| Literature DB >> 27645152 |
Gideon Rutaremwa1, Allen Kabagenyi2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the rationale for integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health (HIV and SRH) services is strong, there is paucity of information on which population groups most utilize these services. Such studies would inform policy and programs on integration of services. The overall objective of this assessment is to provide information to researchers, planners and policy makers on the best practices for integrated services in order to maximize feasibility of scaling up. Specifically, this research paper identifies demographic and socioeconomic factors that are most related to utilization of integrated services in Uganda.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; Integrated; Reproductive Health; Sexual; Utilization; Women and Uganda
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27645152 PMCID: PMC5029044 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1761-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Logistic regression model predicting the odds of utilizing integrated HIV and SRH services by women in Uganda
| Variable/category | Model 1 (combined) | Model 2 (Rural) | Model 3 (Urban) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95 % CI | Odds ratio | 95 % CI | Odds ratio | 95 % CI | |
| Rural/urban residence | ||||||
| Urban rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rural | 1.118 | [0.9-1.3] | - | - | - | - |
| Age group | ||||||
| 15-19 rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 20-24 | ***2.130 | [1.8-2.6] | ***2.039 | [1.7-2.5] | ***2.43 | [1.5-4.0] |
| 25-29 | ***2.526 | [2.1-3.1] | ***2.434 | [2.0-3.0] | ***2.87 | [1.7-4.8] |
| 30-34 | ***1.521 | [1.2-1.9] | ***1.514 | [1.2-1.9] | 1.55 | [0.9-2.7] |
| 35-39 | 0.874 | [0.7-1.1] | 0.943 | [0.8-1.2] | *0.62 | [0.4-1.1] |
| 40-44 | ***0.375 | [0.3-0.5] | ***0.401 | [0.3-0.5] | ***0.25 | [0.1-0.5] |
| 45-49 | ***0.146 | [0.1-0.2] | ***0.156 | [0.1-0.2] | ***0.08 | [0.0-0.2] |
| Education level | ||||||
| None rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Primary | **1.220 | [1.0-1.4] | **1.222 | [1.0-1.4] | 1.49 | [0.9-2.4] |
| At least secondary | *1.190 | [1.0-1.4] | 1.194 | [1.0-1.5] | 1.43 | [0.9-2.3] |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never married rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Currently married | ***6.613 | [5.5-8.0] | ***5.785 | [4.6-7.2] | ***9.01 | 6.3-13.0] |
| Previously married | ***3.369 | [2.7-4.2] | ***3.035 | [2.4-3.9] | ***4.27 | 2.8-6.6] |
| Wealth indicator | ||||||
| Poor rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Middle | 0.982 | [0.8-1.1] | 0.982 | [0.8-1.1] | 1.04 | [0.3-4.2] |
| Richer | 0.921 | [0.8-1.1] | 0.960 | [0.8-1.1] | 0.41 | [0.1-1.3] |
| Region of residencea | ||||||
| Kampala rc | 1.000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Central | **1.337 | [1.0-1.7] | - | - | **1.56 | [1.1-2.2] |
| Eastern | 0.895 | [0.7-1.1] | ***0.699 | [0.6-0.8] | 0.96 | [0.7-1.4] |
| Northern | ***1.572 | [1.2-2.0] | ***1.302 | [1.1-1.6] | 0.92 | [0.6-1.4] |
| Western | 1.163 | [0.9-1.5] | 0.907 | [0.8-1.1] | 1.20 | [0.8-1.8] |
| Model constant | ***0.186 | [0.1-0.3] | ***0.289 | [0.2-0.4] | **0.28 | [0.1-1.0] |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Note
*** significant at p < 1 %; ** significant at p < 5 %; * significant at p < 10 %
For the variable region of residence in model 1 (combined) Kampala is reference category, while in model 2 (rural) Central region is the reference category
rc reference category
Weighted percentage distribution of respondents by selected background characteristics (n = 9720)
| Variable/category | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Age group | ||
| 15-19 | 1,162 | 12.0 |
| 20-24 | 2,041 | 21.0 |
| 25-29 | 1,928 | 19.8 |
| 30-34 | 1,472 | 15.1 |
| 35-39 | 1,353 | 13.9 |
| 40-44 | 948 | 9.8 |
| 45-49 | 816 | 8.4 |
| Rural/urban residence | ||
| Urban | 2,008 | 20.7 |
| Rural | 7,712 | 79.3 |
| Education level | ||
| None | 1,535 | 15.8 |
| Primary | 5,829 | 60.0 |
| At least secondary | 2,356 | 24.2 |
| Marital status | ||
| Never married | 1,202 | 12.4 |
| Currently married | 7,097 | 73.0 |
| Previously married | 1,422 | 14.6 |
| Wealth indicator | ||
| Poor | 3,545 | 36.5 |
| Middle | 1,772 | 18.2 |
| Richer | 4,403 | 45.3 |
| Religion | ||
| Catholic | 3,951 | 40.6 |
| Protestant | 4,506 | 46.4 |
| Moslem | 822 | 8.5 |
| Other | 441 | 4.5 |
| Region of residence | ||
| Kampala | 1,073 | 11.0 |
| Central | 1,754 | 18.1 |
| Eastern | 2,019 | 20.8 |
| Northern | 2,422 | 24.9 |
| Western | 2,453 | 25.2 |
| Received integrated services | ||
| No | 3,992 | 41.1 |
| Yes | 5,728 | 58.9 |
Distribution of women respondents by selected explanatory variables and by utilization of integrated HIV and SRH services (n = 9691)
| Variable/category | Utilization of integrated HIV and SRH services | Pearson χ2 | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||
| Age group | ||||
| 15-19 | 16.9 | 8.3 | ||
| 20-24 | 14.9 | 25.3 | ||
| 25-29 | 10.8 | 25.8 | ||
| 30-34 | 10.8 | 18.0 | 1400.0 |
|
| 35-39 | 14.3 | 13.8 | ||
| 40-44 | 14.9 | 6.2 | ||
| 45-49 | 17.4 | 2.6 | ||
| Rural/urban residence | ||||
| Urban | 23.1 | 18.7 | 27.6 |
|
| Rural | 76.9 | 81.3 | ||
| Education level | ||||
| None | 18.9 | 14.9 | ||
| Primary | 55.3 | 62.6 | 54.4 |
|
| At least secondary | 25.9 | 22.6 | ||
| Marital status | ||||
| Never married | 21.5 | 5.4 | ||
| Currently married | 59.1 | 82.8 | 774.2 |
|
| Previously married | 19.4 | 11.8 | ||
| Wealth indicator | ||||
| Poor | 35.0 | 41.5 | ||
| Middle | 17.2 | 18.1 | 56.9 |
|
| Richer | 47.8 | 40.3 | ||
| Religion | ||||
| Catholic | 41.4 | 42.3 | ||
| Protestant | 46.1 | 45.5 | 1.0 |
|
| Moslem | 8.3 | 8.0 | ||
| Other | 4.2 | 4.2 | ||
| Region of residence | ||||
| Kampala | 9.3 | 9.3 | ||
| Central | 21.7 | 19.0 | ||
| Eastern | 24.0 | 18.7 | 100.3 |
|
| Northern | 24.3 | 32.9 | ||
| Western | 20.7 | 20.1 | ||