Beniamino Cislaghi1, Mazeda Hossain1,2, Leah Kenny3,4, Rahma Hassan5, Loraine J Bacchus1, Matthew Smith6, Bettina Shell-Duncan7, Nana Apenem Dagadu8, Angela Muriuki9, Abdullahi Hussein Aden9, Ibrahim Abdirizak Jelle9. 1. Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Saint Pancras, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. 2. Centre for Women, Peace & Security, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. 3. Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Saint Pancras, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. l.j.kenny@lse.ac.uk. 4. Centre for Women, Peace & Security, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. l.j.kenny@lse.ac.uk. 5. Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi, 4 Harry Thuku Rd, Nairobi, Kenya. 6. The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, UK. 7. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, 314 Denny Hall, Box 353100, Seattle, WA, 98195-3100, USA. 8. Save the Children US, 899 North Capitol St NE, Suite 900, Washington, DC, 20002, USA. 9. Save the Children Kenya, Matundu Close, Off School Lane, Westlands, P.O. Box 39664-00623, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no studies exist on the influence of nomadic pastoralist women's networks on their reproductive and sexual health (RSH), including uptake of modern family planning (FP). METHODS: Using name generator questions, we carried out qualitative egocentric social network analysis (SNA) to explore the networks of four women. Networks were analyzed in R, visuals created in Visone and a framework approach used for the qualitative data. RESULTS: Women named 10-12 individuals. Husbands were key in RSH decisions and never supported modern FP use. Women were unsure who supported their use of modern FP and we found evidence for a norm against it within their networks. CONCLUSIONS: Egocentric SNA proves valuable to exploring RSH reference groups, particularly where there exists little prior research. Pastoralist women's networks likely change as a result of migration and conflict; however, husbands make RSH decisions and mothers and female neighbors provide key support in broader RSH issues. Interventions to increase awareness of modern FP should engage with women's wider networks.
BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no studies exist on the influence of nomadic pastoralist women's networks on their reproductive and sexual health (RSH), including uptake of modern family planning (FP). METHODS: Using name generator questions, we carried out qualitative egocentric social network analysis (SNA) to explore the networks of four women. Networks were analyzed in R, visuals created in Visone and a framework approach used for the qualitative data. RESULTS:Women named 10-12 individuals. Husbands were key in RSH decisions and never supported modern FP use. Women were unsure who supported their use of modern FP and we found evidence for a norm against it within their networks. CONCLUSIONS: Egocentric SNA proves valuable to exploring RSH reference groups, particularly where there exists little prior research. Pastoralist women's networks likely change as a result of migration and conflict; however, husbands make RSH decisions and mothers and female neighbors provide key support in broader RSH issues. Interventions to increase awareness of modern FP should engage with women's wider networks.
Entities:
Keywords:
Family planning; Nomadic pastoralist; Reproductive health; Social network; Social norms