| Literature DB >> 31174491 |
Kiran Acharya1, Yuba Raj Paudel2, Pramita Silwal3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual violence in marital relationship is higher among women married at young age. Although sexual violence has been found to increase risk for unintended pregnancy, there is a limited published data from Nepal linking sexual violence with unintended pregnancy. The current study aimed to investigate association of partner sexual violence with unintended pregnancy among young married women who experienced child birth in last 5 years.Entities:
Keywords: Nepal; Sexual violence; Unintended pregnancy; Young women
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31174491 PMCID: PMC6555974 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2342-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1Flow chart showing selection of study sample
Percentage of respondents ever married age 15-24given birth in last 5 years who ever reported sexual violence by their current husband and unintended pregnancy
| Characteristics | % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sexual violence | 51 | 9.0 (6.3–12.8) |
| Physically forced her to have sexual intercourse with him when she did not want to | 49 | 8.6 (6.0–12.5) |
| Physically forced her to perform any other sexual acts she did not want to | 17 | 3.1 (1.78–5.2) |
| Forced her with threats or in any other way to perform sexual acts she did not want to | 27 | 4.9 (3.0–7.8) |
| Unintended pregnancy (last birth) | 127 | 22.7 (18.8–27.1) |
Association between selected characteristics and unintended pregnancy (last birth)
| Independent Characteristics | Total, n (%) | Unintended last births (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 560 | 22.7 | |
| Geographical/Household characteristics | |||
| Place of residence | |||
| Urban | 279 (49.8) | 22.7 | |
| Rural | 281 (50.2) | 22.7 | 0.981 |
| Ecoregion | |||
| Mountain/Hill | 268 (47.9) | 23.0 | |
| Terai | 291 (52.1) | 22.4 | 0.892 |
| Province | |||
| Province1 | 85 (15.2) | 17.1 | |
| Province2 | 148 (26.4) | 27.0 | |
| Province3 | 82 (14.7) | 36.3 | |
| Province4 | 55 (9.7) | 19.4 | |
| Province5 | 107 (19.1) | 14.4 | |
| Province6 and 7 | 83 (14.9) | 20.2 | 0.014* |
| Wealth index | |||
| Poor | 235 (41.9) | 22.0 | |
| Middle | 267 (47.7) | 23.6 | |
| Rich | 58 (10.4) | 21.5 | 0.928 |
| Caste | |||
| Brahmin/Chettri-Hill | 137 (24.6) | 24.2 | |
| Terai caste | 112 (20.1) | 25.2 | |
| Janajatis | 192 (34.3) | 19.9 | |
| Dalit/Others | 118 (21.1) | 23.2 | 0.785 |
| Women’s Characteristics | |||
| Age group | |||
| 15–19 | 103 (18.4) | 29.7 | |
| 20–24 | 457 (81.6) | 21.1 | 0.129 |
| Education | |||
| No education | 98 (17.6) | 15.4 | |
| Primary | 128 (22.9) | 25.2 | |
| Some secondary | 200 (35.7) | 24.1 | |
| SLC and above | 133 (23.8) | 23.5 | 0.44 |
| Working status | |||
| No | 301 (53.7) | 22.7 | |
| Yes | 259 (46.3) | 22.8 | 0.982 |
| Ever used contraception | |||
| No | 345 (61.7) | 22.5 | |
| Yes | 214 (38.3) | 23.1 | 0.893 |
| Ideal family sizea | |||
| 0–2 | 487 (87.5) | 24.8 | |
| 3+ | 70 (12.5) | 8.7 | 0.014* |
| Decision making statusb | |||
| No | 294 (58.6) | 19.4 | |
| Yes | 208 (41.4) | 26.4 | 0.118 |
| Media Exposurec | |||
| Not at all | 106 (18.9) | 25.7 | |
| At least once a week | 155 (27.7) | 26.6 | |
| Less than once a week | 299 (53.4) | 19.6 | 0.353 |
| Husband’s characteristics | |||
| Educationd | |||
| No education/Primary | 170 (30.8) | 20.7 | |
| Some secondary | 280 (50.7) | 24.7 | |
| SLC and above | 102 (18.5) | 20.4 | 0.633 |
| Working Statuse | |||
| Did not work | 15 (2.7) | 7.7 | |
| Agricultural | 82 (14.8) | 25.3 | |
| Non-agricultural | 77 (13.9) | 27.4 | |
| Manuallabor | 379 (68.6) | 21.7 | 0.501 |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No | 333 (59.5) | 20.9 | |
| Yes | 227 (40.4) | 25.3 | 0.304 |
| Sexual violence | |||
| No | 509 (91.0) | 21.2 | |
| Yes | 51 (9.0) | 38.1 | 0.010* |
aThree non-numeric responses were excluded from the analysis
b58 cases who did not responses any of the decision making questions were not shown in the table
cMedia exposure includes the exposure of newspaper, radio and television
dEight don’t know cases were excluded from the analysis
eSeven missing cases were excluded from the analysis
*p<0.05
Multivariate logistic regression analysis showing effect of sexual violence on unintended pregnancy in Nepal 2016
| Characteristics | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Ever experienced Sexual violence | ||
| No (Ref.) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 2.9** (1.4–6.3) | 2.3* (1.1–4.8) |
| Ideal family size | ||
| 0–2 (Ref.) | 1 | 1 |
| 3+ | 0.3* (0.1–0.8) | 0.2* (0.1–0.7) |
| Province | ||
| Province1(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Province2 | 2.3 (0.8–6.2) | |
| Province3 | 3.2* (1.3–8.1) | |
| Province 4 | 1.1 (0.4–2.9) | |
| Province5 | 0.7 (0.3–1.8) | |
| Province 6 and 7 | 1.1 (0.5–2.3) | |
| Women’s education | ||
| No education(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Primary | 2.2* (1.1–4.4) | |
| Some secondary | 2.3* (1.0–5.2) | |
| SLC and above | 2.4 (0.9–6.5) | |
only significant variables from model 1 and 2 shown in the table
Ref. Reference
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Multivariate logistic regression analysis showing effect of sexual violence on unintended pregnancy in Nepal 2016
| Characteristics | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Ever experienced Sexual violence | ||
| No (Ref.) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 2.9** (1.4 - 6.3) | 2.3* (1.1 - 4.8) |
| Ever used contraception | ||
| No (Ref.) | 1 | Not in the model |
| Yes | 0.9 (0.6 - 1.5) | |
| Decision making status | ||
| No(Ref.) | 1 | Not in the model |
| Yes | 1.4 (0.8 - 2.3) | |
| Ideal family size | ||
| 0-2 (Ref.) | 1 | 1 |
| 3+ | 0.3* (0.1 - 0.8) | 0.2* (0.1 - 0.7) |
| Place of residence | ||
| Urban(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Rural | 1.0 (0.6 - 1.6) | |
| Ecological region | ||
| Mountain/Hill(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Terai | 1.2 (0.6 - 2.4) | |
| Province | ||
| Province1(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Province2 | 2.3 (0.8 - 6.2) | |
| Province3 | 3.2* (1.3 - 8.1) | |
| Province 4 | 1.1 (0.4 - 2.9) | |
| Province5 | 0.7 (0.3 - 1.8) | |
| Province 6 and 7 | 1.1 (0.5 - 2.3) | |
| Wealth index | ||
| Poor(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Middle | 0.9 (0.5 - 1.6) | |
| Rich | 0.7 (0.2 - 2.0) | |
| Caste | ||
| Brahmin/Chettri-Hill(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Terai caste | 0.9 (0.4 - 2.5) | |
| Janajatis | 0.5 (0.2 - 1.1) | |
| Dalit/Others | 1.0 (0.5 - 2.1) | |
| Women’s age group | ||
| 15-19(Ref.) | 1 | |
| 20-24 | 0.8 (0.4- 1.4) | |
| Women’s education | ||
| No education(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Primary | 2.2* (1.1 - 4.4) | |
| Some secondary | 2.3* (1.0 - 5.2) | |
| SLC and above | 2.4 (0.9 - 6.5) | |
| Women’s working status | ||
| No(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Yes | 1.1 (0.6 - 1.9) | |
| Media Exposure | ||
| Not at all(Ref.) | 1 | |
| At least once a week | 1.1 (0.5 - 2.3) | |
| Less than once a week | 0.7 (0.3 - 1.4) | |
| Husband’s education | ||
| No education(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Primary | 1.4 (0.5-4.4) | |
| Some secondary | 1.5 (0.5 - 5.1) | |
| SLC and above | 1.3 (0.3 - 5.1) | |
| Husband’s working Status | ||
| Did not work | 1 | |
| Agricultural | 4.3 (0.5-36.5) | |
| Non-agricultural | 3.7 (0.5- 28.3) | |
| Manual labor | 3.5 (0.5 – 25.9) | |
| Alcohol consumption by husband | ||
| No(Ref.) | 1 | |
| Yes | 1.3 (0.8 - 2.3) | |
Ref. Reference
** p<0.01, * p<0.05