Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 27, Number 4, December 2001

 

The Impact of a Regional Family Planning Service Promotion Initiative in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence From Cameroon
TABLES

 
Table 1. Mean values and percentages of study participants, by selected characteristics, according to interview status, Cameroon, 1998-1999
Characteristic Followed up Lost to follow up t- (or z-) statistic p
(N=571) (N=796)    
Mean age (in years) 27.4 27.0 0.874 .382
% residing in rural area 9.5 10.0 -0.363 .716
Mean no. of years of education 7.1 7.3 -0.809 .419
Mean no. of children ever born* 2.7 2.2 3.352 .001
% single* 28.2 34.2 -2.334 .019
% exposed to family planning information on the media during last 12 months 56.4 52.8 1.328 .184
% who knew four or more modern contraceptive methods* 72.8 67.3 2.188 .029
% currently using any contraceptive method 37.1 36.0 0.406 .685
% currently using a modern contraceptive method 15.6 12.3 1.738 .082
*Difference of means or percentages between groups is statistically significant at p=.05.

back to text


 
Table 2. Percentage distribution of study participants and odds ratios showing likelihood of exposure to GO campaign, by social or demographic variable and prior family planning attitudes and practices
Variable % Odds ratio z
SOCIAL/DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Education
None (ref) 18.2 1.00 na
Primary 25.9 4.20*** 3.099
>=secondary 55.9 5.82*** 3.560
Religion
Christian 77.1 0.53 -1.923
Non-Christian (ref) 22.9 1.00 na
Region of residence
Southwest (ref) 18.6 1.00 na
North 27.1 1.60 1.292
West/Littoral 19.3 1.18 0.517
Center 35.0 2.12** 2.589
Age-group
<25 years (ref) 41.3 1.00 na
25-34 28.9 0.77 -1.086
>=35 29.8 0.57* -2.075
Residence status
City/large town 53.1 1.20 -0.871
Small town/village (ref) 46.9 1.00 na
Access to mass media
No. of communication media 1.15 1.44*** 3.496
PRIOR IDEATION & CONTRACEPTIVE USE, 1998
Prior contraceptive use
Modern 15.6 1.70 1.526
Traditional 22.2 1.33 0.883
None, intending to use modern 32.0 1.55 1.518
None, not intending to use modern (ref) 30.2 1.00 na
Prior overall ideation
Mean score 2.31 1.11 1.208
Pseudo-R2 13.99    
Hosmer-Lemeshow X2/prob. 4.53/0.605    
% correctly classified 68.3    
N 571    
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Notes: ref=reference group. na=not applicable.

back to text


 
Table 3. Mean value or percentage of respondents reporting particular behavior, by baseline and follow-up values and percentage change, according to exposure to GO campaign (N=571)
Variable Total Exposed Not exposed
Overall ideation score
Baseline 2.31 2.66 2.11
Follow-up 2.59 3.16 2.27
% change 12.1 18.4 7.5
t 4.606 4.757 2.131
p .0001 .0001 .0338
Mean no. of modern methods known
Baseline 4.72 5.18 4.45
Follow-up 4.74 5.70 4.18
% change 0.4 10.0 -5.8
t 0.284 4.042 -2.63
p .776 .0001 .009
% who approved of family planning
Baseline 70.7 80.0 65.4
Follow-up 72.8 85.7 65.4
% change 3.0 7.1 0.0
z 0.789 1.554 0.000
p .430 .120 1.000
% who discussed family planning with spouse or partner
Baseline 32.7 41.9 27.4
Follow-up 45.2 52.8 40.7
% change 38.2 26.5 48.5
z 4.308 2.248 3.789
p .0001 .0246 .0002
% who discussed family planning with others
Baseline 29.1 35.7 25.2
Follow-up 32.4 43.8 25.7
% change 11.3 22.7 2.0
z 1.219 1.695 0.171
p .223 .090 .864
% whose spouse or partner approves of family planning
Baseline 26.0 28.6 24.9
Follow-up 37.6 45.2 33.2
% change 43.8 58.0 33.3
z 4.125 3.539 2.458
p .0001 .0004 .014

back to text


 
Table 4. Percentage distribution of study participants and regression coefficients estimating the impact of campaign exposure, selected characteristics and prior family planning related attitudes and practices on ideation (N=571)
Independent variable % dist. Model 1† Model 2‡
SOCIAL/DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Education
None (ref) 18.2 0.00 0.00
Primary 25.9 0.74*** 0.49*
>=secondary 55.9 1.24*** 0.83**
Religion
Christian 77.1 0.15 0.24
Non-Christian (ref) 22.9 0.00 0.00
Region of residence
Southwest (ref) 18.6 0.00 0.00
North 27.1 -0.53** -0.66***
West/Littoral 19.3 -0.47** -0.50**
Center 35.0 -0.45** -0.65***
Age-group
<25 years (ref) 41.3 0.00 0.00
25-34 28.9 0.06 0.15
>=35 29.8 0.01 0.15
Residence status
City/large town 53.1 -0.06 -0.07
Small town/village (ref) 46.9 0.00 0.00
Marital status
Single 24.2 -0.78*** -0.74***
Ever-married (ref) 75.8 0.00 0.00
Visited health facility within last 12 months
Yes 73.2 0.33** 0.35**
No (ref) 26.8 0.00 0.00
Exposure to other family planning interventions
Yes 36.1 0.38*** 0.38***
No (ref) 63.9 0.00 0.00
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES, 1998
Prior contraceptive use
Modern 15.6 0.67*** 0.53**
Traditional 22.2 0.62*** 0.54**
None, intending to use modern 32.0 0.44** 0.32*
None, not intending to use modern (ref) 30.2 0.00 0.00
Prior overall ideation
Mean score 2.31 0.27*** 0.23***
PROGRAM EXPOSURE
Exposed to campaign
Yes 36.8 0.27** na
No (ref) 65.2 0.00 na
Predicted campaign exposure na na 1.46*
R2 na .511 .510
Ramsey regression specification error test (RESET) F/Prob>F na 0.76/0.516 0.33/0.806
Mean variance inflation factor na 1.99 2.84
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †Model assumes that campaign exposure is exogenous. ‡Estimated error term from campaign exposure regression is used to test for exogeneity. Notes: ref=reference group. na=not applicable.

back to text


 
Table 5. Percentage of women using modern contraceptives at Waves 1 and 2, and percentage change between waves, by campaign exposure status.
Variable Total Exposed Not exposed
(N=571) (N=210) (N=361)
Wave 1 (1998) 15.6 19.5 13.3
Wave 2 (1999) 18.7 27.1 13.8
% change 20.2 39.0 3.7
z-statistic 1.413 1.846 0.217
p .0789 .0325 .4140

back to text


 
Table 6. Percentage distribution and selected mean values of study participants by selected characteristics, and odds ratios showing likelihood of modern contraceptive use, according to model (N=571)
Characteristic %/mean Odds ratio
Model 1† Model 2‡ Model 3§
IDEATION/PRIOR METHOD USE
Prior contraceptive use
Modern 15.6 5.76*** 5.58*** 7.40***
Traditional 22.2 1.27 1.18 1.48
None, intending to use modern 32.0 1.49 1.46 1.83
None, not intending to use modern (ref) 30.2 1.00 1.00 1.00
Current ideation
Mean 2.6 1.41*** na 1.04
Estimated error na na na 1.41
No. of modern methods known 4.7 na 3.11** na
Approves of family planning
Yes 72.8 na 1.48 na
No (ref) 18.2 na 1.00 na
Partner/spouse approves of family planning
Yes 37.6 na 1.10 na
No (ref) 62.4 na 1.00 na
Discusses family planning with partner/spouse
Yes 45.2 na 1.34 na
No 54.8 na 1.00 na
Discusses family planning with other people
Yes 32.4 na 1.42 na
No 67.6 na 1.00 na
SOCIAL/DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Education
No education (ref) 18.2 1.00 1.00 1.00
Primary 25.9 0.87 0.85 1.07
>=secondary 55.9 0.73 0.63 1.06
Religion
Christian 77.1 4.11** 4.18** 4.37**
Non-Christian (ref) 22.9 1.00 1.00 1.00
Region of residence
Southwest (ref) 18.6 1.00 1.00 1.00
North 27.1 0.59 0.65 0.46
West/Littoral 19.3 0.81 0.73 0.69
Center 35.0 0.82 0.84 0.67
Age-group
<25 years (ref) 41.3 1.00 1.00 1.00
25-34 28.9 0.99 0.95 1.11
>=35 29.8 1.20 1.09 1.35
Parity
0 (ref) 26.4 1.00 1.00 1.00
1-3 37.1 0.75 0.68 0.88
4-6 22.1 0.85 0.77 1.04
>=7 14.4 1.35 1.33 1.66
Prior exposure to family planning messages
Mean no. 1.35 1.04 1.01 1.09
% exposed to other messages in past 12 months
Yes 36.1 1.16 1.07 1.19
No (ref) 63.9 1.00 1.00 1.00
CAMPAIGN
Campaign exposure
Exposed 36.8 1.80* 1.75* 2.48
Not exposed 63.2 1.00 1.00 1.00
Estimated error from campaign exposure na na na 0.89
% of variance explained (pseudo-R2)   20.1 21.3 20.3
Hosmer-Lemeshow X2 (8 groups)   4.58 7.44 6.14
p of X2   .599 .282 .407
% correctly classified   82.5 83.2 82.7
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †Campaign exposure and ideation assumed exogenous; overall ideation score used. ‡Campaign exposure and ideation assumed exogenous; various components of ideation introduced individually. §Campaign exposure and ideation assumed endogenous. Notes: ref=reference group. na=not applicable.

back to text


 

Figure 1. Mean number of clients and Poisson regression model for GO sites, Cameroon, 1998-1999

back to text


 
Table 7. Incidence rate ratio of mean number of new clients, by time, according to health service site
Variable GO sites (N=8) Non-GO sites (N=42)
Rate ratio z 95% CI Rate ratio z 95% CI
GO campaign launched 6.01* 2.701 1.64-22.10 1.86 0.992 0.54-6.37
Time in months 0.99 -0.052 0.93-1.07 1.04 0.686 0.94-1.15
Interaction term 0.92 -1.736 0.83-1.01 0.92 -1.151 0.80-1.06
% of variance explained/pseudo-R2 18.4     2.3    
Goodness of fit X2 10.76     2.24    
Prob.>X2 0.377     0.994    
df 10     10    
No. of months 14     14    

back to text


© copyright 2001, The Alan Guttmacher Institute.