| Literature DB >> 28593052 |
Gulam Muhammed Al Kibria1, Vanessa Burrowes1, Sharmin Majumder2, Atia Sharmeen3, Rifath Ara Alam Barsha4, Shakir Hossen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total fertility rate (TFR) is high and at a static level for the last two decades in Bangladesh. Reduction of fertility by increasing contraceptives use could reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. To achieve the targeted contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) of Family Planning 2020 (FP2020) Initiative, it is important to increase CPR in all regions of the country. However, it is lower in Sylhet Division compared to other divisions in Bangladesh. This study looked into the methods, source and determinants of contraceptives use in this division.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; Contraceptive prevalence rate; Contraceptives; Determinants; Distributions; Family Planning 2020; Methods; Sylhet
Year: 2017 PMID: 28593052 PMCID: PMC5460495 DOI: 10.1186/s40748-017-0049-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol ISSN: 2054-958X
Distribution of currently married women according to contraceptive methods and place of residence, Sylhet division, Bangladesh
| Type of contraceptives | Methods of contraceptives | Urban | Rural | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not using any contraceptives | 85 (41.5) | 514 (54.5) | 599 (52.2) | |
| Modern | ||||
| Pill | 63 (30.8) | 182 (19.3) | 245 (21.4) | |
| Injections | 15 (7.1) | 60 (6.3) | 75 (6.5) | |
| Condom | 13 (6.3) | 32 (3.5) | 45 (4.0) | |
| Female sterilization | 12 (5.8) | 65 (6.9) | 77 (6.7) | |
| Male sterilization | 2 (1.0) | 12 (1.3) | 14 (1.2) | |
| IUD | 0 (0) | 3 (0.3) | 3 (0.3) | |
| Implants | 1(0.3) | 8 (0.9) | 9 (0.8) | |
| Traditional | ||||
| Periodic abstinence | 0 (0) | 1 (0.1) | 65 (5.7) | |
| Withdrawals | 5 (2.7) | 9 (1.0) | 14 (1.3) | |
Fig. 1Sources of obtaining modern family planning methods
Distribution of currently married women of Sylhet division according to current use of contraceptives and selected background characteristics
| Characteristics | Contraceptives use | Total (N(%))b | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No (N(%))a | Yes (N(%))a | ||
| Current Age (years) | |||
| 15–24 | 239 (65.4) | 126 (34.6) | 365 (31.9) |
| 25–34 | 178 (42.0) | 247 (58.0) | 425 (37.0) |
| 35–49 | 182 (50.8) | 175 (49.2) | 357 (31.1) |
| Number of living children | |||
| ≤2 | 363 (62.1) | 222 (37.9) | 585 (51.0) |
| 3–4 | 138 (39.3) | 214 (60.7) | 352 (30.7) |
| ≥5 | 98 (46.4) | 112 (53.6) | 210 (18.3) |
| Have son | |||
| No | 230 (71.1) | 94 (28.9) | 324 (28.3) |
| Yes | 368 (44.7) | 455 (55.2) | 823 (71.7) |
| Ever experienced death of a child | |||
| No | 462 (52.6) | 416 (47.4) | 878 (76.6) |
| Yes | 137 (51.0) | 132 (49.0) | 269 (23.4) |
| Education level of women | |||
| No education | 173 (49.9) | 174 (50.1) | 347 (30.2) |
| Primary | 222 (54.5) | 186 (45.5) | 408 (35.6) |
| Secondary | 175 (52.4) | 159 (47.6) | 334 (29.2) |
| Higher | 28 (49.0) | 30 (51.0) | 58 (5.0) |
| Education of husband | |||
| No education | 218 (51.3) | 207 (48.7) | 425 (37.1) |
| Primary | 204 (51.7) | 191 (48.3) | 395 (34.3) |
| Secondary | 139 (57.8) | 102 (42.3) | 241 (21.0) |
| Higher | 38 (43.8) | 48 (56.2) | 86 (7.6) |
| Working status of women | |||
| No | 526 (54.8) | 434 (45.2) | 960 (83.7) |
| Yes | 73 (38.9) | 114 (61.1) | 187 (16.3) |
| Visited by FPW | |||
| No | 528 (56.4) | 408 (43.6) | 936 (81.6) |
| Yes | 71 (33.7) | 140 (66.3) | 211 (18.4) |
| NGO membership | |||
| No | 494 (55.3) | 398 (44.7) | 892 (77.8) |
| Yes | 105 (41.2) | 150 (58.8) | 255 (22.2) |
| Religion | |||
| Islam | 525 (52.7) | 470 (47.3) | 995 (86.8) |
| Others | 74 (48.8) | 78 (51.2) | 152 (13.2) |
| Place of residence | |||
| Urban | 85 (41.5) | 120 (58.5) | 205 (17.9) |
| Rural | 514 (54.6) | 428 (45.4) | 942 (82.1) |
| Wealth quintile | |||
| Poorest | 168 (54.0) | 143 (46.0) | 311 (27.2) |
| Poorer | 139 (54.8) | 114 (45.2) | 253 (22.1) |
| Middle | 95 (47.0) | 106 (53.0) | 201 (17.5) |
| Richer | 85 (49.2) | 87 (50.8) | 172 (15.0) |
| Richest | 113 (53.8) | 97 (46.2) | 210 (18.2) |
aRow percentage, bColumn percentage, FPW family planning worker, NGO non-governmental organization
Results of logistic regression analyses of contraceptive use for selected background characteristics among currently married women, Sylhet, Bangladesh
| Characteristics | Crude OR [95% CI] | Adjusted OR [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|
| Current Age (years) | ||
| 15–24 | Ref | Ref |
| 25–34 | 2.6*** [2.0,3.5] | 1.5 [0.9,2.4] |
| 35–49 | 1.8*** [1.3,2.5] | 0.9 [0.5,1.7] |
| Number of living children | ||
| ≤2 | Ref | Ref |
| 3–4 | 2.5*** [1.9,3.4] | 1.8* [1.1,2.7] |
| ≥5 | 1.9*** [1.5,2.4] | 1.6* [1.1,2.2] |
| Have son | ||
| No son | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 3.0*** [2.4,3.8] | 2.3*** [1.8,2.9] |
| Ever experience death of a child | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 1.1 [0.9,1.3] | |
| Education level of women | ||
| No education | Ref | |
| Primary | 0.8 [0.6,1.2] | |
| Secondary | 0.9 [0.7,1.2] | |
| Higher | 1.0 [0.6,1.7] | |
| Education of husband | ||
| No education | Ref | Ref |
| Primary | 1.0 [0.8,1.2] | 1.1 [0.9,1.5] |
| Secondary | 0.81 [0.6,1.0] | 1.0 [0.8,1.4] |
| Higher | 1.31 [0.9,2.1] | 1.7* [1.1,2.6] |
| Working status of women | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.9** [1.2,3.0] | 1.6 [1.0,2.6] |
| Visited by FPW | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 2.5*** [1.9,3.5] | 2.4*** [1.6,3.4] |
| NGO membership | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.8*** [1.4,2.2] | 1.4** [1.1,1.8] |
| Religion | ||
| Islam | Ref | |
| Others | 1.2 [0.7,1.9] | |
| Place of residence | ||
| Urban | Ref | Ref |
| Rural | 0.6*** [0.4,0.8] | 0.6*** [0.4,0.8] |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| Poorest | Ref | |
| Poorer | 1.0 [0.7,1.4] | |
| Middle | 1.3 [0.8,2.2] | |
| Richer | 1.2 [0.7,2.1] | |
| Richest | 1.0 [0.6,1.6] | |
1 p < 0.2, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, FPW family planning worker, NGO non-governmental organization