| Literature DB >> 34112194 |
Oumer Abdulkadir Ebrahim1, Ejigu Gebeye Zeleke2, Atalay Goshu Muluneh3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High fertility rates and unintended pregnancies are public health concerns of lower and middle income countries such as Ethiopia. Long acting contraceptives (LACs) take the lion's share in reducing unintended pregnancies and high fertility rates. Despite their numerous advantages, the utilization of LACs remains low in Ethiopia. This study is aimed to explore the geographic variation and associated factors of long acting contraceptive use among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Ethiopia; Geographic variation; Long-acting contraceptive
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34112194 PMCID: PMC8194103 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-021-01171-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Fig. 1The flowchart for sampling and data extraction procedure, Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey 2016. The horizontal arrow shows the excluded study participants from the surveyed households. More detail of the survey data collection method and study setting is available from EDHS 2016 report [12]
Individual and house hold level characteristics of respondents in Ethiopia, 2016 (N = 10,439)
| Variable | Frequency (N) | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age of respondents | ||
| 15–24 | 2797 | 26.79 |
| 25–34 | 4682 | 44.86 |
| 35–49 | 2960 | 28.36 |
| Working status of women | ||
| Not working | 6993 | 66.99 |
| Working | 3446 | 33.01 |
| Marital status | ||
| Never married | 387 | 3.70 |
| Married | 9110 | 87.27 |
| Formerly married | 942 | 9.02 |
| Wealth index | ||
| Poorest | 1985 | 19.02 |
| Poorer | 2024 | 19.39 |
| Middle | 2075 | 19.87 |
| Richer | 1976 | 18.93 |
| Richest | 2379 | 22.79 |
| Educational status | ||
| No education | 5982 | 57.30 |
| Primary | 3150 | 30.17 |
| Secondary and above | 1307 | 12.52 |
| Number of living children | ||
| No children | 1347 | 12.90 |
| Have 1–2 | 3400 | 32.57 |
| Have 3–4 | 2695 | 25.81 |
| Have > 4 | 2997 | 28.71 |
| Terminated pregnancy | ||
| No | 9432 | 90.35 |
| Yes | 1007 | 9.65 |
| Visited HF in the last 12 month | ||
| No | 5226 | 50.06 |
| Yes | 5213 | 49.94 |
| Fertility preference | ||
| Want another | 6106 | 58.49 |
| Undecided | 588 | 5.64 |
| Want no more | 3745 | 35.87 |
| Age at first sex | ||
| ≤ 18 | 8054 | 77.15 |
| > 18 | 2385 | 22.85 |
| Age at first birth | ||
| ≤ 20 | 6772 | 73.90 |
| > 20 | 2392 | 26.10 |
| Media exposure | ||
| No | 7991 | 76.55 |
| Yes | 2448 | 23.45 |
| Source of contraceptives | ||
| Government | 3225 | 30.94 |
| Non-governmental organization | 49 | 0.47 |
| Private | 595 | 5.71 |
| Don’t know | 6555 | 62.88 |
| Distance to health facility | ||
| Not a big problem | 4924 | 47.21 |
| A big problem | 5510 | 52.79 |
| Visited by HEW in the last 12 month | ||
| No | 7360 | 70.50 |
| Yes | 3079 | 29.50 |
Community level characteristics’ of the respondents in Ethiopia, 2016 (N = 10,439)
| Variable | Weighted frequency(N) | Weighted percent (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Residence | ||
| Urban | 1943 | 18.62 |
| Rural | 8496 | 81.38 |
| Contextual region | ||
| Agrarian | 9345 | 89.53 |
| Pastoral | 522 | 5.00 |
| Urban | 572 | 5.47 |
| Community level media exposure | ||
| High media exposure | 4358 | 41.75 |
| Low media exposure | 6081 | 58.25 |
Measurement of some variables
| Variable | Measurements/definitions |
|---|---|
| Long acting contraceptive users | Women who were used one of the long acting contraceptive methods: Intrauterine device, Implant and Female sterilization considered as LACs user |
| Distance to health facility | Distance to health facility was measured as yes/no. As distance to a health facility was a big problem or not based on respondents subjective response |
| Community level media Exposure | Aggregated at the cluster level. Those clusters with above the median of the population were exposed to family planning message on media were considered as high media exposure |
Fig. 2Spatial auto correlation analysis of long acting contraceptive utilization in Ethiopia, 2016
Fig. 3Hot Spot identification of long acting contraceptive utilization across regions in Ethiopia, 2016
Fig. 4Kriging interpolation of LACs utilization across regions in Ethiopia, 2016
Fig. 5Spatial scan analysis to detect most likely clusters of long acting contraceptive utilization
Multilevel mixed effect logistic regression analysis of individual and community level factors associated with LACs utilization among reproductive age women in Ethiopia, 2016
| Characteristics fixed effect | Model I | Model II AOR (95% CI) | Model III AOR (95% CI) | Model IV AOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of respondent | ||||
| 15–24 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 25–34 | 1.30 (0.98–1.75) | 1.22 (0.91–1.63) | ||
| 35–49 | 1.12 (0.80–1.58) | 1.00 (0.70–1.42) | ||
| Marital status | ||||
| Never married | 1 | 1 | ||
| Married | 2.19 (1.12–4.29) | 2.50 (1.29–4.85)** | ||
| Formerly married | 1.45 (0.66–3.19) | 1.60 (0.73–3.51) | ||
| Wealth index | ||||
| Poorest | 1 | 1 | ||
| Poorer | 1.48 (1.01–2.18) | 1.34 (0.92–1.97) | ||
| Middle | 1.47 (0.98–2.20) | 1.30 (0.86–1.96) | ||
| Richer | 1.33 (0.88–1.99) | 1.14 (0.75–1.72) | ||
| Richest | 1.66 (1.03–2.66) | 1.06 (0.60–1.87) | ||
| Educational Status | ||||
| No education | 1 | 1 | ||
| Primary | 0.80 (0.61–1.05) | 0.76 (0.58–1.00) | ||
| Secondary and above | 1.00 (0.68–1.47) | 0.88 (1.09–1.84) | ||
| Working status | ||||
| Not working | 1 | 1 | ||
| Working | 1.36 (1.09–1.69) | 1.33(1.07–1.65)* | ||
| Number of living children | ||||
| Have no children | 1 | 1 | ||
| Have 1–2 | 2.11 (1.41–3.17) | 2.13 (1.42–3.20)** | ||
| Have 3–4 | 1.60 (0.98–2.62) | 1.66 (1.01–2.73)* | ||
| Have > 4 | 1.45 (0.83–2.53) | 1.62 (0.92–2.85) | ||
| Fertility preference | ||||
| Want another | 1 | 1 | ||
| Undecided | 0.81 (0.48–1.37) | 0.80 (0.48–1.35) | ||
| Want no more | 1.47 (1.14–1.91) | 1.42 (1.09–1.84)* | ||
| Terminated pregnancy | ||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 0.57 (0.40–0.82) | 0.56 (0.39–0.80)** | ||
| Distance to HF | ||||
| Not a big problem | 1 | 1 | ||
| A big problem | 0.72 (0.58–0.90) | 0.76 (0.61–0.95)* | ||
| Residence | ||||
| Urban | 1 | 1 | ||
| Rural | 0.71 (0.47–1.08) | 0.65 (0.36–1.19) | ||
| Community media exposure | ||||
| High media exposure | 1 | 1 | ||
| Low media exposure | 0.73 (0.49–1.07) | 0.74(0.50–2.15) | ||
| Contextual region | ||||
| Agrarian | 1 | 1 | ||
| Pastoral | 0.19 (0.12–0.28) | 0.21 (0.13–0.32)** | ||
| Urban | 1.33 (0.98–1.81) | 1.57 (1.15–2.15)** | ||
| Random effect | Model I | Model II | Model III | Model IV |
| Variance | 1.37 | 0.89 | 0.84 | |
| ICC (%) | 29.33 | 21.34 | 20.30 | |
| PCV (%) | Reference | 35.04 | 38.69 | |
| MOR | 3.03 (2.69–3.49) | 2.45 (2.20–2.77) | 2.39 (2.14–2.69) | |
| LLR | − 3070.92 | -2917.21 | − 2961.30 | |
| Deviance | 6141.84 | 5834.42 | 5922.60 | |
Bold indicates the improvement of model diagnosis parametrs in the final model as compared to other models
AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, 1 Reference
*Significance at P < 0.05, **Significance at P < 0.01
Model I: null model, model II: individual level variables, model III: community level variables, model IV: individual and community level variables