| Literature DB >> 32741343 |
Ketmany Chanthakoumane1, Charlotte Maguet2, Dirk Essink3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of contraception in Lao PDR remains inadequate. In 2017, unmet contraception needs among married women aged 15-49 were 14.3% in Lao PDR overall and 18.6% in the province of Savannakhet. Although the government has a goal to reduce gender inequalities, they still persist in many areas.Entities:
Keywords: Contraceptive methods; LEARN: Sexual Reproductive Health, ANC and Nutrition; contraceptive knowledge; decision making; family planning; gender inequalities
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32741343 PMCID: PMC7480449 DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1777713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Figure 1.Conceptual model used for the research.
Figure 2.Savannakhet province (in red) in Lao PDR. Source: Wikipedia.
Count, frequencies and odds ratio of demographics variables (adjusted for age, district, educational attainment, occupation, and income).
| Variables | N (%) | % using contra-ception within couple | Significance in relation to contraception use | p-value | 95% CI | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | 162 (41.5%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Yes | 228 (58.5%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Total | 390 (100.0%) | ||||||
| Injection | 52 (44.4%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Contraceptive pill | 37 (31.6%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Implant | 10 (8.5%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Female sterilisation | 6 (5.1%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| IUD | 6 (5.1%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Condoms | 5 (4.3%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Natural methods | 4 (3.4%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Male | 200 (50.0%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Female | 200 (50.0%) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Total | 400 (100.0%) | ||||||
| Lao-Tai | 265 (67.1%) | 63.6% | - | - | - | - | |
| Mon-Khmer | 130 (32.9%) | 46.9% | - | - | - | - | |
| Total | 395 (100%) | ||||||
| Buddhism | 261 (65.7%) | 63.2% | - | - | - | - | |
| Spiritualismc and others | 136 (34.3%) | 49.3% | - | - | - | - | |
| Total | 397 (100%) | ||||||
| Outhoumphone (urban) | 200 (50.0%) | 63.5% | 1(ref) | ||||
| Seponh (rural) | 200 (50.0%) | 53.5% | 1.558 | 0.131 | 0.877 | 2.769 | |
| Total | 400 (100%) | ||||||
| 19 and under | 26 (6.5%) | 37.5% | 0.455*** | 0.173 | 1.192 | ||
| 20–24 | 48 (12.0%) | 41.7% | 0.527*** | 0.265 | 1.048 | ||
| 25–34 | 148 (37.0%) | 53.8% | 1 (ref) | 0.000 | |||
| 35–44 | 137 (34.3%) | 73.1% | 2.431*** | 1.411 | 4.186 | ||
| 45 and above | 41 (10.3%) | 59.0% | 1.259*** | 0.583 | 2.716 | ||
| Total | 400 (100%) | ||||||
| No education | 121 (30.3%) | 52.1% | 0.740 | 0.257 | 0.440 | 1.245 | |
| Primary school and higher | 278 (69.7 %) | 61.1% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Total | 399 (100%) | ||||||
| Farmer | 355 (89.6%) | 57.3% | 1(ref) | ||||
| Other | 41 (10.4%) | 69.2% | 1.504 | 0.319 | 0.674 | 3.357 | |
| Total | 396 (100%) | ||||||
| Low (<6 M kip) | 209 (53.0%) | 51.2% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| High (>6 M kip) | 185 (47.0%) | 66.1% | 1.761* | 0.024 | 1.079 | 2.875 | |
| Total | 394 (100%) | ||||||
Contraception use within couple means any partner can be using contraception.
Age, district, educational attainment, occupation, and income were all in the same regression analysis. However, ethnicity and religion were not included in the regression analysis since they were too correlated to the district.
Spiritualism is an overarching term for the several ethnic religions practiced in Lao.
Significant at p value <0.05. **Significant at p value <0.01. ***Significant at p value <0.001
Count, frequencies and odds ratio of gender attitudes and decision making.
| Variables | N (%) | % using contra-ception within couple | Significance in relation to contra-ception use | p-value | 95% CI | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Low | 9 (4.6%) | 44.4% | 1.420 | 0.188 | 10.721 | ||
| Medium | 36 (18.6%) | 68.6% | 2.622 | 0.905 | 7.596 | |||
| High | 149 (76.8%) | 56.6% | 1(ref) | 0.206 | ||||
| Men | Low | 4 (2.0%) | 75.0% | 582,612,039.8 | 0.000 | - | ||
| Medium | 54 (27.1%) | 54.7% | 0.813 | 0.372 | 1.776 | |||
| High | 141 (70.9%) | 59.1% | 1(ref) | 0.874 | ||||
| Low | 13 (3.3%) | 53.8% | 1.576 | 0.352 | 7.067 | |||
| Medium | 90 (22.9%) | 60.2% | 1.107 | 0.618 | 1.984 | |||
| High | 290 (73.8%) | 57.8% | 1(ref) | 0.816 | ||||
| Women | Low | 140 (74.9%) | 60.1% | 1(ref) | 0.954 | |||
| Medium | 44 (23.5%) | 57.1% | 0.873 | 0.364 | 2.095 | |||
| High | 3 (1.6%) | 33.3% | 0.965 | 0.029 | 32.528 | |||
| Men | Low | 146 (75.6%) | 58.0% | 1(ref) | 0.124 | |||
| Medium | 45 (23.3%) | 65.1% | 2.526 | 1.038 | 6.149 | |||
| High | 2 (1.0%) | 0.0% | 0.000 | 0.000 | - | |||
| Low | 286 (75.3%) | 59.1% | 1(ref) | 0.133 | ||||
| Medium | 89 (23.4%) | 61.2% | 1.410 | 0.780 | 2.549 | |||
| High | 5 (1.3%) | 20.0% | 0.149 | 0.11 | 2.006 | |||
| Women | Never | 18 (10.2%) | 70.6% | 1.180 | 0.292 | 4.767 | ||
| In some cases, | 86 (48.9%) | 59.8% | 1(ref) | 0.941 | ||||
| In most cases | 72 (40.9%) | 51.4% | 0.926 | 0.433 | 1.979 | |||
| Men | Never | 27 (13.7%) | 57.7% | 0.798 | 0.305 | 2.086 | ||
| In some cases | 140 (71.1%) | 61.6% | 1(ref) | 0.130 | ||||
| In most cases | 30 (15.2%) | 46.4% | 0.378 | 0.147 | 0.974 | |||
| Never | 45 (12.2%) | 62.8% | 0.926 | 0.443 | 1.937 | |||
| In some cases, | 226 (60.6%) | 60.9% | 1(ref) | 0.450 | ||||
| In most cases | 102 (27.3%) | 50.0% | 0.704 | 0.409 | 1.213 | |||
| Women | Woman involved | 153 (76.9%) | 64.2% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 46 (23.1%) | 39.1% | 0.410* | 0.046 | 0.171 | 0.983 | ||
| Men | Woman involved | 137 (68.5%) | 60.0% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 63 (31.5%) | 55.0% | 0.975 | 0.954 | 0.408 | 2.326 | ||
| Total | Woman involved | 290 (72.7%) | 62.2% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 109 (27.3%) | 48.1% | 0.638 | 0.130 | 0.356 | 1.141 | ||
| Women | No freedom | 159 (83.7%) | 56.8% | 1 (ref) | 0.977 | |||
| Low freedom | 18 (9.5%) | 72.2% | 0.960 | 0.268 | 3.434 | |||
| High freedom | 13 (6.8%) | 61.5% | 0.872 | 0.245 | 3.102 | |||
| Men | No freedom | 159 (79.5%) | 55.8% | 1 (ref) | 0.506 | |||
| Low freedom | 33 (16.5%) | 66.7% | 0.587 | 0.194 | 1.773 | |||
| High freedom | 8 (4.0%) | 75.0% | 0.386 | 0.031 | 4.840 | |||
| Total | No freedom | 318 (81.5%) | 56.3% | 1 (ref) | 0.731 | |||
| Low freedom | 51 (13.1%) | 68.6% | 0.755 | 0.336 | 1.694 | |||
| High freedom | 21 (5.4%) | 66.7% | 0.770 | 0.265 | 2.239 | |||
| Women | Woman involved | 169 (84.5%) | 58.2% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 31 (15.5%) | 60.0% | 1.218 | 0.701 | 0.445 | 3.334 | ||
| Men | Woman involved | 171 (88.1%) | 56.9% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 23 (11.9%) | 63.6% | 1.865 | 0.428 | 0.400 | 8.692 | ||
| Total | Woman involved | 340 (86.3%) | 57.5% | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Woman not involved | 54 (13.7%) | 61.5% | 1.380 | 0.438 | 0.611 | 3.116 | ||
| Women | Woman only | 38 (23.0%) | 76.3% | 1.504 | 0.403 | 0.578 | 3.911 | |
| Couple or other | 127 (77.0%) | 61.8% | 1 (ref) | |||||
| Men | Woman only | 30 (23.4%) | 58.6% | 0.816 | 0.668 | 0.321 | 2.072 | |
| Couple or other | 98 (76.6%) | 61.5% | 1 (ref) | |||||
| Total | Woman only | 68 (23.2%) | 68.7% | 1.052 | 0.876 | 0.556 | 1.992 | |
| Couple or other | 225 (76.8%) | 61.6% | 1 (ref) | |||||
| Women | Often discussed | 127 (63.8%) | 62.6% | 1 (ref) | 0.007 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 43 (21.6%) | 37.2% | 0.511** | 0.180 | 1.450 | |||
| Never discussed | 29 (14.6%) | 71.4% | 3.937** | 1.213 | 12.779 | |||
| Men | Often discussed | 85 (42.5%) | 53.7% | 1 (ref) | 0.189 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 98 (49.0%) | 65.6% | 1.491 | 0.337 | 0.660 | 3.371 | ||
| Never discussed | 17 (8.5%) | 41.2% | 0.495 | 0.283 | 0.137 | 1.785 | ||
| Total | Often discussed | 212 (53.1%) | 59.0% | 1 (ref) | 0.446 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 141 (35.3%) | 56.8% | 1.110 | 0.743 | 0.595 | 2.068 | ||
| Never discussed | 46 (11.5%) | 60.0% | 1.678 | 0.207 | 0.751 | 3.751 | ||
| Women | Often discussed | 109 (55.9%) | 71.4% | 1 (ref) | 0.000 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 29 (14.9%) | 62.1% | 0.911*** | 0.291 | 2.852 | |||
| Never discussed | 57 (29.2%) | 33.9% | 0.167*** | 0.065 | 0.433 | |||
| Men | Often discussed | 44 (22.4%) | 64.3% | 1 (ref) | 0.004 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 103 (52.6%) | 68.6% | 1.055** | 0.397 | 2.806 | |||
| Never discussed | 49 (25.0%) | 31.9% | 0.280** | 0.103 | 0.763 | |||
| Total | Often discussed | 153 (39.1%) | 69.4% | 1 (ref) | 0.000 | |||
| Not very often discussed | 132 (33.8%) | 67.2% | 0.837*** | 0.424 | 1.649 | |||
| Never discussed | 106 (27.1%) | 33.0% | 0.210*** | 0.110 | 0.401 | |||
Gender-linked scale, gender-transcendent scale, and wife battering variable were in the same regression analysis (adjusted for age and income).
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75 and 0.79 for the gender transcendent scale (5 questions) and the gender-linked scale (8 questions) respectively, indicating the adequate reliability of both scales.
Financial decision making, women’s freedom to go outside, decision making on number of children, and decision making on contraception use were in the same regression analysis (adjusted for age and income).
Both variables on communication were in the same regression analysis (adjusted for age and income)
Significant at p value <0.05. **Significant at p value <0.01. ***Significant at p value <0.001.