| Literature DB >> 26952021 |
Abeba Daniel Belay1, Zelalem Birhanu Mengesha2, Manay Kifle Woldegebriel3, Yalemzewod Assefa Gelaw4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women's use of family planning service is influenced by many factors, especially by their decision making power. A woman's decision-making power, be it individual or decision made in collaboration with a partner, is the most important factor in the use of family planning in a household. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of women's decision making power on family planning use and its associated factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26952021 PMCID: PMC4782567 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-016-0290-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Socio-demographic characteristics of married women’s decision making power in family planning use and associated factors in Mizan-Aman, South Ethiopia, 2013
| Variables | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Age category of women | |
| 15–24 | 126 (22.2 %) |
| 25–34 | 278 (49.0 %) |
| 35–44 | 132 (23.3 %) |
| 45–49 | 31 (5.5 %) |
| Ethnicity of women | |
| Bench | 176 (31.0 %) |
| Amhara | 120 (21.2 %) |
| Kefficho | 110 (19.4 %) |
| Tigre | 40 (7.1 %) |
| Oromo | 48 (8.5 %) |
| Gurage | 50 (8.8 %) |
| Othersa | 23 (4.1 %) |
| Religion of women | |
| Orthodox | 197 (34.7 %) |
| Muslim | 88 (15.5 %) |
| protestant | 255 (45.0 %) |
| Othersb | 27 (4.8 %) |
| Occupation of women | |
| House wife | 176 (31.0 % |
| Self employed | 219 (38.6 %) |
| Governmental | 172 (30.3 %) |
| Husbands occupation | |
| Not employed | 81 (14.3 %) |
| Self employed | 270 (47.6 %) |
| Governmental | 216 (38.1 %) |
| Women educational status | |
| Can’t read and write | 117 (20.6 %) |
| Primary education | 207 (36.5 %) |
| Secondary education | 162 (28.6 %) |
| College/university | 81 (14.3 %) |
| Husbands educational status | |
| Can’t read and write | 81 (14.3 %) |
| Primary education | 161 (28.4 %) |
| Secondary education | 170 (30.0 %) |
| College/university | 155 (27.3 %) |
| Exposure to media | |
| Yes | 490 (86.4 %) |
| No | 77 (13.6 %) |
Othersa:-Wolayta, Yem, Dawro
Othersb:-Catholic, Traditional
Knowledge of married women’s decision making power in family planning use and associated factors in Mizan-Aman, South Ethiopia, 2013
| Variables | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Source of information | |
| HEWs | 247 (43.6) |
| Radio | 214 (37.7) |
| Television | 377 (66.7) |
| Health centers | 277 (48.9) |
| Formal Education | 68 (12.0) |
| Places where to get FP services | |
| Hospital | 404 (71.3) |
| Health center | 432 (76.2) |
| Health post | 141 (24.9) |
| Pharmacy | 227 (40.0) |
| Clinics | 239 (42.2) |
| Types of family planning methods | |
| Pills | 425 (75.0) |
| IUCD | 344 (60.7) |
| Inject able | 539 (95.1) |
| Implant/Norplant | 361 (63.7) |
| Female condom | 93 (16.4) |
| Tuba ligation | 136 (24.0) |
| Vasectomy | 68 (12.0) |
| Male condom | 294 (51.9) |
| Emergency contraceptive | 169 (29.8) |
| Calendar method | 181 (31.9) |
Factors associated with married women’s decision making power in family planning use and associated factors in Mizan-Aman, South Ethiopia, 2013
| Explanatory variable | Decision making power | COR (95 % CI) | AOR (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Age | ||||
| 15–24 | 95 | 31 | 1 | 1 |
| 25–34 | 192 | 86 | 2.38 (1.12–5.03) | 0.41 (0.15,1.11) |
| 35–44 | 79 | 53 | 1.72 (0.72–3.48) | 0.26 (0.09, 0.74)* |
| 45–49 | 15 | 16 | 3.26 (1.45–7.36) | 0.57 (0.20, 1.63) |
| Women educational status | ||||
| Can’t read and write | 29 | 88 | 1 | 1 |
| Primary school | 151 | 56 | 8.18 (4.86–13.76) | 4.59 (2.49, 4.82)* |
| Secondary school | 139 | 28 | 14.52 (8.09–26.06) | 9.04 (4.50, 18.16)** |
| College/university | 77 | 14 | 14.52 (7.12–29.61) | 4.84 (2.03, 11.52)** |
| Husband educational status | ||||
| Can’t read and write | 23 | 58 | 1 | 1 |
| Primary school | 76 | 85 | 2.25 (1.27–4.00) | 1.18 (0.59, 2.35) |
| Secondary school | 140 | 30 | 11.76 (6.30–21.95) | 6.28 (3.01, 13.07)* |
| College/university | 142 | 13 | 27.54 (13.07–58.05) | 11.28 (4.65, 27.34)** |
| Women’s Occupation | ||||
| House wife | 78 | 98 | 1 | 1 |
| Self employed | 157 | 62 | 3.18 (2.09–4.83) | 1.88 (1.09, 3.24)* |
| Government employee | 146 | 26 | 7.05 (4.22–11.77) | 4.10 (2.11, 7.96)** |
| Exposure to media | ||||
| Have exposure | 351 | 139 | 3.95 (2.40–6.51) | |
| No exposure | 30 | 47 | 1 | |
| Husband occupation | ||||
| Not employed | 23 | 58 | 1 | 1 |
| Self employed | 174 | 96 | 4.57 (2.65–7.87) | 1.47 (0.71, 3.03) |
| Government employee | 184 | 32 | 14.50 (7.86–26.73) | 2.7 (1.23, 5.94)* |
| Attitude towards FP methods | ||||
| Have favorable attitude | 105 | 24 | 2.56 (1.58–4.16)* | |
| Have no favorable attitude | 276 | 162 | 1 | |
| Number of living children | ||||
| No children | 68 | 21 | 1 | |
| 1–2 | 231 | 111 | 0.64 (0.37–1.10) | |
| 3–4 | 64 | 38 | 0.52 (1.27–0.97) | |
| > 5 | 18 | 16 | 0.34 (0.15–0.79)* | |
**P-value < 0.001, *p-value < 0.05