| Literature DB >> 30373570 |
Chinelo C Okigbo1,2, Ilene S Speizer3,4, Marisa E Domino5,6, Sian L Curtis3, Carolyn T Halpern3, Jean C Fotso7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that gender equality positively influences family planning. However, the evidence from urban Africa is sparse. This study aimed to examine the association between changes in gender norms and modern contraceptive use over time among women in urban Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Gender norms; Longitudinal data; Modern contraception; Multilevel models; Urban Nigeria
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373570 PMCID: PMC6206649 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-018-0664-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Fig. 1The Theory of Gender and Power adapted to the study of modern contraception
Fig. 2Sample selection flowchart
Demographic characteristics of reproductive-age women living in six cities in Nigeria
| 2010/2011 survey | 2014 survey | |
|---|---|---|
| Weighted % | Weighted % | |
| Age in years | ||
| 15–24 | 35.0 | 23.1 |
| 25–34 | 37.1 | 38.5 |
| 35–49 | 27.9 | 38.4 |
| Education | ||
| None/Quranic | 11.7 | 9.9 |
| Primary | 14.8 | 15.1 |
| Secondary | 50.6 | 43.5 |
| Higher | 22.9 | 31.5 |
| Union status | ||
| Currently in-union | 65.2 | 71.5 |
| Not currently in-union | 34.8 | 28.5 |
| Religion | ||
| Muslim | 53.5 | 50.7 |
| Non-Muslim (Christian, traditional, none) | 46.5 | 49.3 |
| Parity | ||
| 0 children | 33.9 | 26.0 |
| 1–4 children | 46.1 | 49.1 |
| 5 or more children | 20.0 | 24.9 |
| Household wealth | ||
| Poorest | 16.6 | 19.0 |
| Poor | 18.8 | 19.5 |
| Middle | 20.4 | 20.5 |
| Rich | 22.6 | 21.0 |
| Richest | 21.6 | 20.0 |
| City of residence | ||
| Abuja | 12.5 | 13.0 |
| Benin | 10.5 | 13.1 |
| Ibadan | 18.0 | 20.2 |
| Ilorin | 16.4 | 15.5 |
| Kaduna | 27.1 | 25.5 |
| Zaria | 15.5 | 12.7 |
| Number of women | 9933 | |
| Number of clusters | 480 | |
| Mean number of women per cluster (standard deviation) | 26.7 (11.4) | |
| Median number of women per cluster (range | 24 (5–63) | |
Distribution of gender-equitable attitudes among women living in six cities in Nigeria
| 2010/2011 survey | 2014 Survey | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted % | Weighted % | |||
| Gender-equitable attitudes towards: | Individual | Neighborhood | Individual | Neighborhood |
| Wife beating | ||||
| Low level (score = 0–6) | 32.8 | 64.4 | 19.1 | 36.5 |
| High level (score = 7) | 67.2 | 35.6 | 80.9 | 63.5 |
| Household decision-making | ||||
| Low level (score = 0–2) | 55.9 | 49.5 | 37.4 | 26.9 |
| High level (score = 3–4) | 44.1 | 50.5 | 62.6 | 73.1 |
| Couples’ family planning decisions | ||||
| Low level (score = 0–6) | 60.4 | 71.1 | 42.2 | 34.3 |
| High level (score = 7–9) | 39.6 | 28.9 | 57.8 | 65.7 |
| Family planning efficacy | ||||
| Low level (score = 0–5) | 56.0 | 74.1 | 33.6 | 34.4 |
| High level (score = 6–8) | 44.0 | 25.9 | 66.4 | 65.6 |
Fig. 3Modern contraceptive use pattern among women aged 15–49 years in Nigerian cities
Gender-equitable attitudes towards wife beating and modern contraceptive use pattern
| User vs. Non-User | Adopter vs. Non-User | Discontinuer vs. User | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Individual-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 0.98 (0.70–1.37) | 1.16 (0.92–1.47) | 0.97 (0.64–1.48) |
| High to Low | 1.06 (0.73–1.55) | 1.10 (0.84–1.44) | 1.15 (0.72–1.85) |
| High to High | 1.12 (0.81–1.55) | 1.12 (0.89–1.41) | 0.97 (0.65–1.46) |
| Neighborhood-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 0.97 (0.78–1.20) | 0.97 (0.82–1.15) | 0.89 (0.69–1.14) |
| High to Low | 1.19 (0.84–1.69) | 1.11 (0.84–1.47) | 0.72 (0.46–1.11) |
| High to High | 0.92 (0.73–1.16) | 0.98 (0.82–1.18) | 1.10 (0.84–1.45) |
OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval; Models included individual and neighborhood exposure variables controlling for age, education, marital history, religion, parity, household wealth, and city of residence
Gender-equitable attitudes towards household decision-making and modern contraceptive use pattern
| User vs. Non-User | Adopter vs. Non-User | Discontinuer vs. User | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Individual-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 1.38 (1.09–1.75) | 1.17 (1.02–1.36) | 0.81 (0.60–1.09) |
| High to Low | 1.24 (0.93–1.64) | 1.03 (0.85–1.24) | 0.88 (0.62–1.24) |
| High to High | 1.60 (1.26–2.03) | 1.23 (1.05–1.45) | 0.73 (0.55–0.98) |
| Neighborhood-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 2.28 (1.61–3.23) | 1.28 (1.03–1.61) | 0.58 (0.38–0.89) |
| High to Low | 2.23 (1.36–3.67) | 2.00 (1.38–2.89) | 0.72 (0.40–1.30) |
| High to High | 2.66 (1.88–3.76) | 1.58 (1.24–1.99) | 0.54 (0.35–0.82) |
OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval; Models included individual and neighborhood exposure variables controlling for age, education, marital history, religion, parity, household wealth, and city of residence
Gender-equitable attitudes towards couples’ family planning decisions and modern contraceptive use pattern
| User vs. Non-User | Adopter vs. Non-User | Discontinuer vs. User | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Individual-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 1.13 (0.91–1.41) | 1.37 (1.19–1.57) | 1.04 (0.78–1.38) |
| High to Low | 1.49 (1.16–1.91) | 1.01 (0.83–1.22) | 1.18 (0.87–1.61) |
| High to High | 2.34 (1.87–2.93) | 1.54 (1.31–1.82) | 0.73 (0.55–0.97) |
| Neighborhood-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 1.15 (0.92–1.45) | 1.10 (0.93–1.31) | 0.72 (0.55–0.94) |
| High to Low | 1.38 (0.92–2.05) | 1.16 (0.83–1.62) | 0.90 (0.57–1.42) |
| High to High | 1.47 (1.13–1.90) | 1.12 (0.90–1.39) | 0.62 (0.45–0.84) |
OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval; Models included individual and neighborhood exposure variables controlling for age, education, marital history, religion, parity, household wealth, and city of residence
Gender-equitable attitudes towards family planning efficacy and modern contraceptive use pattern
| User vs. Non-User | Adopter vs. Non-User | Discontinuer vs. User | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Individual-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 3.33 (2.42–4.60) | 2.37 (2.03–2.78) | 0.42 (0.28–0.63) |
| High to Low | 3.14 (2.18–4.53) | 1.41 (1.14–1.74) | 1.07 (0.70–1.65) |
| High to High | 8.24 (6.02–11.27) | 2.91 (2.44–3.45) | 0.43 (0.30–0.63) |
| Neighborhood-level attitudes | |||
| Low to Low | reference | reference | reference |
| Low to High | 1.12 (0.88–1.43) | 1.10 (0.91–1.32) | 1.11 (0.83–1.49) |
| High to Low | 0.54 (0.32–0.93) | 1.01 (0.67–1.15) | 1.60 (0.86–2.94) |
| High to High | 1.38 (1.06–1.79) | 1.13 (0.91–1.40) | 0.91 (0.66–1.25) |
OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval; Models included individual and neighborhood exposure variables controlling for age, education, marital history, religion, parity, household wealth, and city of residence