| Literature DB >> 30287529 |
Sunday A Adedini1, Stella Babalola2, Charity Ibeawuchi3, Olukunle Omotoso3, Akinsewa Akiode3, Mojisola Odeku3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the many supply- and demand-side interventions aimed at increasing contraceptive uptake, the modern contraceptive prevalence rate in Nigeria has remained very low (9.8%). Religion is an important part of the sociocultural fabric of many communities. As such, religious leaders have the power to inhibit or facilitate effective adoption of contraceptive methods to support family health. We assess the association of exposure to religious leaders' tailored scriptural family planning messages with contraceptive use in Nigeria.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30287529 PMCID: PMC6172128 DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract ISSN: 2169-575X
FIGUREConceptual Framework Showing Relationship Between NURHI Interventions and Contraceptive Use
Abbreviation: NURHI, Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative.
Adapted from Kincaid (2000) and Babalola et al. (2015).
Independent Variables for Modeling Women's Uptake of Modern Contraceptive Methods in Selected Nigerian States
| Variables | Operational Definitions |
|---|---|
| Exposure to family planning message | Self-reported exposure to family planning message from religious leaders, categorized as “0” had no exposure or “1” had exposure. This variable was derived from the question: “In the past year, have you heard or seen a religious leader speaking publicly in favour of family planning/child birth spacing?” |
| Age of respondent | Self-reported age of respondent at time of survey, categorized as: 15–24, 25–34, 35+ |
| Religion | Respondents' religions: Catholic, Other Christian, Muslim |
| Parity | Number of children ever born: 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5+ |
| Education | Highest level of education attained: none, primary, secondary, post-secondary |
| State of residence | Current state of residence: Federal Capital Territory, Kwara, Kaduna, Oyo |
| Ethnic affiliation | Respondents' ethnic affiliation: Hausa/Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, other |
| Current marital status | Marital status at time of survey: married/cohabiting, never married, previously married |
| Wealth index | Composite index of household items/amenities, electrical appliances, toilet facility, drinking water, and floor/wall materials grouped into a quintile: (1) poorest, (2) poorer, (3) middle, (4) richer, (5) richest |
| Fertility desire | Respondents' desire to have another child: (1) want another child, (2) does not want another child |
| Need anyone's permission to use family planning | Respondent's need for someone's permission before use of family planning, categorized as: (1) Yes, permission of someone needed, (2) No, permission not needed. This variable captures a situation where a woman requires the permission of her husband/partner, mother-in-law, or someone else, before she can use a family planning method |
| Perceived self-efficacy | Perceived self-efficacy about family planning, generated as a composite score variable from responses to Likert-scale questions on women's level of agreement with the ideation statements. These were categorized into a tertile as: (1) low, (2) medium, (3) high; Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 |
| Acceptance of myths and misconceptions about contraceptives | Acceptance of myths and misconceptions about contraceptives, generated as a composite score variable from responses to Likert-scale questions on women's level of agreement with the ideation statements. These were categorized into a tertile as: (1) low, (2) medium, (3) high. Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 |
| Other NURHI interventions | Other NURHI interventions numbering 27. An overall index, i.e., composite scores, was generated to reflect the extent of exposures that respondents had to the various activities. The composite variable was categorized into a tertile as: (1) low exposure, (2) medium exposure, (3) high exposure. Cronbach's alpha for the 27-item additive index was 0.90 |
Abbreviation: NURHI, Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative.
Background Characteristics of Study Participants and Other Selected Variables, Selected Nigerian States, 2015 (N=9,725)
| Characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Religion, % | |
| Catholic | 6.0 |
| Other Christian | 39.7 |
| Muslim | 54.3 |
| Extent of religiosity, % | |
| Strongly religious | 72.9 |
| Somewhat religious | 27.1 |
| Current age, years, % | |
| 15–24 | 37.0 |
| 25–34 | 32.7 |
| 35+ | 30.3 |
| Current age, years, mean | 28.9 |
| Education, % | |
| None | 9.5 |
| Primary | 24.6 |
| Secondary | 45.2 |
| Post-secondary | 20.7 |
| Parity, mean | 2.8 |
| City of residence, % | |
| FCT | 14.5 |
| Kaduna | 52.1 |
| Kwara | 10.6 |
| Oyo | 22.9 |
| Ethnic affiliation, % | |
| Hausa/Fulani | 31.4 |
| Igbo | 6.2 |
| Yoruba | 32.5 |
| Others | 29.9 |
| Current marital status, % | |
| Married/cohabiting | 65.4 |
| Never married | 30.1 |
| Previously married | 4.5 |
| Wealth index, % | |
| Poorest | 9.8 |
| Poorer | 10.3 |
| Middle | 15.7 |
| Richer | 25.6 |
| Richest | 38.7 |
| Fertility desire, % | |
| Want another child | 78.9 |
| Want no more | 21.1 |
| Need anyone's permission to use FP, % | |
| Yes | 86.4 |
| No | 13.6 |
| Degree to which religion influences FP decision, % | |
| Never | 33.6 |
| Somewhat | 30.8 |
| Frequent/always | 35.6 |
| Had exposure to religious leaders' message in favor of FP, % | |
| No | 60.2 |
| Yes | 39.8 |
Abbreviations: FCT, Federal Capitol Territory; FP, family planning.
Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Contraceptive Use and Selected Characteristics, Selected Nigerian States, 2015
| Characteristics | Currently Using Modern Method (%) | Not Using Modern Method (%) | Chi-Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religion | 208.0 | ||
| Catholic | 24.5 | 75.5 | |
| Other Christian | 31.3 | 68.7 | |
| Muslim | 18.2 | 81.8 | |
| Religiosity | 8.42 | ||
| Strongly religious | 22.9 | 77.1 | |
| Somewhat religious | 25.8 | 74.2 | |
| Had exposure to religious leaders' message in favor of FP | 120.0 | ||
| No | 20.0 | 80.0 | |
| Yes | 30.0 | 70.0 | |
| Current age, years | 542.0 | ||
| 15–24 | 10.6 | 89.4 | |
| 25–34 | 32.6 | 67.4 | |
| 35+ | 30.0 | 70.0 | |
| Education | 129.0 | ||
| None | 15.4 | 84.6 | |
| Primary | 20.1 | 79.9 | |
| Secondary | 23.8 | 76.2 | |
| Post-secondary | 31.9 | 68.1 | |
| Parity | 586.0 | ||
| 0 | 9.1 | 90.9 | |
| 1–2 | 26.5 | 73.5 | |
| 3–4 | 36.8 | 63.2 | |
| 5+ | 28.4 | 71.6 | |
| State of residence | 135.0 | ||
| FCT | 28.4 | 71.6 | |
| Kaduna | 18.9 | 81.1 | |
| Kwara | 27.3 | 72.7 | |
| Oyo | 29.8 | 70.2 | |
| Ethnic affiliation | 353.0 | ||
| Hausa/Fulani | 12.4 | 87.6 | |
| Igbo | 24.5 | 75.5 | |
| Yoruba | 31.7 | 68.3 | |
| Others | 27.6 | 72.4 | |
| Current marital status | 400.0 | ||
| Married/cohabiting | 29.8 | 70.2 | |
| Never married | 11.2 | 88.8 | |
| Previously married | 13.8 | 86.2 | |
| Wealth index | 235.0 | ||
| Poorest | 9.9 | 90.1 | |
| Poorer | 13.4 | 86.6 | |
| Middle | 23.6 | 76.4 | |
| Richer | 28.3 | 71.7 | |
| Richest | 27.7 | 72.3 | |
| Fertility desire | 382.0 | ||
| Want another child | 19.0 | 81.0 | |
| Does not want another child | 40.1 | 59.9 | |
| Need anyone's permission to use FP | 6.2 | ||
| Yes | 23.7 | 76.3 | |
| No | 26.9 | 73.1 | |
| Self-efficacy and FP | 926.0 | ||
| Low | 7.5 | 92.5 | |
| Medium | 26.8 | 73.2 | |
| High | 38.6 | 61.4 | |
| Acceptance of myths and misconception index on FP | 126.0 | ||
| Low | 27.9 | 72.1 | |
| Medium | 25.7 | 74.3 | |
| High | 16.9 | 83.3 | |
| Exposure to other NURHI interventions | 391.0 | ||
| Low exposure | 14.5 | 85.5 | |
| Medium exposure | 24.5 | 75.5 | |
| High exposure | 35.5 | 64.5 |
Abbreviations: FCT, Federal Capitol Territory; FP, family planning; NURHI, Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative.
Relationship Between Current Use of Modern Contraception and Exposure to Family Planning Messages From Religious Leaders, Selected Nigerian States, 2015
| Characteristics | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Had exposure to religious leader's message in favor of FP | ||||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 1.70 (1.54, 1.87) | 1.33 (1.17, 1.51) | 1.27 (1.12, 1.45) | 1.13 (0.99, 1.29) |
| Religiosity | ||||
| Strongly religious | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Somewhat religious | 1.30 (1.12, 1.50) | 1.31 (1.13, 1.52) | 1.27 (1.09, 1.48) | |
| Age, years | ||||
| 15–24 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 25–34 | 1.73 (1.40, 2.14) | 1.67 (1.36, 2.06) | 1.62 (1.31, 2.00) | |
| 35+ | 0.90 (0.70, 1.17) | 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) | 0.87 (0.67, 1.14) | |
| Current marital status | ||||
| Married/cohabiting | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Never married | 1.61 (0.26, 0.39) | 1.54 (1.10, 2.18) | 1.42 (0.99, 2.03) | |
| Previously married | 0.27 (0.18, 0.39) | 0.25 (0.17, 0.37) | 0.24 (0.16, 0.35) | |
| Education | ||||
| None | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Less than secondary | 1.15 (0.87, 1.53) | 1.07 (0.81, 1.42) | 0.99 (0.74, 1.32) | |
| Secondary | 1.49 (1.12, 1.98) | 1.36 (1.02, 1.81) | 1.15 (0.86, 1.55) | |
| Post-secondary | 1.98 (1.43, 2.74) | 1.76 (1.27, 2.43) | 1.38 (0.99, 1.93) | |
| Ethnic affiliation | ||||
| Hausa/Fulani | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Igbo | 1.57 (1.14, 2.17) | 1.62 (1.17, 2.24) | 1.38 (1.00, 1.92) | |
| Yoruba | 2.42 (1.90, 3.08) | 2.33 (1.82, 2.98) | 1.95 (1.51, 2.51) | |
| Others | 2.52 (2.09, 3.04) | 2.53 (2.09, 3.05) | 2.10 (1.73, 2.56) | |
| State of residence | ||||
| Kaduna | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| FCT | 0.94 (0.77, 1.15) | 0.96 (0.78, 1.19) | 1.03 (0.84, 1.28) | |
| Kwara | 0.74 (0.57, 0.97) | 0.62 (0.47, 0.83) | 0.84 (0.63, 1.13) | |
| Oyo | 1.12 (0.91, 1.39) | 1.01 (0.81, 1.25) | 1.04 (0.83, 1.32) | |
| Wealth index | ||||
| Poorest | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Poorer | 1.39 (0.98, 1.95) | 1.32 (0.94, 1.85) | 1.24 (0.86, 1.77) | |
| Middle | 2.62 (1.91, 3.59) | 2.35 (1.71, 3.23) | 2.09 (1.52, 2.89) | |
| Richer | 3.41 (2.50, 4.66) | 2.83 (2.06, 3.87) | 2.57 (1.86, 3.55) | |
| Richest | 2.78 (2.00, 3.86) | 2.27 (1.63, 3.16) | 2.04 (1.46, 2.87) | |
| Parity | ||||
| 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 1–2 | 5.50 (3.90, 7.69) | 5.01 (3.56, 7.05) | 4.86 (3.41, 6.92) | |
| 3–4 | 7.93 (5.46, 11.53) | 7.34 (5.04, 10.68) | 7.00 (4.73, 10.35) | |
| 5+ | 8.51 (5.72, 12.65) | 7.98 (5.35, 11.86) | 7.34 (4.84, 11.12) | |
| Fertility desire | ||||
| Want another child | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Want no more | 1.99 (1.67, 2.37) | 1.93 (1.62, 2.30) | 1.69 (1.41, 2.03) | |
| Needs anyone's permission to use FP | ||||
| Yes | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| No | 1.16 (0.97, 1.40) | 1.40 (1.16, 1.70) | ||
| Exposure to other NURHI interventions | ||||
| Low exposure | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Medium exposure | 1.41 (1.19, 1.67) | 1.18 (0.99, 1.40) | ||
| High exposure | 1.72 (1.42, 2.08) | 1.28 (1.05, 1.57) | ||
| Perceived self-efficacy about FP use | ||||
| Low | 1.00 | |||
| Medium | 3.48 (2.85, 4.24) | |||
| High | 4.78 (3.93, 5.82) | |||
| Acceptance of myths and misconceptions about FP index | ||||
| Low | 1.00 | |||
| Medium | 0.98 (0.84, 1.13) | |||
| High | 0.58 (0.49, 0.69) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FCT, Federal Capitol Territory; FP, family planning; NURHI, Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative; OR, odds ratio.
P<0.05;
P<0.01;
P<0.001.
Model 1=unadjusted analysis.
Model 2=adjusted for selected background characteristics, including religiosity, age, marital status, education, ethnicity, wealth status, parity, state of residence, and fertility desire.
Model 3=adjusted for selected background characteristics, including religiosity, age, marital status, education, ethnicity, wealth status, parity, state of residence, and fertility desire, and for women's exposure to other NURHI interventions.
Model 4=adjusted for all variables included in Model 3, plus perceived self-efficacy about family planning uptake and myths and misconceptions about family planning index.