| Literature DB >> 23782912 |
Humayun Kabir1, Nirod Chandra Saha, Elizabeth Oliveras, Rukhsana Gazi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to identify selected programmatic factors relating to low contraceptive-use in a low-performing rural sub-district in Sylhet division of Bangladesh.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23782912 PMCID: PMC3689600 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-31
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Characteristics of MWRA in Nabiganj (2006) and in rural areas nationally (2007)
| | | |
| 15-19 | 13.7 | 6.6 |
| 20-24 | 19.7 | 17.2 |
| 25-29 | 17.3 | 19.7 |
| 30-34 | 15.0 | 16.8 |
| 35-39 | 13.6 | 14.7 |
| 40-44 | 10.9 | 12.9 |
| 45-49 | 9.6 | 12.1 |
| | | |
| No education | 36.7 | 48.4 |
| Primary incomplete | 21.8 | 20.5 |
| Primary complete | 8.6 | 14.7 |
| Secondary incomplete | 23.9 | 13.5 |
| Secondary complete and higher | 8.9 | 2.8 |
| | | |
| Wardrobe | 37.0 | 38.3 |
| Table | 66.0 | 61.3 |
| Chair | 67.8 | 68.1 |
| Watch | 63.2 | 59.9 |
| Radio | 23.3 | 22.7 |
| TV | 21.9 | 29.6 |
| Bicycle | 27.9 | 7.8 |
| Mobile phone | 25.3 | 30.2 |
Multiple responses allowed.
Selected programmatic factors of family-planning services utilization: comparison between the national BDHS 2007 and survey of Nabiganj
| 46.0 | 19.7 | 0.001 | |
| | | | |
| Visited satellite clinic | 32.0 | 15.3 | 0.001 |
| Received government FWA visit within the last 6 months | 17.2 | 5.7 | 0.001 |
| (n = 2784) | (n = 1230) | | |
| Public sector | 55.7 | 41.5 | 0.001 |
| NGO sector | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.001 |
| Private medical sector | 33.5 | 51.9 | 0.001 |
| Other private sectors | 6.4 | 3.8 | 0.001 |
Programmatic factors associated with current contraceptive-use by MWRA
| | | |
| 15-19 | 0.57 (0.40-0.82)* | 0.39 (0.28-0.54)* |
| 20-24 | 1.34 (1.08-1.66) | 0.94 (0.81-1.11) |
| 25-29 | 1.99 (1.63-2.42)* | 1.43 (1.24-1.64)* |
| 30-34 | 2.57 (2.11-3.14)* | 1.72 (1.49-1.98)* |
| 35-39 | 2.22 (1.81-2.74)* | 1.35 (1.16-1.58)* |
| 40+ (RC) | 1 | 1 |
| | | |
| No education (RC) | 1 | 1 |
| Primary level | 1.65 (1.43-1.89)* | 1.22 (1.09-1.38)* |
| Secondary level | 2.50 (2.11-2.96)* | 2.02 (1.76-2.33)* |
| | | |
| No contact (RC) | 1 | 1 |
| Contact | 2.57 (1.98-3.34)* | 2.54 (2.11-3.05)* |
| | | |
| No visit (RC) | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1.71 (1.20-2.42)* | 0.65 (0.42-1.00) |
| 2 + | 2.47 (1.72-3.56)* | 0.94 (0.60-1.47) |
| | | |
| Health facility located more than1Km (RC) | 1 | 1 |
| Health facility within 1km | 1.41 (1.19-1.69)* | 1.42 (1.22-1.64)* |
| | | |
| Non-use (RC)) | 1 | 1 |
| Use | 1.05 (0.92-1.20) | 1.22 (1.07-1.39)* |
*p<0. 001; **p<0. 005; CI = Confidence interval; OR = Odds ratio; RC-Reference category.
Programmatic factors of Family planning services utilization: difference between hard to reach unions and Non-hard to reach unions of Nabiganj
| Modern Contraceptive prevalence rate | 16 | 21 |
| Received contraceptive from Public sector | 6.5 | 9 |
| Received contraceptive from Private sector | 8.3 | 11.8 |
| Received FWA visit within last 6 months | 4.8 | 7.4 |
Figure 1Comparison of contraceptive-use in Nabiganj (2006) and rural areas nationally (2007).
Figure 2Comparison of contraceptive prevalence rates in hard-to-reach and non-hard-to-reach unions of Nabiganj sub district.