International Family Planning Perspectives |
Promoting Sexual Responsibility
Among Young People in Zimbabwe |
| 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. | ||||
| 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. | ||||||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | ||||||||
| 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. | ||||
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents in campaign and comparison sites who were exposed to each campaign component |
 |
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). |
 |
© copyright 2001, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. |