| Literature DB >> 25276520 |
Lynn M Van Lith1, Melanie Yahner2, Lynn Bakamjian3.
Abstract
Demographic and Health Survey data from 18 countries were analyzed to better understand the characteristics of women wishing to limit childbearing. Demand for limiting (14% of all women) is less than that that for spacing (25%) but is still substantial. The mean "demand crossover age" (the average age at which demand to limit births begins to exceed demand to space) is generally around age 33, but in some countries it is as low as 23 or 24. Young women often intend to limit their births, contrary to the assumption that only older women do. Large numbers of women have exceeded their desired fertility but do not use family planning, citing fear of side effects and health concerns as barriers. When analysis is restricted to married women, demand for limiting nearly equals that for spacing. Many women who want no more children and who use contraception, especially poor women and those with less education, use less effective temporary contraceptive methods. A sizable number of women in sub-Saharan Africa-nearly 8 million-have demand for limiting future births. Limiting births has a greater impact on fertility rates than spacing births and is a major factor driving the fertility transition. Family planning programs must prepare to meet this demand by addressing supply- and demand-side barriers to use. Meeting the growing needs of sub-Saharan African women who want to limit births is essential, as they are a unique audience that has long been overlooked and underserved.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 25276520 PMCID: PMC4168554 DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-12-00036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract ISSN: 2169-575X
Countries and Survey Years Included in the Analysis
| Country | Survey Year |
| Benin | 2006 |
| Cameroon | 2004 |
| Democratic Republic of Congo | 2007 |
| Ethiopia | 2011 |
| Ghana | 2009 |
| Kenya | 2008/9 |
| Lesotho | 2004 and 2009 |
| Madagascar | 2009 |
| Malawi | 2010 |
| Namibia | 2007 |
| Nigeria | 2008 |
| Rwanda | 2010 |
| Senegal | 2010–11 |
| Swaziland | 2007 |
| Tanzania | 2010 |
| Uganda | 2006 |
| Zambia | 2007 |
| Zimbabwe | 2010–11 |
The 2004 Lesotho DHS was used for data that were not included in the 2009 DHS.
FIGURE 1Demand for Spacing and Limiting Births,a by Age
a Averages weighted by population of women of reproductive age for all 18 analysis countries
Demand Crossover Age: Mean Age at Which Demand for Limiting Future Births Meets or Exceeds Demand for Spacing Births
| Country | Age |
| Swaziland | 23 |
| Lesotho | 24 |
| Namibia | 28 |
| Malawi | 29 |
| Kenya | 31 |
| Madagascar | 31 |
| Rwanda | 31 |
| Ethiopia | 32 |
| Zimbabwe | 32 |
| Uganda | 33 |
| Benin | 34 |
| Tanzania | 34 |
| Cameroon | 35 |
| Zambia | 35 |
| Ghana | 36 |
| Nigeria | 36 |
| Democratic Republic of Congo | 38 |
| Senegal | 38 |
Met and Unmet Need and Total Demand for Spacing and Limiting Births, by Country
| Country | Demand to limit (%) | Using to limit (%) | Unmet need to limit (%) | Demand to space (%) | Using to space (%) | Unmet need to space (%) |
| Benin | 14.8 | 5.4 | 9.4 | 26.0 | 11.8 | 14.2 |
| Cameroon | 10.6 | 6.4 | 4.2 | 29.9 | 19.6 | 10.3 |
| Democratic Republic of Congo | 9.3 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 27.7 | 14.3 | 13.4 |
| Ethiopia | 14.1 | 8.5 | 5.6 | 21.5 | 11.1 | 10.4 |
| Ghana | 14.9 | 7.2 | 7.7 | 27.4 | 12.2 | 15.2 |
| Kenya | 26.8 | 19.0 | 7.8 | 21.4 | 13.0 | 8.4 |
| Lesotho | 30.3 | 22.8 | 7.5 | 19.6 | 13.2 | 6.4 |
| Madagascar | 22.0 | 15.8 | 6.2 | 24.3 | 15.9 | 8.4 |
| Malawi | 28.0 | 19.8 | 8.2 | 25.8 | 15.6 | 10.2 |
| Namibia | 30.9 | 25.9 | 5.0 | 25.1 | 20.8 | 4.3 |
| Nigeria | 8.2 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 22.9 | 11.0 | 11.9 |
| Rwanda | 20.8 | 16.0 | 4.8 | 18.0 | 12.6 | 5.4 |
| Senegal | 8.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 21.4 | 6.6 | 14.8 |
| Swaziland | 35.0 | 26.4 | 8.6 | 16.0 | 11.5 | 4.5 |
| Tanzania | 17.5 | 10.8 | 6.7 | 29.6 | 18.0 | 11.6 |
| Uganda | 19.9 | 9.6 | 10.3 | 26.1 | 10.0 | 16.1 |
| Zambia | 17.6 | 11.4 | 6.2 | 30.3 | 18.5 | 11.8 |
| Zimbabwe | 22.3 | 18.6 | 3.7 | 27.6 | 22.7 | 4.9 |
FIGURE 2Method Mix Among Women Using Contraception to Limit Births
FIGURE 3Mean Parity and Mean Ideal Parity Among Users of Permanent Contraceptive Methods
FIGURE 4Percent of Demand for Limiting Satisfied Among the Poorest and Wealthiest Quintiles