| Literature DB >> 33962591 |
Lucy Nyundo1, Maxine Whittaker2, Lynne Eagle3, David R Low4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The significant contribution of community-based distribution (CBD) of family planning services and contraceptives to the uptake of contraceptives in hard-to-reach communities has resulted in the scaling-up of this approach in many Sub-Saharan countries. However, contextual factors need to be taken into consideration. For example, social network influence (e.g. spouse/partner, in-laws, and parents) on fertility decisions in many African and Asian societies is inevitable because of the social organisational structures. Hence the need to adapt CBD strategies to the social network context of a given society.Entities:
Keywords: Community-based distribution; Fertility decisions; Pre-marital Counselling; Social networks
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33962591 PMCID: PMC8106238 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06422-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Health facilities from which data for the study was collected, Lusaka district, Zambia 2019
| Data collection point | Catchment area | No. of respondents | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chilenje Hospital | Urban-Middle income | 37 (excluding pilot) | Public |
| Bauleni Hospital | Peri-urban | 37 | Public |
| UNHCR Clinic | Peri-urban | 38 | Public |
| Medcross Hospital | Urban- High Income | 38 | Private |
Profile of respondents who took part in the study, Lusaka district, Zambia, 2019
| Factor | Gender | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percent | ||||
| Age | 15–20 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3% |
| 21–29 | 35 | 10 | 45 | 30% | |
| 30–39 | 39 | 9 | 48 | 32% | |
| 40–49 | 19 | 11 | 30 | 20% | |
| 50–59 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 9% | |
| 60+ | 9 | 0 | 9 | 6% | |
| Highest level of education attended | Never been to school | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2% |
| Primary | 38 | 3 | 41 | 28% | |
| Secondary | 49 | 16 | 65 | 44% | |
| Tertiary (College & University) | 28 | 12 | 40 | 27% | |
| Residential area | Urban High Income | 14 | 1 | 15 | 10% |
| Urban Middle Income | 25 | 4 | 29 | 19% | |
| Peri-urban | 54 | 16 | 70 | 47% | |
| Urban- Mixed income | 25 | 10 | 35 | 23% | |
| Relationship status | Engaged | 6 | 5 | 11 | 7% |
| Married (Civil, religious, customary) | 90 | 24 | 114 | 77% | |
| Previously married (divorced/widowed | 22 | 2 | 24 | 16% | |
| Tribe | Bemba | 21 | 6 | 27 | 18% |
| Chewa | 12 | 4 | 16 | 11% | |
| Kaonde | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2% | |
| Lozi | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3% | |
| Lunda | 5 | 1 | 6 | 4% | |
| Luvale | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3% | |
| Ngoni | 10 | 2 | 12 | 8% | |
| Tonga | 10 | 6 | 16 | 11% | |
| Other tribes | 50 | 10 | 60 | 40% | |
| Church denomination | Pentecost | 43 | 8 | 51 | 34% |
| Catholic | 21 | 7 | 28 | 19% | |
| Seventh day Adventist | 13 | 7 | 20 | 13% | |
| United Church of Zambia (UCZ) | 12 | 3 | 15 | 10% | |
| Jehovah’s Witness | 9 | 0 | 9 | 6% | |
| New Apostolic | 6 | 2 | 8 | 5% | |
| Other (e.g. Anglican, Baptist) | 14 | 4 | 18 | 12% | |
| Type of pre-MC undertaken | Religious | 6 | 4 | 10 | 7% |
| Traditional | 61 | 12 | 73 | 49% | |
| Both | 13 | 10 | 56 | 38% | |
| Other (e.g. Commercial) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1% | |
| None | 4 | 5 | 9 | 6% | |
Thematic analysis on topics covered during pre-MC, Lusaka district, Zambia 2019
| Theme | Verbatim examples |
|---|---|
e.g. Love and care, respect, communication, problem resolution, faithfulness and forgiveness. | |
e.g. Sexual relationship, personal grooming and confidentiality. | … … … |
e.g. House chores, income (upkeep), budgeting and raising children | … |
e.g. Behaviour and company, respect and support extended family. | … |
e.g. Submission, humility, obedience, leadership and authority. | … … … |
e.g. Births spacing, Family size and FP Methods | … |
Scale reliability test for the study, Lusaka district, Zambia, 2019
| Construct | Cronbach’s Alpha | Mean inter-correlation | No. of Items |
|---|---|---|---|
| Husband-wife relationship | 0.613 | 0.288 | 4 |
| Fertility decisions | 0.514 | 0.351 | 2 |
Fisher’s exact test results on the influence of pre-MC, Lusaka district, Zambia, 2019
| Element | Type of pre -MC | Family size decision | Contraceptive decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual Relationship | 0.000 | 0.034 | |
| Communication | 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.001 |
| Roles & Responsibilities | 0.000 | 0.024 | |
| Leadership & Authority | 0.001 | 0.008 |
Fig. 1Model for the influence of pre-MC on fertility decisions based on study results, Lusaka district, Zambia, 2019. Power and marital dynamics may vary from one couple to another and from one society to another. Factors that shape the power and marital dynamics