| Literature DB >> 28651643 |
Constanze Pfeiffer1,2, Collins K Ahorlu3, Sandra Alba4,5,6, Brigit Obrist4,5,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Tanzania, teenage pregnancy rates are still high despite the efforts being made to reduce them. Not enough is known about how adolescents experience and cope with sexuality and teenage pregnancy. Over the past few decades, most studies have focused on vulnerability and risk among youth. The concept of 'reproductive resilience' is a new way of looking at teenage pregnancy. It shifts the perspective from a deficit-based to a strength-based approach. The study presented here aimed to identify factors that could contribute to strengthening the reproductive resilience of girls in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Quantitative methods; Resilience; Sexual and reproductive health; Tanzania; Urban health
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28651643 PMCID: PMC5485691 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0338-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Fig. 1Reproductive resilience framework (modified multi-layered social resilience framework by Obrist, Pfeiffer & Henley, 2010)
Reproductive resilience research designa
| Variables | Questions (selection of few examples) |
|---|---|
| 1. Socio-demographic background | |
| Socio demographic background | How old are you? Are you in a relationship? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. Capacities | |
| 3.1 Psycho-social dispositions | Do you belief that you can successfully manage to avoid/deal with teenage pregnancy? Do you have the ability to establish and maintain relationships to people? |
| 3.2 Life skills | Do you know how to protect yourself from pregnancy? Do you decide freely if, when and with whom you want to have sex? |
|
| |
|
|
|
aThis paper focuses on the impact of capitals (highlighted in italics) on competence (highlighted in italics)
Map 1Selected administrative units (Mitaa) in the city of Dar es Salaam
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, by pregnancy status
| Categories | Never pregnant girls | Pregnant girls and/or young mothers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | |
| Age | ||||
| 15 Years | 167 | 26.2 | 1 | 0.9 |
| 16 years | 107 | 16.8 | 11 | 9.8 |
| 17 years | 114 | 17.9 | 8 | 7.1 |
| 18 years | 108 | 16.9 | 20 | 17.9 |
| 19 years | 142 | 22.3 | 72 | 64.3 |
| Education | ||||
| Primary education | 277 | 43.4 | 85 | 75.9 |
| Secondary education | 326 | 51.3 | 21 | 18.8 |
| Vocational training | 13 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| No education | 21 | 3.3 | 6 | 5.4 |
| Relationship status | ||||
| Single | 367 | 57.5 | 11 | 9.8 |
| In a relationship/not married | 258 | 40.4 | 57 | 50.9 |
| Married | 13 | 2.0 | 38 | 33.9 |
| Divorced/separated | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5.4 |
| Both parents of respondent living together with their children | ||||
| Yes | 372 | 58.3 | 53 | 47.3 |
| No | 169 | 26.5 | 43 | 38.4 |
| Others (dead, don’t know) | 87 | 15.2 | 16 | 14.3 |
| Respondent’s father has more than one wife | ||||
| Yes | 213 | 33.4 | 37 | 33.0 |
| No | 327 | 51.3 | 58 | 51.8 |
| Others (dead, don’t know) | 98 | 15.4 | 17 | 15.2 |
| Religion | ||||
| Christians | 207 | 32.4 | 27 | 24.1 |
| Muslims | 428 | 67.1 | 85 | 75.9 |
| Others | 3 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 2Access to social actors by pregnancy status
Multivariate logistic regression analysis: Estimated effect of social, cultural and economic capital on the competence score, by pregnancy status
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% | C.I. |
| OR | 95% | C.I. |
| |
|
| 1.40 | 0.875 | 2.25 | 0.159 | ||||
| Peersb | 1.71 | 1.18 | 2.48 |
| a | |||
| Partnerb | 2.07 | 0.76 | 5.65 | 0.157 | a | |||
| Parents/guardiansb | 1.34 | 0.97 | 1.86 | 0.077 | a | |||
| Other relativesb | 0.87 | 0.62 | 1.22 | 0.414 | a | |||
| Religious leadersb | 3.36 | 0.69 | 16.36 | 0.133 | a | |||
| Teachersb | 1.68 | 0.69 | 4.08 | 0.258 | a | |||
| Nursesb | 1.43 | 0.51 | 4.04 | 0.495 | a | |||
|
| 1.80 | 1.06 | 3.07 |
| 3.33 | 1.15 | 9.60 |
|
| Booksc | 1.63 | 1.05 | 2.54 |
| 2.63 | 0.30 | 23.23 | 0.383 |
| Brochurec | 1.41 | 0.75 | 2.63 | 0.286 | a | |||
| Cell Phonesc | 1.82 | 0.17 | 19.22 | 0.617 | a | |||
| Magazinesc | 1.96 | 1.38 | 2.77 |
| 2.75 | 0.88 | 8.60 | 0.083 |
| Music songsc | 3.22 | 1.88 | 5.54 |
| 1.67 | 0.17 | 16.25 | 0.660 |
| Radioc | 1.70 | 1.18 | 2.45 |
| 3.44 | 1.35 | 8.76 |
|
| Television (TV) | 0.91 | 0.62 | 1.34 | 0.633 | 1.32 | 0.52 | 3.35 | 0.561 |
|
| 0.85 | 0.39 | 1.88 | 0.692 | ||||
| Peers d | 3.41 | 1.73 | 6.70 |
| 1.24 | 0.22 | 7.01 | 0.809 |
| Partner d | 2.08 | 1.18 | 3.68 |
| 3.24 | 3.24 | 8.61 |
|
| Parents/guardians d | 1.31 | 0.90 | 1.01 | 0.162 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 7.58 |
|
| Other relatives d | 1.11 | 0.80 | 1.54 | 0.539 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 8.52 |
|
| Religious leaders d | a | a | ||||||
| Teachers d | 10.67 | 1.35 | 84.17 |
| a | |||
| Nurses d | a | a | ||||||
aThe variable was not entered in the logistic regression model as it was not significant according to the variable selection strategy. All variables significant at the 10% level in univariate analyses were considered candidates for the mulitviariate model
bSpontaneous mention of social actors never pregnant girls and pregnant girls/young mothers turn to for information on sexuality and teenage pregnancy/childrearing
cSpontaneous mention of mass media never pregnant girls and pregnant girls/young mothers turn to for information on sexuality and teenage pregnancy/childrearing
dSpontaneous mention of social actors never pregnant girls and pregnant girls/young mothers turn to for financial support related to avoiding teenage pregnancy or dealing with teenage pregnancy/childrearing
Fig. 3Access to mass media by pregnancy status