| Literature DB >> 26987368 |
Syed Khurram Azmat1,2,3, Waqas Hameed4, Hasan Bin Hamza5, Ghulam Mustafa4, Muhammad Ishaque4, Ghazunfer Abbas4, Omar Farooq Khan4, Jamshaid Asghar4, Erik Munroe6, Safdar Ali4, Wajahat Hussain4, Sajid Ali4, Aftab Ahmed4, Moazzam Ali7, Marleen Temmerman8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family planning (FP) interventions aimed at reducing population growth have negligible during the last two decades in Pakistan. Innovative FP interventions that help reduce the growing population burden are the need of the hour. Marie Stopes Society--Pakistan implemented an operational research project--'Evidence for Innovating to Save Lives', to explore effective and viable intervention models that can promote healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy in rural and under-served communities of Sindh, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan.Entities:
Keywords: Birth spacing; Community midwives; Contraception; Family planning; Rural Pakistan; Suraj; Vouchers
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26987368 PMCID: PMC4797360 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-016-0145-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Fig. 1Overall study design flow chart
Comparability of intervention and control districts
| Indicators | Province | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sindh | Lower Punjab | Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa | ||||||
| Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | |||
| Naushero Feroze (Suraj) | Nawabshah | Khanewal (Suraj) | Pakpattan (CMW) | Rajanpur (CMW) | Bahawalpur | Haripur (Suraj) | Abbottabad | |
| Estimated population size | 1,087,571 | 1,071,533 | 1,286,680 | 2,068,490 | 1,103,618 | 2,433,091 | 692,228 | 880,666 |
| % of female Pop. Age 15–49 | 22.2 | 22.6 | 21.9 | 22 | 20.2 | 21.4 | 23.8 | 23.7 |
| CPR (modern method) | 20.8 % | 15.4 % | 17 % | 19 % | 11 % | 24 % | 29.7 % | 29.1 % |
| % literate | 39.1 | 34.1 | 49 | 42 | 34 | 37 | 53.7 | 56.6 |
| % of households with electricity | 69.3 | 75.5 | 68 | 76 | 59 | 50 | 76.3 | 75 |
| % of households with access to potable water | 23.6 | 23.6 | 12 | 15 | 8.5 | 16 | 49.6 | 29.9 |
| No. of UCs | 51 | 50 | 101 | 64 | 47 | 108 | 45 | 46 |
Provider eligibility criteria - Suraj intervention model
| • Provider should be female (preferably married) aged 18–35 |
Intervention components
| Intervention items | Description | Inclusion in Suraj model | Inclusion in CMW model | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Training on reproductive health/family planning and post training evaluation | Medical: reproductive health and family planning, counselling, quality of services, and IUD insertion and removal; Business: basic budgeting skills, record keeping, stock management, branding (excluded for CMW), marketing, and the voucher management (excluded for CMW). The training was followed by post training evaluation conducted by an external consultant (a senior medical doctor). | Yes | Yes | No |
| 2 | Female community mobilizer (FCM) | An FCM was also a local resident of the community; she underwent training on FP methods, voucher distribution system, and data recording. She paid door to door visits, raised awareness, generated referrals and distributed vouchers for the IUD to eligible women, identified through poverty scale. | Yes | Yes | No |
|
| |||||
| 3 | Male community mobilizers (MCM) | An MCM was a local resident of the district; he underwent training and was responsible to target male community members. He formed community support groups which comprised key community stakeholders and conducted frequent Mohallah (locality) meetings | Yes | Yes | No |
|
| |||||
| 4 | Voucher for long- term contraceptive method (Intra- uterine device) | A voucher was worth PK Rs 200 (US$2.27) and only for IUD (insertion, follow-up and removal). A voucher may be redeemed at Suraj clinic; later the reimbursement was sent to the provider against her claim. Free voucher provision was based on a wealth based poverty assessment tool which was managed by the Field Community Mobilizers in the field before distributing vouchers. The said tool ask questions about wealth status including household structure, number of household members, number of meals, number of dependent members, sanitation, access to reproductive health services, daily household income, source of fuel used for cooking, source of drinking water. Clients received a voucher if their score fell between the minimum score of 9 and 20 (inclusive) on a scale of 27. | Yes | No | No |
| 5 | Branding/Marketing | Providers were branded ‘Suraj’ clinics while marketing was done through FCMs, posters, wall paintings, leaflets, etc. The ‘Suraj’ logo was displayed prominently in Urdu outside all clinics. | Yes | No | No |
Provider eligibility criteria - CMW intervention model
| • Permanent resident of rural areas |
Names of districts and number of interviews
| Sindh | Punjab | Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target respondents | Noshero Feroze (Suraj) | Nawabshah (control) | Pak Pattan (CMW) | Rajanpur (CMW) | Khanewal (Suraj) | Bahawalpur (Control) | Haripur (Suraj) | Abbotabad (control) | |
| Mothers (currently married) having at least one <2 year child | 380 | 380 | 570 | 570 | 380 | 380 | 380 | 380 | |
| Currently married women of reproductive age 15-49 years | 320 | 320 | 480 | 480 | 320 | 320 | 320 | 320 | |
| District wise Total | 700 | 700 | 1050 | 1050 | 700 | 700 | 700 | 700 | |
| Grand Total | 6300 | ||||||||
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
| Characteristics | Baseline | Endline |
| Endline | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All participants 5566 (%) | All participants ( | CMW Intervention ( | Control Arm ( | |||
| Age of MWRA | ||||||
| 15–19 years | 3.0 | 1.6 | <0.0001 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.5 |
| 20–24 years | 19.0 | 18.9 | 0.9114 | 17.5 | 18.4 | 20.7 |
| 25–29 years | 33.0 | 33.8 | 0.4589 | 34.8 | 27.1 | 37.2 |
| 30–34 years | 27.0 | 25.3 | 0.0926 | 26.4 | 30.3 | 20.9 |
| 35–39 years | 14.0 | 15.5 | 0.0632 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 14.6 |
| 40–44 years | 3.0 | 4.2 | 0.0039 | 2.6 | 6.3 | 4.5 |
| 45–49 years | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.0593 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Mean age ± SD (median) years | 28.0 ± 5.5 (28) | 29.1 ± 5.6 (30) | <0.0001 | 28.8 ± 5.3 (28) | 29.9 ± 5.9 (30) | 28.8 ± 5.6 (28) |
| Age at time of marriage (mean ± SD) | 20 ± 3.4 | 19.8 ± 3.3 | 0.009 | 20.3 ± 3.2 | 19.5 ± 3.5 | 19.6 ± 3.4 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Urdu | 7.0 | 5.5 | 0.0079 | 8.9 | 2.7 | 3.9 |
| Sindhi | 15.0 | 17.8 | 0.0009 | 23.6 | 0.3 | 23.4 |
| Punjabi | 29.0 | 26.5 | 0.0153 | 34.5 | 25.0 | 19.2 |
| Hindco | 22.0 | 19.1 | 0.0019 | 22.4 | 0.6 | 27.8 |
| Saraiki | 24.0 | 29.0 | <0.0001 | 7.3 | 71.3 | 23.3 |
| Others (Pashto, Kashmiri, Balochi) | 2.9 | 2.2 | 0.0578 | 3.3 | 0.1 | 2.3 |
| Education status of the MWRA | ||||||
| Illiterate | 55.9 | 48.0 | <0.0001 | 40.4 | 66.4 | 43.5 |
| Can read or write only/less than 1 class | 1.6 | 3.8 | <0.0001 | 3.1 | 5.3 | 3.4 |
| Primary (1 to 5) | 15.5 | 16.0 | 0.5485 | 17.9 | 10.7 | 17.7 |
| Middle (6 to 8) | 7.7 | 9.4 | 0.0071 | 11.2 | 6.2 | 9.7 |
| Matriculation and Higher | 19.3 | 22.8 | 0.0002 | 27.4 | 11.5 | 25.7 |
| Employment status of the MWRA | ||||||
| Housewife | 93.1 | 90.4 | <0.0001 | 95.6 | 83.3 | 89.8 |
| Working | 6.9 | 9.6 | <0.0001 | 4.4 | 16.7 | 10.2 |
| Employment status of Husbands | ||||||
| Unemployed | 4.6 | 2.9 | 0.0002 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 2.9 |
| Skilled Employment | 60.3 | 52.5 | <0.0001 | 63.2 | 37.6 | 52.1 |
| Unskilled Employment | 27.9 | 30.1 | 0.0338 | 22.8 | 43.6 | 28.6 |
| Agriculture/farming | 7.0 | 14.6 | <0.0001 | 10.2 | 18.8 | 16.4 |
Contraceptive method awareness among MWRA
| Characteristics | Baseline | Endline | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMW Intervention ( | Control Arm ( | CMW Intervention ( | Control Arm ( | |||
| Awareness of contraceptive method | ||||||
| Any contraceptive method | 77.6 | 61.3 | 88.3 | 97.6 | 94.4 | 93.9 |
| Pills | 68.7 | 45.9 | 80.4 | 93.8 | 88.6 | 87.0 |
| IUDs | 54.4 | 28.6 | 55.3 | 83.6 | 82.3 | 74.0 |
| Injectables | 65.1 | 42.4 | 73.9 | 89.0 | 86.1 | 83.3 |
| Implant | 15.4 | 11.2 | 20.1 | 36.6 | 43.1 | 38.5 |
| Condom | 60.4 | 34.9 | 66.0 | 76.7 | 72.2 | 80.7 |
| Female Sterilization | 51.1 | 26.0 | 52.9 | 72.2 | 75.3 | 78.0 |
| Male Sterilization | 30.6 | 17.7 | 29.4 | 28.9 | 44.9 | 37.6 |
| Withdrawal | 36.7 | 14.1 | 36.4 | 42.4 | 49.6 | 51.9 |
| Periodic abstinence | 36.9 | 15.5 | 39.9 | 39.5 | 48.6 | 47.3 |
| Awareness of where to get contraceptives | ||||||
| Any modern method | 67.8 | 43.1 | 76.5 | 96.5 | 89.6 | 88.7 |
| Pill | 55.4 | 29.4 | 64.9 | 91.0 | 76.8 | 79.4 |
| IUD | 44.5 | 17.6 | 47.0 | 80.2 | 68.4 | 66.5 |
| Injection | 52.7 | 27.0 | 61.9 | 86.2 | 74.4 | 77.0 |
| Implant | 13.9 | 4.0 | 16.2 | 36.9 | 38.1 | 33.7 |
| Condom | 51.8 | 22.9 | 54.6 | 74.4 | 61.5 | 73.6 |
| Female Sterilization | 39.1 | 15.4 | 42.5 | 68.3 | 63.5 | 69.4 |
| Male Sterilization | 23.6 | 9.1 | 23.7 | 26.6 | 36.8 | 31.0 |
Ever and current contraceptive use reported by MWRA
| Characteristics | CMW Intervention | Control arm | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline ( | Endline ( | Baseline ( | Endline ( | Baseline ( | Endline ( | ||||
| Ever use of contraceptiona | |||||||||
| Any method | 49.9 | 65.2 | <0.0001 | 30.2 | 41.9 | <0.0001 | 48.3 | 53.2 | 0.0088 |
| Pills | 10.3 | 13.3 | 0.012 | 7 | 9.8 | 0.0238 | 8.6 | 10.3 | 0.1152 |
| IUD | 5.3 | 12.1 | <0.0001 | 4.3 | 8.3 | 0.0002 | 5.8 | 5 | 0.3494 |
| Injections | 12.3 | 15.2 | 0.0233 | 7.2 | 14.5 | <0.0001 | 10.1 | 12.1 | 0.0845 |
| Condom | 23.3 | 23.2 | 0.9498 | 8.2 | 8.7 | 0.6936 | 19.6 | 21.1 | 0.3169 |
| Implant | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.0793 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.0189 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.0265 |
| Female Sterilization | 4.3 | 3.6 | 0.3452 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 0.1567 | 3.4 | 5 | 0.0278 |
| Male Sterilization | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4652 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1799 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.0035 |
| Traditional Methodb | 14.5 | 19.9 | 0.0001 | 7.4 | 12.1 | 0.0003 | 15.5 | 22.1 | <0.0001 |
| Current use of contraceptivec | 34 | 47.7 | <0.0001 | 17.1 | 24.6 | <0.0001 | 26.9 | 35.2 | <0.0001 |
| Any Modern method | 30 | 37.6 | <0.0001 | 14 | 20.1 | 0.0003 | 24.1 | 28.7 | 0.0048 |
| Pills | 3.8 | 5.1 | 0.087 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 0.4355 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 0.2219 |
| IUD | 3 | 8.3 | <0.0001 | 2.1 | 4.1 | 0.0078 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 0.8816 |
| Injections | 6.3 | 6.7 | 0.6648 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 0.0829 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 0.5495 |
| Condom | 13.8 | 13.5 | 0.8165 | 3.6 | 4.9 | 0.1493 | 9.6 | 11 | 0.2134 |
| Implant | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3817 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.0066 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7401 |
| Female Sterilization | 2.9 | 3.4 | 0.4414 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 0.0368 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 0.0188 |
| Male Sterilization | 0 | 0.2 | 0.1255 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.5533 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.3348 |
| Traditional methodb | 3.9 | 10.2 | <0.0001 | 3 | 4.5 | 0.0749 | 2.8 | 6.5 | <0.0001 |
amultiple responses
bTraditional Methods include withdrawal, abstinence and Lactation Amenorrhea Method (LAM)
ccurrent contraceptive use was asked from all MWRA
Difference-in-difference results for key indicators between Suraj intervention arm and control arm
| Control | Absolute difference (% change)a | Net effect (% change)b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicators | Baseline (%) | Endline (%) | Baseline (%) | Endline (%) | Control |
| |
| Ever use of any contraceptive | 48 | 53 | 50 | 65 | 5 | 15 | 10*** |
| Ever heard of any contraceptive | 88 | 94 | 78 | 98 | 6 | 20 | 14*** |
| Current use of any contraceptive | 27 | 35 | 34 | 48 | 8 | 13 | 5* |
| Current contraceptive method of choice | |||||||
| Any Modern method | 24 | 28 | 30 | 38 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
| Pill | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| IUD | 3 | 3 | 3 | 8 | <1 | 5 | 6*** |
| Injections | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 1 | <1 |
| Condom | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | −3*** |
| Withdrawal | 10 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 0 | −1 |
P-value: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1
aAbsolute difference is the percentage change from baseline to endline
bNet effect is the percentage change in intervention group adjusting for the percentage change in control group
Difference-in-difference results for key indicators between CMW intervention arm and control arm
| Control | CMW Intervention | Absolute difference (% change)a | Net effect (% change)b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (%) | Endline (%) | Baseline (%) | Endline (%) | Control | CMW | ||
| Ever use of any contraceptive | 48 | 53 | 30 | 42 | 5 | 12 | 7** |
| Ever heard of any contraceptive | 88 | 94 | 61 | 94 | 6 | 33 | 28** |
| Current use of any contraceptive | 27 | 35 | 17 | 25 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Current contraceptive method of choice | |||||||
| Any Modern method | 24 | 28 | 14 | 20 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
| Condom | 10 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Pill | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | −1 |
| IUD | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 3** |
| Injection | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Withdrawal | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | −4*** |
P-value: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1
aAbsolute difference is the percentage change from baseline to endline
bNet effect is the percentage change in intervention group adjusting for the percentage change in control group
Multivariate-Cox proportional hazard analysis of factors associated with current contraceptive use among married women with at least one child < 2 years in Suraj intervention and control areas across Pakistan
| Variables | Current contraceptive use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence ratio | 95 % CI | ||
| Control | 1 | - | - |
| Intervention | 1.35 | 1.22–1.50 | <0.001 |
| Education | |||
| Illiterate | 1 | - | - |
| Class 1 to 8 | 1.22 | 1.07–1.38 | 0.002 |
| Secondary and higher | 1.43 | 1.26–1.62 | <0.001 |
| Province | |||
| Sindh | 1 | - | - |
| Punjab | 0.90 | 0.80–1.02 | 0.094 |
| KPK | 0.87 | 0.76–0.99 | 0.039 |
| Total children | |||
| 0–2 | 1 | - | - |
| 3–4 | 1.42 | 1.26–1.60 | <0.001 |
| 5+ | 1.54 | 1.34–1.76 | <0.001 |
| Socio-economic Status | |||
| Lowest SES | 1 | - | - |
| Middle SES | 1.54 | 1.33–1.77 | 0.000 |
| Highest SES | 1.97 | 1.72–2.26 | 0.000 |
| Age in years | |||
| <25 | 1 | - | |
| >25 to < = 30 | 0.99 | 0.89–1.13 | 0.983 |
| >30 to < =35 | 1.12 | 0.95–1.31 | 0.171 |
| >35 | 1.21 | 1.05–1.39 | 0.009 |
Multivariate-Cox proportional hazard analysis of factors associated with current contraceptive use among married women with at least one child < 2 years in CMW intervention and control areas across Pakistan
| Variable | Current contraceptive use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence ratio | 95 % CI | ||
| Age in years | |||
| <25 | 1 | - | - |
| >25 to < = 30 | 0.98 | 0.80–1.18 | 0.812 |
| >30 to < =35 | 1.25 | 1.00–1.54 | 0.044 |
| >35 | 1.36 | 1.07–1.72 | 0.012 |
| Education | |||
| Illiterate | 1 | - | - |
| Class 1 to 8 | 1.86 | 1.59–2.18 | <0.001 |
| Secondary and higher | 2.26 | 1.91–2.66 | <0.001 |
| Total children | |||
| 0–2 | 1 | - | - |
| 3–4 | 1.86 | 1.53–2.25 | <0.001 |
| 5+ | 1.81 | 1.45–2.27 | <0.001 |
| CMW Intervention | |||
| Control arm | 1 | - | - |
| CMW arm | 1.00 | 0.81–1.24 | 0.952 |
Primary and secondary outcomes
| Intervention | Primary outcome | Secondary outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Uptake of modern contraceptive methods | Awareness of contraceptive methods | |
| Community Midwives model | Uptake of modern contraceptive methods | Awareness of contraceptive methods |