| Literature DB >> 31312333 |
Ifeyinwa Chizoba Akamike1, Ijeoma Nina Okedo-Alex1, Ugochukwu Chinyem Madubueze1, Chukwuma David Umeokonkwo1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: family planning programmes have helped in increasing the prevalence of contraceptive use and reducing total fertility rate in developing countries from six to three births per woman. However, its uptake is lower in the rural areas compared to urban areas. This study seeks to elucidate the effect of community mobilisation on awareness, approval and use of family planning among women of reproductive age in the rural areas of Ebonyi state, Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Community mobilisation; approval; awareness; family planning; reproductive age; uptake
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31312333 PMCID: PMC6615769 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2019.33.17.17401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in intervention and control arms
| Variable | Intervention n (%) | Control n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15-19 | 4(1.7) | 7(2.9) | ||
| 20-29 | 121(50.0) | 132(54.6) | ||
| 30-39 | 102(42.1) | 91(37.6) | ||
| 40-49 | 15(6.2) | 12(4.9) | ||
| Mean age (mean ±SD) | 29.39±6.1 | 28.36±5.9 | 1.873 | 0.06 |
| Married | 236(97.5) | 239(98.8) | FT | 0.50 |
| Cohabiting | 6(2.5) | 3(1.2) | ||
| No Education | 5(2.0) | 6(2.5) | ||
| Primary education | 41(17.0) | 34(14.1) | 2.2 | 0.5 |
| Secondary education | 147(60.7) | 141(58.2) | ||
| Tertiary education | 49(20.3) | 61(25.2) | ||
| No education | 10 (4.1) | 7 (2.9) | 6.0 | 0.1 |
| Primary Education | 53 (21.9) | 34 (14.1) | ||
| Secondary Education | 104 (43.0) | 116 (47.9) | ||
| Tertiary Education | 75(31.0) | 85 (35.1) |
T-test FT=Fischer Exact test
baseline distribution of the family planning use, approval and counseling among the intervention and control groups
| Variable | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Natural method | 31 (56.4) | 42 (58.3) |
| Modern method | 24 (46.6) | 30 (41.7) |
| Child spacing | 176 (72.2) | 179 (74) |
| Prevents unwanted pregnancy | 134 (55.4) | 149 (61.6) |
| Limits family size | 168 (69.4) | 156 (64.5) |
| Improves mother’s health | 21 (8.7) | 18 (7.4) |
| Improves child’s health | 5 (2.1) | 8 (3.3) |
| Counselled for family planning | ||
| Yes | 185 (76.4) | 213 (88.0) |
| No | 57 (23.6) | 29 (12.0%) |
| Health facility | 161 (66.5) | 185 (76.4) |
| Health worker | 40 (16.5) | 39 (16.1) |
| Church | 35 (14.5) | 23 (9.4) |
| Radio/Television | 1 (0.4) | 11 (4.5) |
within group comparison of awareness, approval and uptake of family planning in the intervention arm
| Variable | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 165(68.2) | 177(87.2) | 23.5(<0.001 |
| No | 77(31.8) | 26(12.8) | |
| Yes | 55(22.7) | 80(39.4) | 14.8(<0.001 |
| No | 187(77.3) | 123(60.6) | |
| Yes | 220(90.9) | 196(97.0) | 7.0(0.008 |
| No | 22(9.1) | 6(3.0) |
Statistical significance
within group comparison of awareness, approval and uptake of family planning in the control arm
| Variable | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 217(89.7) | 190(91.8) | 0.8(0.4) |
| No | 25(10.3) | 17(8.2) | |
| Yes | 72(29.8) | 77(37.2) | 2.9(0.09) |
| No | 170(70.2) | 130(62.8) | |
| Yes | 215(88.8) | 184(88.9) | 0.0(1.0) |
| No | 27(11.2) | 23(11.1) |