International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 27, Number 1 March 2001

 

Promoting Sexual Responsibility Among Young People in Zimbabwe
TABLES

Table 1. Percentage distribution of respondents to baseline and follow-up surveys, by selected characteristics, according to study site, Zimbabwe, 1997-1998
Characteristic Campaign Comparison
Baseline Follow-up Baseline Follow-up
(N=973) (N=1,000) (N=453) (N=400)
Sex
Female 50.1 49.8 50.0 49.5
Male 49.9 50.2 50.0 50.5
Age†,‡
10-14 33.0 21.9 19.7 23.8
15-19 45.3 54.3 49.8 54.0
20-24 21.7 23.8 30.5 22.3
Residence
Urban 20.4 20.0 50.8 50.0
Rural 79.6 80.0 49.2 50.0
Education‡,§
None 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8
Primary 39.2 28.3 31.5 28.5
Secondary 60.5 71.5 68.1 70.5
University 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3
School attendance
Student 64.7 58.4 48.6 57.3
Working/unemployed 35.3 41.6 51.4 42.7
Marital status†
Single 93.1 90.9 81.6 88.5
Married/other 6.9 9.1 18.4 11.5
Sexual experience†,‡,††
No 79.2 65.6 70.4 69.8
Yes 20.8 34.4 29.6 30.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
†Difference between campaign and comparison data at baseline is statistically significant at p<.001.‡Difference between baseline and follow-up data in campaign area is statistically significant at p<.001. §Difference between campaign and comparison data at baseline is statistically significant at p<.05. ††Difference between baseline and follow-up data in comparison area is statistically significant at p<.05.

back to text


Table 2. Percentage of respondents in baseline and follow-up surveys who knew of specific family planning methods, percentage who correctly answered questions about reproductive health and odds ratios from multiple regression analysis indicating the likelihood of knowledge or a correct response, by study site
Type of knowledge Campaign Comparison
Baseline Followup Odds ratio Baseline Followup Odds ratio
Know method
Condoms 84.3 96.7 4.3*** 94.9 96.5 1.9
Pills 69.9 89.1 2.9*** 83.0 87.5 1.9***
Injectable 36.5 57.1 2.3*** 46.2 49.8 1.5*
Female sterilization 32.5 50.0 1.9*** 42.9 40.5 1.1
IUD 30.0 47.0 2.1*** 41.2 41.3 1.2
Male sterilization 29.0 42.3 1.7*** 35.4 31.0 0.9
Female condom 25.4 68.2 8.2*** 29.4 60.0 5.3***
Implant 15.2 19.3 1.2 10.6 21.1 2.5***
Correctly answer
Can a woman can get pregnant the first time she has sex? 62.5 70.1 1.2 67.8 68.5 1.1
Can family planning methods cause deformities? 48.1 54.3 1.2* 55.4 54.8 1.0
Can family planning cause infertility? 37.8 42.3 1.2 47.9 38.5 0.7*
Can a healthy-looking person have HIV? 78.1 84.0 1.2 79.7 87.5 1.9***
Can you get HIV the first time you have sex? 70.2 73.8 1.0 68.9 64.8 0.8
Do condoms have small holes that allow HIV to pass through? 46.9 48.2 1.0 46.8 51.8 1.2
*p<.05. ***p<.001. Notes: Knowledge of methods includes spontaneous and prompted knowledge. Regression analysis controlled for respondents' age, sex, education, sexual experience, marital status and urban-rural residence.

back to text


Table 3. Percentage of respondents who reported taking action as a result of exposure to the youth campaign, by study site, and odds ratios from multiple regression analysis indicating the likelihood of taking action
Action Campaign Comparison Odds ratio
ALL RESPONDENTS (N=970) (N=294)
Had discussion 79.8 20.2 5.6***
With friends 72.0 32.7 5.7***
With siblings 48.9 20.1 3.8***
With parents 44.0 15.3 4.3***
With teachers 34.2 14.0 3.5***
With partner 27.8 12.6 3.8***
Adopted safer sexual behavior 63.9 37.8 2.9***
Said no to sex 52.7 31.6 2.5***
Continued abstinence 31.5 22.3 1.2***
Avoided "sugar daddy" 11.0 9.1 1.1***
Sought services 33.5 9.5 7.6***
At health center 28.2 9.5 4.7***
At youth center 10.8 1.7 14.0***
RESPONDENTS WITH SEXUAL EXPERIENCE (N=334) (N=99)
Took any action 41.3 10.1 8.8***
Stopped having sex 12.6 5.1 2.1
Stuck to one partner 20.4 2.0 26.1***
Started to use condoms 10.5 2.0 5.7*
Asked partner to use condom 1.5 1.0 1.5
*p<.05. ***p<.001. Note: Regression analysis controlled for respondents' age, sex, education, sexual experience, marital status and urban-rural residence.

back to text


Table 4. Odds ratios from multivariate analyses indicating the likelihood of taking action as a result of exposure to individual campaign components, by component, campaign and comparison sites combined (N=1,263)
Action Posters Launch events Leaflets Dramas News-letter Radio program Peer educator Hot line
Had discussion
With friends 1.6** 2.7*** 1.9*** 1.7*** 1.5* 1.2 0.8 1.7
With siblings 1.4 2.3*** 1.5** 1.6*** 1.3 1.6** 1.0 1.6
With parents 1.4 2.4*** 1.7*** 1.4* 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.5
With teachers 1.6* 1.5* 1.6** 1.2 1.5* 1.4 1.0 1.6
With partner 1.2 2.0*** 1.6** 1.5** 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.9*
Adopted safer sexual behavior
Said no to sex 1.2 1.8*** 1.6*** 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.7 1.5
Continued abstinence 1.8** 1.4* 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0
Avoided "sugar daddy" 2.7 35.9*** 0.3*** 0.4** 2.5** 1.4 0.4 1.7
Sought services
At health center 1.6 2.1*** 1.6** 1.8*** 1.0 0.6* 1.0 2.5***
At youth center 2.1 2.5*** 1.9* 1.2 2.0** 1.9** 1.5 1.2
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Notes: Regression analysis controlled for respondents' age, sex, education, sexual experience, marital status and urban-rural residence. One respondent was dropped from analysis because of missing data.

back to text


Table 5. Percentage of respondents who reported taking action as a result of the youth campaign, by number of components seen or heard, and odds ratio from multiple regression analysis indicating the effect of intensity of exposure, according to action
Action No. of components Odds ratio
1-2 3-4 5-8
(N=440) (N=476) (N=214)
Had discussion
With friends 48.2 75.8 84.1 1.7***
With siblings 28.4 52.6 60.8 1.5***
With parents 25.9 47.2 51.9 1.4***
With teachers 21.1 34.4 42.3 1.4***
With partner 17.3 29.1 36.5 1.4***
Adopted safer sexual behavior
Said no to sex 37.5 55.9 59.1 1.3***
Continued abstinence 22.3 31.1 36.9 1.2***
Avoided "sugar daddy" 9.1 9.9 7.0 1.1
Sought services
At health center 17.5 30.3 33.6 1.3***
At youth center 5.0 12.3 17.8 1.6***
***p<.001. Note: Regression analysis controlled for respondents' age, sex, education, sexual experience, marital status and urban-rural residence.

back to text



Figure 1. Percentage of respondents in campaign and comparison sites who were exposed to each campaign component

fig.1

Notes:
For each component, the difference between the campaign and comparison sites is statistecally significant at p<=.001 (calculated by multiple regression analysis controlling for respondents', age, sex, education, sexual experience, marital status and urban-rural residence).

back to text


© copyright 2001, The Alan Guttmacher Institute.