| Literature DB >> 26567030 |
Makeda Sinaga1, Ahmed Mohammed2, Negash Teklu3, Kristen Stelljes4, Tefera Belachew5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family planning is a strategy of balancing population growth with economic development for sustainable use of natural resources. A high population growth induces increased demand for resources and the rate at which these resources are exploited. Population, health and environment are connected inextricably. Population growth unbalanced with economic development leads to food insecurity which exposes households to the consumption of food with reduced quality and quantity leading to increased risk of malnutrition and poor health. Food insecurity again obliges people to encroach into the natural environment leading to a spiraling progress to destitution. A study in the Philippines provided concrete evidence that integrated development programming incorporating population, health, and the environment (PHE) can be more effective in lowering population growth rates and preserving critical coastal ecosystems than single-sector development interventions". Although the PHE approach has been implemented for 5 years (2008-2012) Guraghe Zone of South Ethiopia, its outcomes have not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PHE approach for achieving family planning (FP) outcomes in Gurage Zone.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26567030 PMCID: PMC4644343 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2484-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Map of Guraghe zone
Fig. 2Sampling framework
Indicators FP outcomes by PHE and non-PHE Woredas
| Variables | PHE ( | Non-HE ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Heard about FP methods | 92.9 % | 95.0 % |
|
| Mean number of FP methods known by women out of 13 different methods (±SD) | 3.69(±2.73) | 3.56(±2.76) |
|
| Mean number of FP methods known by women out of out of eight commonly used FP methods (±SD) a | 3.03(±1.64) | 2.74(±2.26) |
|
| CPR | 70.7 % | 73.9 % |
|
| CPR excluding new acceptors | 78 % | 52 % |
|
| Percent of new acceptors of modern FP methods | 26.2 | 69.5 |
|
| Percent of women in reproductive age who heard at least 3 contraceptives | 67.5 % | 65.5-0 |
|
| Percent of women who knew at least one source of modern contraceptives | 96.1 | 96.7 |
|
| Percent of husband supporting use of FP methods himself | 30.2 % | 7.3 % |
|
aThe 8 commonly used family planning methods (Pills, Norplant, Depo-Provera, condom, IUCD, Tubal legation, vasectomy and Spermicids)
ƒNew acceptors are defined as women/couples who started using modern contraceptive methods for the first time during the last 1 year before the survey
Fig. 3Differences in the purposes of using familiy planning among the current family planning users (P <0.0001)
Multivariable linear regression model predicting knowledgea of family planning methods among married women of reproductive age groups in PHE and non-PHE Woredas
| Predictors | ß | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age of the women(years) | −0.009 | 0.014 |
|
| Women’s educational status | 0.296 | 0.036 |
|
| Husband’s educational status | 0.017 | 0.017 |
|
| Woman’s occupation | |||
| Housewife (Reference) | |||
| Farmer | 0.730 | 0.257 |
|
| Others | 0.960 | 0.278 |
|
| Husband’s Occupation | |||
| Farmer (reference) | |||
| Employees | 1.238 | 0.383 |
|
| Merchant | 0.384 | 0.244 |
|
| Others | 0.328 | 0.300 |
|
| Woreda | |||
| Non-PHE(reference) | |||
| PHE | 0.171 | 0.181 |
|
Knowledge refers to number of family planning methods mentioned by women, SE standard error
Multivariable logistic regression model predicting current use of family planning methods among married women of reproductive age groups in PHE and non-PHE Woredas
| Predictors | AOR | 95.0 % C.I |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Age of the women | 0.955 | 0.922 | 0.989 |
|
| Educational status of the women | 0.997 | 0.919 | 1.083 |
|
| Educational status of the husband | 0.995 | 0.960 | 1.032 |
|
| Total number of children the woman has | 1.107 | 0.993 | 1.233 |
|
| Woman’s desire to have a child in the future | 1.300 | 0.841 | 2.010 |
|
| Husband’s desire to have a child in the future | 0.618 | 0.398 | 0.960 |
|
| Woreda | ||||
| Non-PHE | 1 | |||
| PHE | 0.933 | 0.632 | 1.377 |
|
| Husband’s support of family planning use by his wife | 17.219 | 11.079 | 26.762 |
|
| Wealth Index Tertile | ||||
| Low | 1.199 | 0.770 | 1.868 |
|
| Medium | 0.773 | 0.492 | 1.216 |
|
| High | ||||
| Occupation of the woman | 1 | |||
| House wife | ||||
| Farmer | 1.690 | 0.956 | 2.988 |
|
| Others(employed by private or government, student) | 0.722 | 0.407 | 1.281 |
|
| Occupation of the husband | ||||
| Farmer | 1 | |||
| Employees(government or NGO) | 2.003 | 0.677 | 5.926 |
|
| Merchant | 1.019 | 0.603 | 1.725 |
|
| Others(employed by private, student) | 0.604 | 0.326 | 1.119 |
|
AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, NGO non governmental organization
Multivariable logistic regression model predicting current use of family planning methods among women who are non-new acceptorsa
| Predictors | AOR | 95.0 % C.I. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper |
| ||
| Age of the woman | 0.952 | 0.903 | 1.004 |
|
| Educational status of the woman | 0.934 | 0.813 | 1.074 |
|
| Educational status of the husband | 1.013 | 0.953 | 1.077 |
|
| Desire for more children | 1.664 | 0.849 | 3.262 |
|
| Number of children the woman has | 1.325 | 1.117 | 1.572 |
|
| Husband’s desire for more children | 0.702 | 0.349 | 1.415 |
|
| Woman’s Occupation | ||||
| Housewife | 1 | |||
| Farmer | 2.350 | 1.084 | 5.098 |
|
| Others(employed by private or government, student) | 0.984 | 0.402 | 2.411 |
|
| Occupation of the husband | ||||
| Farmer | 1 | |||
| Employees | 3.801 | 0.404 | 35.772 |
|
| Merchant | 1.061 | 0.445 | 2.527 |
|
| Others(employed by private or government, student) | 0.861 | 0.330 | 2.249 |
|
| Woreda | ||||
| PHE | 4.274 | 2.217 | 8.238 |
|
| Non-PHE | 1 | |||
| Husband’s support of contraceptive use by his wife | ||||
| Yes | 20.352 | 9.708 | 42.665 |
|
| No | 1 | |||
| Household Wealth index Tertile | ||||
| Low | 1 | |||
| Medium | 1.598 | 0.667 | 3.830 |
|
| High | 1.869 | 0.744 | 4.695 |
|
aNew acceptors are defined as women/couples who started using modern contraceptive methods for the first time during the last year before the survey
AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Summary of findings in-depth interview with key informants from different sectors
| Issues | PHE Woreda | Non-PHE Woreda |
|---|---|---|
| Integration of Population, Health and environment issues during implementation | Family planning issues are better integrated with health and environmental issues at level of frontline workers of various sectors. | Networking of sectors at Woreda level in co-planning; however at the level of frontline workers of the different sectors interventions are vertical. There is no interaction of population health and environment issues |
| Main focus of interventions | Family planning, Reproductive Health (HIV and other communicable disease prevention and support of OVC) and environmental protection | Family planning and reproductive (HIV and other communicable disease prevention and support of OVC) |
| Income generating schemes | Are more diversified and customized to the environmental protection and food security eg. Beekeeping, banana plantation, Energy saving stove production, animal fattening, handcrafts, Corn farms of women’s groups. They are also targeted to women. | Limited although they are customized to environmental protection and targeted to women. |
| Information éducation & communication (IEC/BCC) | Integrated focusing on the interplay of population, health and environment. | Given vertically targeting mostly family palling with minimal/no focus on the inter play between population health and environment. |
| Strategies used for implementation | School clubs and students as a medium of reach out parents and as cadres of population health environment issues and community mobilization using Voluntary community Health workers(CBRHA) | More based on community mobilization using voluntary community health workers (CBRH agents). |
| Networking and communication between different sectors | PHE has a facilitation and capacity building role at Woreda and frontline level. Sectors have an implementation role. At the frontline workers level VCHWs have a mobilization role, while health extension (HEW) and development agents (DA) have an implementation role. They network very well at grassroots level. | GPSDO has a facilitation and capacity building role at Woreda and front line level. Sectors have an implementation role at Woreda level. At the frontline workers level VCHW have a mobilization role, while HEW and DA have an implementation role theoretically. But, in practice, networking is under built at the grassroots level. However, at the woreda level, the sectors have better network as they meet every month as Woreda Advisory Committee members (WAC). |
| A forestation activities | A total of 1,103,00 trees were planted during the previous fiscal year of which 75–80 % have survived | A total of 15,240 trees planted during the previous fiscal year. The status of survivors is not determined yet. |
| Percent of leadership positions held by the Natural resource management committee | 10–15 % | 10–15 % |
Use of energy saving stove and other environmental issues by Woreda
| Variables | PHE ( | Non-HE ( | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household has separate kitchen | 47.6 % | 45.4 % | 0.5010 |
| The cooking place has window (air vent) | 38.6 % | 38.0 % | 0.8390 |
| Percent of women using energy saving stove | 9.8 % | 2.7 % |
|
| Average time spent to collect fire wood (hours) | 2.03(±1.6) | 2.17(±4.9) | 0.5440 |