| Literature DB >> 35698078 |
Tewodros Getinet1, Feiruz Surur2, Balkachew Nigatu2, Alula Meressa3, Yonas Abesha4, Munir Kassa5, Merhawi Gebremedhin6, Delayehu Bekele2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ideation refers to the ideas and views that people hold; it has been identified as an important explanation for differences in contraceptive use within and across countries. This study aimed to identify ideational factors that influence intention to use family planning (FP) methods among women of reproductive age (WRA) in the four emerging regions of Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Confirmatory factor analysis; Ethiopia; Family planning; Ideation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35698078 PMCID: PMC9195192 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01385-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.355
Summary of the sociodemographic variables
| Background characteristics | Study region | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afar (n = 643) | Benishangul-Gumuz (n = 794) | Gambela (n = 752) | Somali (n = 702) | Total (n = 2891) | |
| Residence | |||||
| Urban | 175 (27.2) | 142 (17.9) | 224 (29.8) | 215 (30.6) | 756 (26.2) |
| Rural | 468 (72.8) | 652 (82.1) | 528 (70.2) | 487 (69.4) | 2135 (73.8) |
| Education | |||||
| No education | 504 (78.4) | 305 (38.4) | 219 (29.1) | 497 (70.8) | 1525 (52.7) |
| Primary | 107 (16.6) | 318 (40.1) | 279 (37.1) | 95 (13.5) | 799 (27.6) |
| Secondary | 17 (2.6) | 93 (11.7) | 178 (23.7) | 72 (10.3) | 360 (12.5) |
| Above secondary | 15 (2.3) | 78 (9.8) | 76 (10.1) | 38 (5.4) | 207 (7.2) |
| Average age, in years (SD) | 27.2 (6.66) | 27.5 (8.17) | 25.04 (7.24) | 27.16 (7.30) | 26.85 (7.50) |
| Partner’s education | |||||
| No education | 414 (64.4) | 207 (26.1) | 170 (22.6) | 359 (51.1) | 1150 (39.8) |
| Primary | 77 (12) | 238 (30) | 113 (15) | 36 (5.1) | 464 (16.1) |
| Secondary | 27 (4.2) | 97 (12.2) | 125 (16.6) | 57 (8.1) | 306 (10.6) |
| Above secondary | 28 (4.4) | 94 (11.8) | 181 (24.1) | 53 (7.5) | 356 (12.3) |
| Not applicable | 97 (15.1) | 158 (19.9) | 163 (21.7) | 197 (28.1) | 615 (21.3) |
| Marital status | |||||
| Never married | 142 (22.1) | 102 (12.8) | 140 (18.6) | 148 (21.1) | 532 (18.4) |
| Married/cohabited | 478 (74.3) | 636 (80.1) | 591 (78.6) | 506 (72.1) | 2211 (76.5) |
| Divorced//widowed | 23 (3.6) | 56 (7.1) | 21 (2.8) | 48 (6.8) | 148 (5.1) |
| Exposure to radio or TV | |||||
| Yes | 253 (39.3) | 322 (40.6) | 152 (20.2) | 250 (35.6) | 977 (33.8) |
| No | 390 (60.7) | 472 (59.4) | 600 (79.8) | 452 (64.4) | 1914 (66.2) |
| Family income | |||||
| Lowest | 154 (24.0) | 159 (20.0) | 156 (20.7) | 227 (32.3) | 696 (24.1) |
| Second | 109 (17.0) | 194 (24.4) | 148 (19.7) | 110 (15.7) | 561 (19.4) |
| Middle | 137 (21.3) | 185 (23.3) | 198 (26.3) | 98 (14.0) | 618 (21.4) |
| Fourth | 122 (19.0) | 101 (12.7) | 112 (14.9) | 138 (19.7) | 473 (16.4) |
| Higher | 121 (18.8) | 155 (19.5) | 138 (18.4) | 129 (18.4) | 543 (18.8) |
| Religion | |||||
| Muslim | 622 (96.7) | 387 (48.7) | 26 (3.5) | 678 (96.6) | 1713 (59.3) |
Protestant Orthodox Catholic Other | 2 (0.3) 19 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) | 106 (13.4) 276 (34.8) 5 (0.6) 20 (2.5) | 598 (79.5) 80 (10.6) 14 (1.9) 34 (4.5) | 2 (0.3) 21 (3) 1 (.1) 0 (0) | 708 (24.5) 396 (13.7) 20 (0.7) 54 (1.9) |
| Attend religious services | |||||
| At least once a day | 323 (50.2) | 93 (11.7) | 240 (31.9) | 104 (14.8) | 760 (26.3) |
| At least once a week | 167 (25.9) | 557 (70.2) | 443 (58.9) | 385 (54.8) | 1552 (53.7) |
| At least once a month | 59 (9.2) | 30 (3.8) | 55 (7.3) | 111 (15.8) | 255 (8.8) |
| Never/few times a year | 94 (14.6) | 114 (14.4) | 14 (1.9) | 102 (14.5) | 324 (11.2) |
| Employment status | |||||
Housewife Pastoralist Farmer Student House maid Private business Employed Daily laborer | 450 (70.2) 153 (23.9) 12 (1.9) 36 (5.6) 0 (0.0) 28 (4.4) 30 (4.7) 2 (0.3) | 324 (41.0) 8 (1.0) 320 (40.5) 112 (14.2) 4 (0.5) 55 (7.0) 51 (6.5) 2 (0.3) | 393 (52.6) 3 (0.4) 52 (7.0) 281 (37.6) 4 (0.5) 48 (6.4) 82 (11) 7 (0.9) | 478 (68.8) 39 (5.6) 12 (1.7) 74 (10.6) 5 (0.7) 56 (8.1) 36 (5.1) 11 (1.6) | 1645 (51.9) 203 (6.4) 396 (12.5) 503 (15.9) 13 (0.4) 187 (5.9) 199 (6.3)) 22 (0.7) |
| Prior contraceptive use | |||||
Yes No | 109 (16.9) 534 (83.1) | 517 (65.1) 277 (34.9) | 272 (36.2) 480 (63.8) | 111 (15.8) 591 (84.2) | 1009 (34.9) 1882 (65.1) |
| Intend to use | |||||
contraceptives Yes No | 140 (21.8) 503 (78.2) | 595 (74.9) 199 (25.1) | 377 (50.1) 375 (49.9) | 141 (20.1) 561 (79.9) | 1253 (43.3) 1638 (56.7) |
Fig. 1Percentage of women intending to use FP by ideation score, by region. ideation score is calculated out of 41 (representing the 41 ideation items) for each women; the maximum score in Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambela, and Somali is 37, 41, 34, and 35 respectively. Percentage intending to use FP represents the percentage of women in specific ideation score category intending to use FP relative to the total number of women in that specific ideation score category
Findings of CFA; standardized factor loadings and factors reliability measure in the four emerging regions
| Afar | Benishangul-Gumuz | Gambela | Somali | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Factor/items | α | λ | α | λ | α | λ | α | λ |
| Contraception awareness | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.87 | |||||
| 1 | Aware of female sterilization | 0.87 | 0.61 | – | – | ||||
| 2 | Aware of male sterilization | 0.84 | – | – | – | ||||
| 3 | Aware of IUD | 0.77 | – | – | 0.62 | ||||
| 4 | Aware of injectables | – | – | 0.87 | 0.64 | ||||
| 5 | Aware of implants | – | – | 0.80 | 0.79 | ||||
| 6 | Aware of pill | – | – | 0.85 | 0.67 | ||||
| 7 | Aware of male condom | – | 0.61 | 0.93 | 0.77 | ||||
| 8 | Aware of female condom | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.69 | – | ||||
| 9 | Aware of lactation amenorrhea | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 10 | Aware of rhythm | – | 0.66 | – | 0.63 | ||||
| 11 | Aware of withdrawal | 0.71 | 0.65 | – | – | ||||
| 12 | Aware of emergency contraceptive | 0.72 | 0.64 | – | 0.61 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.89 | |||||
| 1 | Perceived self-efficacy for starting a conversation with partner about FP | 0.67 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.78 | ||||
| 2 | Perceived self-efficacy for convincing partner that they should use a FP method | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.80 | ||||
| 3 | Perceived self-efficacy for obtaining a FP method if decided to use one | 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.89 | ||||
| 4 | Perceived self-efficacy for using a FP method even if partner doesn't want you to | 0.69 | – | 0.82 | – | ||||
| 5 | Perceived self-efficacy for using a FP method even if no friend or neighbor uses | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.77 | ||||
| 6 | Perceived self-efficacy for using a FP method even if religious leader did not think she should | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.77 | – | ||||
| 7 | Perceived self-efficacy for getting to a place where contraceptives are provided if needed | 0.77 | 0.70 | 0.89 | 0.71 | ||||
| Rejection of myth and rumor | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.92 | |||||
| 1 | Disagreed that use of contraceptive injection can make a woman sterile | 0.70 | – | – | 0.77 | ||||
| 2 | Disagreed that people who use contraception end up with health problems | 0.79 | – | 0.80 | 0.81 | ||||
| 3 | Disagreed that contraceptives can harm your womb | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.85 | ||||
| 4 | Disagreed that contraceptives reduce women's sexual urge | 0.85 | 0.68 | 0.82 | 0.71 | ||||
| 5 | Disagreed that contraceptives can cause cancer | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.87 | 0.80 | ||||
| 6 | Disagreed that contraceptives can give you deformed babies | – | – | 0.87 | 0.70 | ||||
| 7 | Disagreed that contraceptives are dangerous to your health | – | – | 0.72 | 0.81 | ||||
| 8 | Disagreed that women who use FP may become promiscuous | – | – | – | 0.64 | ||||
| 9 | Disagreed that women who cook cannot use FP | – | – | 0.71 | 0.68 | ||||
| 10 | Disagreed that women who do not get enough nutrition should not use FP | 0.61 | – | 0.64 | – | ||||
| Intra-family discussion | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.74 | |||||
| 1 | Discussed FP with mother | 0.65 | – | 0.77 | – | ||||
| 2 | Discussed FP with mother-in-law | 0.68 | 0.68 | – | 0.78 | ||||
| 3 | Discussed FP with aunt | 0.74 | – | 0.72 | – | ||||
| 4 | Discussed FP with sister | 0.73 | – | – | – | ||||
| 5 | Discussed FP with sister-in-law | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.77 | ||||
| 6 | Discussed FP with father | 0.65 | – | 0.69 | – | ||||
| Family support | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.83 | |||||
| 1 | Perceived that mother would support my use of contraceptives | – | 0.67 | 0.70 | – | ||||
| 2 | Perceived that mother-in-law would support my use of contraceptives | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.86 | ||||
| 3 | Perceived that sister-in-law would support my use of contraceptives | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.88 | ||||
| 4 | Perceived that father would support my use of contraceptives | 0.85 | 0.66 | 0.79 | 0.63 | ||||
| 5 | Perceived that father-in-law would support my use of contraceptives | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.87 | ||||
| 6 | Perceived that religious leader would support my use of contraceptives | – | – | – | – | ||||
Association of ideation and different demographic factors with intention to use contraceptives, multiple binary logistic regression
| Variable | Afar Benishangul-Gumuz | Gambela Somali | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOR | AOR | AOR | AOR | |
| Residence | ||||
| Rural (comparison group) | ||||
| Urban | 3.08* | 0.87 | 0.59 | NS |
| Education | ||||
| No education(comparison group) | ||||
Primary Secondary Above secondary | 1.22* 1.15 3.58* | 1.79* 5.06* 1.29 | 2.26 1.50 0.78 | 1.48 0.77 1.03 |
| Age (years) | ||||
| 15–24 (comparison group) | ||||
25–34 35–49 | 0.76 0.54 | 0.49* 0.13* | 0.97 0.36* | 0.69 0.29* |
| Partner’s education | ||||
| No education (comparison group) | ||||
Primary Secondary Above secondary | 0.56 0.93 0.71 | 1.63 2.73 2.50 | 0.75 1.09 0.87 | 0.31 0.63 0.70 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Never married (comparison group) | ||||
Married/cohabited Divorced/widowed | NS | 0.59 0.60 | NS | NS |
| Exposure to radio or TV | ||||
| No (comparison group) | ||||
| Yes | 1.75 | 0.80 | 1.19 | 1.50 |
| Family income | ||||
| Lowest (comparison group) | ||||
Second Middle Fourth Higher | NS | NS | 0.48 0.39 0.47 0.63 | 1.52 1.53 1.17 0.83 |
| Religion | ||||
| Muslim (comparison group) | ||||
| Non-Muslim | 3.28 | NS | 1.21 | 3.33 |
| Attend on religious services | ||||
| At least once a day (comparison group) | ||||
At least once a week At least once a month Never/few times a year | 1.23 0.88 0.57 | 1.91 2.19 2.79* | 1.85* 1.15 1.86 | 2.03 1.37 1.61 |
| Employment status | ||||
| House wife(comparison group) | ||||
Pastoralist Farmer Employed Other | NS | 0.97 0.92 0.66 0.50 | NS | 0.26 0.24 0.61 0.47 |
| Prior contraceptive use | ||||
| Yes (comparison group) | ||||
| No | 0.29* | 0.59 | 0.18* | 0.07* |
| No. of children | ||||
| Zero (comparison group) | ||||
1–2 3–4 | 0.43 0.32* 0.29* | 3.07* 3.13* 6.24* | 0.32* 0.31* 0.15* | 1.79 1.35 2.24 |
| Ideational factors | ||||
| Contraception awareness | 6.06* | 1.22 | 1.88 | 4.22 |
| Self-efficacy | 3.85* | 4.76* | 6.25* | 3.45* |
| Rejection of myth and rumor | 2.34* | 2.83* | 2.0* | 1.13 |
| Intra-family discussion | 1.42 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 1.66 |
| Family support | 1.54* | 0.96 | 1.28 | 1.39 |
NS not selected by the simple binary logistic regression, AOR adjusted odds ratio
*p-value < 0.05