| Literature DB >> 27379226 |
Diksha Sapkota1, Shiva Raj Adhikari2, Tara Bajracharya3, Vishnu Prasad Sapkota4.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Family planning (FP), considered as an encouraging trend for development, is thought to be positively correlated with family health and well-being and negatively correlated with poverty levels. Despite being a priority goal of government and development agencies, in a heterogeneous society like Nepal, FP can be an issue that needs to be dealt with consideration for religious and cultural beliefs of different sections of society. Despite steady progress in achieving FP goals, minority populations have lagged behind the rest of the country in achieving improved family health outcomes; Muslim community being one such example.Entities:
Keywords: Muslim community; Nepal; designing program; family planning; mixed method
Year: 2016 PMID: 27379226 PMCID: PMC4906019 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (.
| Background variables | Categories | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age of mothers in years | <20 years | 16 (10.0) |
| 20–30 years | 68 (42.5) | |
| 30–40 years | 58 (36.3) | |
| >40 years | 18 (11.3) | |
| Mean (SD) | 31.68 (0.61) | |
| Respondent’s education | Modern and madarasa education | 8 (5.0) |
| Modern education only | 6 (3.8) | |
| Madarasa only | 51 (31.9) | |
| No formal education | 95 (59.4) | |
| Respondent’s occupation | Housewife | 139 (86.9) |
| Labor | 20 (12.5) | |
| Business | 1 (0.6) | |
| Husband’s education | Modern and madarasa education | 39 (24.4) |
| Modern education only | 42 (26.3) | |
| Madarasa only | 29 (18.1) | |
| No formal education | 50 (31.3) | |
| Husband’s occupation | Agriculture | 44 (27.5) |
| Labor | 31 (19.4) | |
| Foreign migrant workers | 69 (43.1) | |
| Others | 16 (10.0) | |
| Number of children | Equal to or less than 3 children | 69 (43.1) |
| More than 3 children | 91 (56.9) |
Laborers include those who are involved in daily wage-based work, but are working in their own country, and foreign labor migrants include those who have been out of their country of origin for employment.
Key decision influencers in family planning use among respondents (.
| Key decision influencers in FP use | Ever use of FP methods | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||
| Husband | 70 (60.3) | 46 (39.7) | 116 (72.5) |
| Family members | 12 (80.0) | 3 (20.0) | 15 (9.4) |
| Friends | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.6) |
| Social norms | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.3) |
| Self | 23 (88.5) | 3 (11.5) | 26 (22.4) |
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages.
Association between selected variables and current FP use (.
| Variables | Current use of contraception | OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Yes | 36 (31.0) | 80 (69.0) | ||
| No | 3 (6.8) | 41 (93.2) | ||
| Madarasa only | 7 (24.1) | 22 (75.9) | 0.35 | |
| Modern education only | 10 (23.8) | 32 (76.2) | ||
| Both madarasa and modern education | 6(15.4) | 33 (84.6) | ||
| Illiterate | 16 (32.0) | 34 (68.0) | ||
| Yes | 9 (10.8) | 74 (89.2) | ||
| No | 30 (39.0) | 47 (61.0) | ||
| No | 34 (27.0) | 92 (73.0) | 0.14 | 2.1 (0.8-6.0) |
| Yes | 5 (14.7) | 29 (85.3) | ||
| No | 9 (42.9) | 12 (57.1) | ||
| Yes | 30 (21.6) | 109 (78.4) | ||
| No | 21 (18.1) | 95 (81.9) | ||
| Yes | 18 (40.9) | 26 (59.1) | ||
| Illiterate | 24 (25.3) | 71 (74.7) | 0.82 | |
| Madarasa education only | 12 (23.5) | 39 (76.5) | ||
| Modern education only | 2 (33.3) | 4 (66.7) | ||
| Both madarasa and modern education | 1 (12.5) | 7 (87.5) | ||
| Less than or equal to 3 | 13 (18.8) | 56 (81.2) | 0.16 | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) |
| More than 3 | 26 (28.6) | 65 (71.4) | ||
| Agriculture | 13 (29.5) | 31 (70.5) | 0.39 | |
| Labor | 24 (24.0) | 76 (76.0) | ||
| Business | 2 (12.5) | 14 (87.5) | ||
| Agriculture | 32 (23.0) | 107 (77.0) | 0.31 | 0.6 (0.2–1.6) |
| Others (labor + business) | 7 (33.3) | 14 (66.7) | ||
| No | 26 (21.3) | 96 (78.7) | 0.11 | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) |
| Yes | 13 (34.2) | 25 (65.8) | ||
| No | 6 (5.0) | 114 (95.0) | ||
| Yes | 33 (82.5) | 7 (17.5) | ||
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages.
Figures in bold indicate significant at 95% CI.
OR, odds ratio (calculated for only two categories); CI, confidence interval.
Figure 1Contraceptive use among the respondents.
Different contraceptive methods being used by current users (.
| Variables | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Condom | 3 | 7.7 |
| Pills | 10 | 25.6 |
| Injectables | 20 | 51.3 |
| Implant | 2 | 5.1 |
| Permanent method | 4 | 10.3 |
| Government institution | 22 | 56.4 |
| Private institution | 17 | 43.6 |
Reasons behind discontinuing use of FP methods (.
| Reasons | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Husband went abroad | 4 (11.1) |
| Side effects | 15 (41.7) |
| Lack of availability | 5 (13.9) |
| Unknown about methods | 1 (2.8) |
| Fear from social norms | 5 (13.9) |
| Desire of children | 1 (2.8) |
No. in parenthesis indicates percentages.
Key approaches to FP services according to respondents.
| Approaches to improve FP use | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Freq (%) | Freq (%) | |
| Door to door service | 95 (59.4) | 65 (40.6) |
| Group focused program | 66 (41.3) | 94 (58.8) |
| Targeted program for Muslims | 4 (2.5) | 156 (97.5) |
| Awareness by Muslim leaders | 3 (1.9) | 157 (98.1) |