.62 |
| Primary | 0.65 | 0.53–0.81 | 0.69 | 0.50–0.96 | 0.29 | 0.44–0.79 |
| Secondary and higher (r) | ||||||
| Desire for more children | ||||||
| Wants more soon (r) | ||||||
| Wants more later | 3.34 | 2.53–4.41 | 2.85 | 1.94–4.17 | 4.22 | 2.79–6.38 |
| Unsure/missing | 2.89 | 1.95–4.30 | 1.54 | 0.89–2.64 | 5.67 | 3.18–10.09 |
| Wants no more | 3.52 | 2.64–4.71 | 3.02 | 1.99–4.58 | 3.81 | 2.55–5.70 |
| Heard family planning on radio recently | 1.20 | 0.99–1.45 | 1.64 | 1.30–2.07 | 0.84 | 0.63–1.13 |
| Approves of family planning | ||||||
| No (r) | ||||||
| Yes | 5.87 | 3.37–10.24 | 6.13 | 2.81–13.41 | 5.43 | 2.30–12.81 |
| Undecided/missing | 2.55 | 1.21–5.37 | 0.99 | 0.28–3.51 | 7.77 | 2.46–24.56 |
| Amenorrheic | 0.15 | 0.12–0.18 | 0.17 | 0.13–0.23 | 0.12 | 0.08–0.18 |
All analyses are weighted and control for survey design. Unweighted sample sizes are presented.
Weighted sample sizes are: 4,906 (total); 3,034 (rural); and 1,872 (urban).