| Literature DB >> 29201429 |
Alexandra Alvergne1, Rose Stevens1, Eshetu Gurmu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contraceptive discontinuation is a major barrier to reducing global unmet needs for family planning, but the reasons why women discontinue contraception are poorly understood. Here we use data from Ethiopia to investigate (i) the magnitude of contraceptive discontinuation in 2005-2011, (ii) how the risk of discontinuation varies with method type and education level and (iii) the barriers to continuation. Our main hypothesis is that contraceptive discontinuation is driven by the experience of physiological side-effects associated with the use of hormonal contraception, rather than a lack of formal education.Entities:
Keywords: Contraceptive discontinuation; Education; Ethiopia; Family planning; Mixed methods; Multilevel multiprocess modelling; Reproductive ecology; Semi-structured interviews; Side-effects; Unmet needs
Year: 2017 PMID: 29201429 PMCID: PMC5683325 DOI: 10.1186/s40834-017-0052-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contracept Reprod Med ISSN: 2055-7426
Estimated standard deviations and pairwise correlations for woman-level random effects from the multilevel models (EDHS 2011)
| Type of discontinuation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Random effects | Failure | Abandon | Switch |
| Failure |
| ||
| Abandon | 0.07(0.25) |
| |
| Switch | 0.52(0.36) | 0.27(0.24) |
|
The correlations between random effects are not significant therefore they are constrained to 0 in the following analyses. It means that hazards models can be modelled independently. Bold depicts significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 1Trends in contraceptive adoption, discontinuation and use among Ethiopian women, 2005–2011. This figure is based on the descriptive statistics of the data collected during the 2005 and 2011 Ethiopian demographic and health surveys. The percentage of ever-users of modern contraception has increased by ca. 10% over the period investigated. The percentage of contraceptive discontinuation, which includes failure, switch and abandonment, has not reduced. The percentage of women using contraception at the time of the survey, i.e. contraceptive prevalence, has increased by ca. 5% in the study period
Description of the data
| Characteristics | All women | Ever-users of modern contraception | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | |
| Total sample size | 16,515 | 4814 | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 25 | 1377 | 8.3 | 40 | 0.8 |
| 25–34 | 6956 | 42.1 | 1919 | 39.9 |
| 35+ | 8182 | 49.5 | 2855 | 59.3 |
| Education | ||||
| None | 8278 | 50.3 | 2177 | 45.2 |
| Primary | 5858 | 35.5 | 1760 | 36.6 |
| Secondary+ | 2379 | 14.3 | 877 | 18.2 |
| Wealth | ||||
| Low | 6113 | 37.0 | 1106 | 23.0 |
| Medium | 4773 | 28.9 | 1469 | 30.5 |
| High | 5629 | 34.0 | 2239 | 46.5 |
| Religion | ||||
| Orthodox | 6995 | 42.3 | 1258 | 26.1 |
| Muslim | 6170 | 37.3 | 2715 | 56.4 |
| Other | 3350 | 20.3 | 841 | 17.5 |
| Area | ||||
| Rural | 11,186 | 67.7 | 2786 | 57.9 |
| Urban | 5329 | 32.2 | 2028 | 42.1 |
The characteristics of the overall 2011 EDHS sample are compared to the subsample of women who have ever used modern contraception. Ever-users tend to be older, more educated, wealthier, more urban and Muslims compared to the overall dataset
Estimated coefficients and standard errors for multinomial probit model on contraceptive method choice (EDHS 2011)
| Method choice | IUD/Implants | Injectables | Condoms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed Effects | Estimate | Std. Err. | Estimate | Std. Err. | Estimate | Std. Err. |
| Constant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Education | ||||||
| No education (Ref) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Primary |
|
|
|
| 0.163 | 0.128 |
| Secondary |
|
|
|
| 0.434 | 0.116 |
| Age at start | ||||||
| < 25 years (Ref) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25–34 years |
|
| −0.014 | 0.088 |
|
|
| 35–49 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wealth | ||||||
| Low (Ref) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Medium |
|
| 0.149 | 0.120 | NA | NA |
| High | 0.026 | 0.142 | −0.097 | 0.117 |
|
|
| Area | ||||||
| Urban(Ref) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Religion | ||||||
| Orthodox (Ref) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muslim | −0.006 | 0.070 |
|
|
|
|
| Others | 0.519 | 0.484 | 0.481 | 0.497 | NA | NA |
| Correlation between women-level random effects across equations | ||||||
| IUD/Im. & Injectables |
| |||||
| IUD/Im. & Condoms | −0.302 (0.188) | |||||
| Condoms & Inject | −0.077 (0.052) | |||||
The reference category is oral contraceptives. Bold depicts significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 2Predicted odd-ratios & 95% confidence intervals for method choice. The reference category (horizontal line) corresponds to the use of oral contraceptives. At the national level, injectables are ca. 6 times more likely to be used than any other short-acting methods. This figure is based on the results of a multinomial probit model using the calendar data collected in the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey
Fig. 3Predicted odd-ratios & 95% confidence intervals for contraceptive discontinuation as a function of a woman’s level of education. The reference category (horizontal line) is no education. The risk for a woman to discontinue contraception because of abandonment (a woman stops using contraception) or failure (a woman becomes pregnant) is independent from her educational level. However, the risk of switching between methods is ca. 55% higher for women with the highest level of education. This figure is based on the results of a multilevel multiprocess model using the calendar data collected in the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health survey
Fig. 4Predicted odd-ratios & 95% confidence intervals for contraceptive discontinuation as a function of method type. The analysis focuses on short-acting contraceptives only and the reference category (horizontal line) corresponds to the use of oral contraceptives. The risk of all three forms of discontinuation is higher for oral contraceptives. This figure is based on the results of a multilevel multiprocess model using the calendar data collected in the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey
Estimated coefficients and standard errors for hazards models of contraceptive abandonment in 2011. The results for a standard model and a multiprocess model, modelling method choice and discontinuation conjointly, are compared. In the multiprocess model, IUD/Implants are not considered due to the limitations of the aML software and only the results of the hazard model part are shown
| Abandon 2011 | Standard model | Multiprocess model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE |
| Constant |
|
| ||
| Duration (month) | ||||
| 0–12 |
|
| ||
| 12–24 |
|
| ||
| 24+ |
|
| ||
| Method | ||||
| Pill | 0 | 0 | ||
| IUD/Implants |
|
| – | – |
| Injectables |
|
|
|
|
| Condoms | −0.069 | 0.144 |
|
|
| Education | ||||
| No Education | 0 | 0 | ||
| Primary | −0.559 | 0.337 | −0.071 | 0.075 |
| Secondary+ | 0.079 | 0.121 | −0.127 | 0.093 |
| Age at start | ||||
| < 25 years | 0 | 0 | ||
| 25–34 years | 0.044 | 0.149 |
|
|
| 35–49 years | −0.148 | 0.172 |
|
|
| Wealth | ||||
| Low | 0 | 0 | ||
| Medium |
|
|
|
|
| High | −0.186 | 0.198 |
|
|
| Area | ||||
| Urban | 0 | 0 | ||
| Rural | −0.334 | 0.198 | 0.0007 | 0.081 |
| Religion | ||||
| Orthodox | 0 | 0 | ||
| Muslims | 0.166 | 0.136 |
|
|
| Others | 0.226 | 0.116 | −0.225 | 0.442 |
| Women level effects | ||||
| Sigma | 0.30 | 0.24 |
|
|
| Rho (abandon/injectable) |
|
|
|
|
| Rho (abandon/condom) |
|
| 0.229 | 0.149 |
| Rho (injectable/condom) |
|
|
|
|
Italics depict fixed parameters, estimated previously using a simple model with no variables. Bold depicts significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Estimated coefficients and standard errors for hazards models of contraceptive failure in 2011. The results for a standard model and a multiprocess model, modelling method choice and discontinuation conjointly, are compared. In the multiprocess model, IUD/Implants are not considered due to the limitations of the aML software and only the results of the hazard model part are shown
| Failure 2011 | Standard model | Multiprocess model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE |
| Constant |
|
| ||
| Duration (month) | ||||
| 0–12 |
|
| ||
| 12–24 |
|
| ||
| 24+ |
|
| ||
| Method | ||||
| Pill | 0 | 0 | ||
| IUD/Implants |
|
| – | – |
| Injectables |
|
|
|
|
| Condoms |
|
|
|
|
| Education | ||||
| No Education | 0 | 0 | ||
| Primary |
|
| −0.168 | 0.141 |
| Secondary+ | −0.111 | 0.146 | −0.357 | 0.179 |
| Age at start | ||||
| < 25 years | 0 | 0 | ||
| 25–34 years | −0.254 | 0.188 |
|
|
| 35–49 years |
|
|
|
|
| Wealth | ||||
| Low | 0 | 0 | ||
| Medium |
|
| 0.169 | 0.219 |
| High | 0.258 | 0.261 | −0.301 | 0.200 |
| Area | ||||
| Rural | 0 | 0 | ||
| Urban | −0.160 | 0.266 | 0.201 | 0.164 |
| Religion | ||||
| Orthodox | 0 | 0 | ||
| Muslim | 0.277 | 0.177 |
|
|
| Other |
|
| −0.116 | 3.181 |
| Women level effect | ||||
| Sigma | 0.43 | 0.62 |
|
|
| Rho (failure/injectable) | – | – | 0.142 | 0.110 |
| Rho (failure/condom) | – | – | 0.170 | 0.155 |
| Rho (injectable/condom) | – | – |
|
|
Italics depict fixed parameters, estimated previously using a simple model with no variables. Bold depicts significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Estimated coefficients and standard errors for hazards models of contraceptive switch in 2011. The results for a standard model and a multiprocess model, modelling method choice and discontinuation conjointly, are compared. In the multiprocess model, IUD/Implants are not considered due to the limitations of the aML software and only the results of the hazard model part are shown
| Switch 2011 | Standard model | Multiprocess model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE |
| Constant |
|
| ||
| Duration (month) | ||||
| 0–12 |
|
| ||
| 12–24 |
|
| ||
| 24+ |
|
| ||
| Method | ||||
| Pill | 0 | 0 | ||
| IUD/Implants | 0.399 | 0.412 | – | – |
| Injectables | −0.436 | 0.249 |
|
|
| Condoms |
|
|
|
|
| Education | ||||
| No Education | 0 | 0 | ||
| Primary | −0.670 | 0.346 | −0.118 | 0.186 |
| Secondary+ | −0.072 | 0.166 |
|
|
| Age at start | ||||
| < 25 years | 0 | 0 | ||
| 25–34 years | 0.356 | 0.178 | −0.256 | 0.230 |
| 35–49 years | −0.379 | 0.243 |
|
|
| Wealth | ||||
| Low | 0 | 0 | ||
| Medium |
|
| −0.041 | 0.280 |
| High | −0.016 | 0.311 | 0.336 | 0.229 |
| Area | ||||
| Urban | 0 | 0 | ||
| Rural | 0356 | 0.305 | 0.156 | 0.177 |
| Religion | ||||
| Orthodox | 0 | 0 | ||
| Muslim | 0.235 | 0.162 | 0.029 | 0.170 |
| Other | 0.047 | 0.152 | 0.086 | 0.123 |
| Woman level effects | ||||
| Sigma |
|
|
|
|
| Rho (switch/injectable) | – | – | 0.083 | 0.079 |
| Rho (switch/condom) | – | – | 0.167 | 0.114 |
| Rho (injectable/condom) | – | – |
|
|
Italics depict fixed parameters, estimated previously using a simple model with no variables. Bold depicts significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001