| Literature DB >> 32110609 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Population explosion has been India's major problem since independence. It is a major obstacle to the overall progress of the nation. Adoption of family planning methods is one of the best solutions to tackle this problem. The roots of the factors influencing family planning issues are entrenched in the socio-cultural milieu of Indian society. Uttar Pradesh is the most populated state of the country having population of 199.581 million and TFR of 3.3 (AHS 2012-2013) with high fertile trajectory. Among the family planning methods currently, male sterilization accounts for only 0.3% of all sterilizations in Uttar Pradesh (AHS 2012-2013). A strategy to promote men's involvement in effective birth control is needed to reduce the population growth. The aim of this study is: i) To access the perception of married males towards family planning. ii) To access knowledge about NSV iii) enumerate the causes for low acceptance of NSV.Entities:
Keywords: Family planning; NSV; perception
Year: 2020 PMID: 32110609 PMCID: PMC7014894 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_779_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Figure 1Socio cultural factors
Socio-demographic correlates of use of family planning methods
| Bio-social Characteristics | Current user (%) ( | Non users (%) ( | Total (%) ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group (years) | ||||
| 20-25 | 0 (0.0) [0.0] | 3 (100.0) [1.0] | 03 [0.8] | 0.785 |
| 26-30 | 7 (23.3) [8.9] | 23 (76.7) [7.6] | 30 [7.9] | |
| 31-35 | 26 (21.5) [32.9] | 95 (78.5) [31.5] | 121 [31.8] | |
| 36-40 | 41 (21.2) [51.9] | 152 (78.8) [50.3] | 193 [50.7] | |
| 41-45 | 05 (14.7) [6.3] | 29 (85.3) [9.6] | 34 [8.9] | |
| Religion | ||||
| Hindu | 65 (20.4) [82.3] | 253 (79.6) [83.0] | 318 [82.8] | 0.888 |
| Muslim | 14 (21.2) [17.7] | 52 (78.8) [17.0] | 66 [17.2] | |
| Social group | ||||
| OBC | 43 (20.1) [54.4] | 171 (79.9) [56.1] | 214 [55.7] | 0.893 |
| SC/ST | 21 (20.2) [26.6] | 83 (79.8) [27.2] | 104 [27.1] | |
| Unreserved | 15 (22.7) [19.0] | 51 (77.3) [16.7] | 66 [17.2] | |
| Educational status | ||||
| Above middle school | 45 (25.0) [57.0] | 135 (75.0) [44.3] | 180 [46.9] | |
| Below middle school | 34 (16.7) [43.0] | 170 (83.3) [55.7] | 204 [53.1] | |
| Respondent’s occupation | ||||
| Above clerk | 31 (23.7) [39.2] | 100 (76.3) [32.8] | 131 [34.1] | 0.082 |
| Skilled/semi skilled | 33 (23.4) [41.8) | 108 (76.6) [35.4] | 141 [36.7] | |
| Unemployed | 15 (13.4) [19.0] | 97 (86.6) [31.8] | 112 [29.2] | |
| Socio-economic status * | ||||
| Upper | 42 (17.0) [53.2] | 205 (83.0) [67.2] | 247 [64.3] | |
| Lower | 37 (27.0) [46.8] | 100 (73.0) [32.8] | 137 [35.7] |
*upper socioeconomic status includes (upper lower + upper middle) (Row%) [Column%]. Lower socioeconomic status includes (lower + lower middle)
Perception of Most Effective Family Planning Method with Current Utilization
| Most effective Family planning method | Number ( | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Spacing methods | ||
| Condom | 37 | 9.6 |
| Oral Contraceptive pills | 55 | 14.3 |
| Copper T (Intrauterine device) | 37 | 9.6 |
| Injectable | 12 | 3.1 |
| Terminal methods | ||
| No Scalpel Vasectomy | 06 | 1.6 |
| Female Sterilization Technique | 203 | 52.9 |
| Traditional methods | ||
| Self-control | 19 | 4.9 |
| None | 15 | 3.9 |
| Current users | ||
| Yes | 117 | 30.46 |
| No | 267 | 69.5 |
| Method currently used ( | ||
| Condom | 23 | 19.7 |
| Intra uterine devices | 32 | 27.4 |
| Contraceptive pill | 13 | 11.1 |
| Injectables | 11 | 9.4 |
| Terminal methods | ||
| Female Sterilization Technique | 32 | 27.4 |
| No Scalpel Vasectomy | 06 | 5.1 |
| Source of Motivation ( | ||
| Husband/wife | 19 | 16.2 |
| Drugstore/Chemist | 02 | 1.7 |
| Relative/friends | 30 | 25.6 |
| Government hospital | 11 | 9.4 |
| Community Mobilizer | 24 | 20.5 |
| Media (Radio/TV/Newspaper) | 04 | 3.4 |
| Private Hospital/Doctor | 27 | 23.1 |
Figure 2Distribution of Nagar Nigam zones
Figure 3Knowledge of NSV
Multivariate regression analysis showing predictors of Socio cultural causes
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Confidence interval (95%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | |||||
| Unadjusted Odds Ratio | Adjusted Odds Ratio | Lower | Upper | |||
| Educational status | ||||||
| Above middle school | 0.405 | 0.044 | 0.300 | 0.118 | 0.763 | |
| Up to middle school | 0.336 | 0.020 | 0.302 | 0.116 | 0.788 | |
| Illiterate | Reference | |||||
| Knew the term Nasbandi | ||||||
| Yes | 2.690 | 0.023 | - | - | - | - |
| No | Reference | |||||
| OPD visits | ||||||
| One | 4.937 | 0.001 | - | - | - | - |
| More than one | 2.304 | 0.122 | - | - | - | - |
| Don’t know | Reference | |||||