| Literature DB >> 23241510 |
Phyu Phyu Thin Zaw1, Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thien Thien Htay, Edward McNeil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inequity of accessibility to and utilization of reproductive health (RH) services among youths is a global concern, especially in resource-limited areas. The level of inequity also varies by cultural and socio-economic contexts. To tailor RH services to the needs of youths, relevant solutions are required. This study aimed to assess baseline information on access to and utilization of RH services and unmet needs among youths living in resource-limited, suburban communities of Mandalay City, Myanmar.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23241510 PMCID: PMC3546958 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Characteristics of youths
| | |||
| Age group | | Sexual exposure | |
| Adolescents | 231 (52.0) | Never exposed | 209 (47.1) |
| Young adults | 213 (48.0) | Ever exposed | 235 (52.9) |
| Sex | | Marital status | |
| Male | 215 (48.4) | Never married | 250 (56.3) |
| Female | 229 (51.6) | Ever married | 194 (43.7) |
| Ethnic group | | Pregnancy status* | |
| Bamar | 437 (98.4) | Never pregnant | 313 (70.5) |
| Other | 7 (1.6) | Ever pregnant | 109 (24.5) |
| Religion | | Currently pregnant | 22 (5.0) |
| Buddhist | 438 (98.6) | | |
| Other | 6 (1.4) | ||
| Place of residence | | Perceived norm of peer exposure | |
| East | 93 (20.9) | No | 55 (12.4) |
| North-west | 50 (11.3) | Yes | 389 (87.6) |
| West | 99 (22.3) | Knowledge of RH services and providers | |
| South-west | 40 (9) | Mean (SD) | 3.3 (1.6) |
| South | 128 (28.8) | Media exposure | |
| South-east | 34 (7.7) | Ever exposed | 302 (68.0) |
| Schooling status | | Never exposed | 142 (32.0) |
| In-school | 54 (12.2) | | |
| Out-of-school | 390 (87.8) | | |
| Education | | Parental status | |
| None | 25 (5.6) | Both alive | 281 (63.2) |
| Low | 192 (43.2) | One or more deceased | 163 (36.8) |
| Middle | 128 (28.8) | Father's education level | |
| High | 99 (22.3) | None | 96 (21.6) |
| Occupation | | Low | 259 (58.3) |
| Unemployed | 92 (20.7) | Middle and above | 89 (20.1) |
| Waste recycler | 103 (23.2) | Mother's education level | |
| Other employed | 249 (56.1) | None | 93 (20.9) |
| Personal income (US$) | | Low | 320 (72.1) |
| ≤37.5 | 175 (39.4) | Middle and above | 31 (7.0) |
| >37.5 | 269 (60.6) | Household income (US$) | |
| | | Mean (SD) | 178 (96.1) |
| | | Number of family members | |
| | | ≤5 persons | 246 (55.4) |
| >5 persons | 198 (44.6) | ||
* For males, responses are for their spouses or partners.
Comparison of accessibility and utilization between male and female youths
| | | | |
| Low | 47 (21.9) | 45 (19.7) | 92 (20.7) |
| High | 168 (78.1) | 184 (80.3) | 352 (79.3) |
| | | | |
| Low | 170 (79.1) | 189 (82.5) | 359 (80.9) |
| High | 45 (20.9) | 40 (17.5) | 85 (19.1) |
| | | | |
| Low | 140 (65.1) | 151 (65.9) | 291 (65.5) |
| High | 75 (34.9) | 78 (34.1) | 153 (34.5) |
| | | | |
| No | 84 (39.1) | 62 (27.1) | 146 (32.9) |
| Yes | 131 (60.9) | 167 (72.9) | 298 (67.1) |
Factors significantly associated with overall accessibility to RH services
| | < 0.001 | |
| North-west | 0.52 (0.25-1.08) | |
| West | 1.05 (0.60-1.83) | |
| South-west | 0.36 (0.15-0.84) | |
| South | 0.29 (0.16-0.52) | |
| | 0.004 | |
| One or both deceased | 0.50 (0.31-0.81) | |
| | 0.015 | |
| Never married | 0.57 (0.36-0.90) | |
| | 0.01 | |
| Never exposed | 0.55 (0.35-0.86) |
Factors included in the initial model were age group, personal income, father’s education, mother’s education and history of sexual exposure.
OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval; * Likelihood ratio test.
Factors significantly associated with utilization of at least one RH service
| | 0.039 | |
| Young adults | 1.82 (1.03-3.22) | |
| | < 0.001 | |
| In-school | 5.88 (2.44-14.28) | |
| | 0.003 | |
| Waste recycler | 4.00 (1.67-9.58) | |
| Employed | 1.68 (0.82-3.45) | |
| | 0.006 | |
| Ever exposed | 3.12 (1.35-7.24) | |
| | 0.004 | |
| Ever married | 3.72 (1.55-8.91) | |
| | 0.006 | |
| Ever exposed | 2.20 (1.25-3.86) | |
| 1.43 (1.18-1.73) | < 0.001 | |
| | 0.013 | |
| High | 1.96 (1.14-3.36) |
Factors included in the initial model were sex, place of residence, education attainment, personal income, parental status, father’s education, mother’s education, pregnancy status and perceived norm on peer exposure.
OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval; * Likelihood ratio test.
Factors significantly associated with unmet needs for RH services
| | - | - | | |
| Young adults | 0.55 (0.34 – 0.91)† | | | 0.43 (0.21 – 0.86)† |
| - | - | - | | |
| North-west | | | | 1.40 (0.49 – 4.01) |
| West | | | | 0.75 (0.33 – 1.7) |
| South- west | | | | 5.14 (1.68 – 15.75)‡ |
| South | | | | 3.16 (1.40 – 7.16) ‡ |
| | - | - | - | |
| Out-of-school | 4.47 (2.30 – 8.68)* | | | |
| - | | - | - | |
| Ever married | | 0.09 (0.01 – 0.97)* | | |
| - | - | | - | |
| >5 persons | | | 2.6 (1.25 – 5.37)‡ | |
| | - | - | - | |
| High | 0.61 (0.39 – 0.94)† | | | |
| - | | - | - | |
| Ever exposed | | 0.21 (0.05 – 0.83)† | | |
| 0.78 (0.68 – 0.90)* | 0.61 (0.41 – 0.89) ‡ | - | 0.72 (0.59 – 0.88)* | |
| - | - | | | |
| Yes | 0.09 (0.01 – 0.76)‡ | 0.16 (0.05 – 0.54)* |
Notes: † p ≤ 0.05; ‡p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.001 (Likelihood ratio test) OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval.
Factors included in each initial model were sex, education attainment, occupation, personal income, parental status, father’s education, mother’s education, household income, history of sexual exposure, pregnancy status.