International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 28, Number 1, March 2002

 

Spousal Communication and Family Planning Adoption: Effects of a Radio Drama Serial in Nepal
TABLES

TABLE 1. Percentage distribution of panel survey respondents, by selected characteristics, Nepal, 1994
Characteristic %
  (N=1,442)
Ever attended school
Yes 21.8
No 78.2
Occupation
Agricultural 75.4
Nonagricultural/unemployed 24.6
Monthly household expenditure (rupees)†
<1,500 26.9
1,501-3,000 54.9
3,001-4,500 9.2
>=4,501 9.0
Age
<20 10.5
21-25 19.7
26-30 24.5
31-35 18.7
36-40 17.1
>=41 9.5
Ethnic group
Brahmin 14.8
Chhetri 18.2
Tharu 20.0
Terai groups 9.6
Tibetan-Burmese groups 18.4
Newar 4.6
Muslim 5.0
Other 9.4
Total 100.0
†Percentages are based on responses from 1,367 women. In 2001, 75 rupees=US $1.

back to text


 
TABLE 2. Percentage of respondents reporting various types of spousal communication, by survey wave
Communication indicator Wave one Wave two Wave three
Ever discussed family planning 80.1 83.6 86.3
Discussed family planning in the past year 54.4 38.6 46.8
Intends to discuss family planning† 51.7 68.7 61.5
Spouse approves of family planning 80.9 82.4 86.9
Knows no. of children spouse wants 83.1 91.9 96.3
†Percentages are based on responses from 1,442 women in wave one, 716 in wave two and 569 in wave three. The decline in the N over time presumably reflects that some women who intended to discuss family planning did so and therefore did not answer the question in later waves. Note: Wave one=1994; wave two=1997; wave three=1999.

back to text


 
TABLE 3. Odds ratios from logistic regression examining the effect of selected characteristics on spousal communication at wave three
Characteristic Ever discussed family planning Discussed family planning in past year Intends to discuss famiy planning Spouse approves of family planning Knows no. of children spouse wants
Communication index
  Wave one 2.16*** 1.49*** 1.74 2.77*** 2.95***
  Wave two 1.40 1.20 1.50 1.62** 1.61
Occupation 0.64* 0.77 0.78 0.90 1.10
Education 2.07* 0.87 1.44 1.63 2.59
Age 0.92*** 0.90*** 0.80*** 0.99 0.95*
No. of children 0.98 1.04 1.18 0.89* 1.04
Campaign exposure
  Wave two 0.86 0.92 1.03 0.98 0.80
  Wave three 1.86*** 0.98 0.99 1.82*** 1.79
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Note: Wave one=1994; wave two=1997; wave three=1999.

back to text


 
FIGURE 1. Percentage distribution of respondents, by use of family planning at each survey wave, according to who makes family planning decisions

Notes: At each wave, differences according to who makes family planning decisions were statistically significant at p<.001. Wave one=1994, wave two=1997, wave three=1999.

back to text


 
TABLE 4. Odds ratios from two logistic regression models examining the effect of selected characteristics on contraceptive use at wave three
Characteristic Model one Model two
Contraceptive use
  Wave two 2.03*** 2.00***
  Wave one 7.35*** 7.67***
Communication index
  Wave three 10.24*** 6.83***
  Wave two 1.31 1.24
  Wave one 1.85** 1.44
Campaign exposure
  Wave three 1.22 1.19
  Wave two 1.06 1.07
Wants no more children 2.24*** 3.20***
Education na 1.57*
Age na 0.96***
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Notes: Wave one=1994; wave two=1997; wave three=1999. na=not applicable.

back to text


 
Appendix Table 1. Results of analyses of variance and chi-square tests indicating differences between study dropouts and panel participants, by selected characteristics
Characteristic Final panel Dropped out after wave one Dropped out after wave two Wave one vs. wave two† Wave two vs. panel† Wave one vs. panel†
(N=1,442) (N=810) (N=463)      
Education (yrs.) 1.46 1.96 1.22 14.44*** 2.22 12.04***
Age 30.31 29.68 32.34 23.44*** 22.43*** 3.05
No. of children 3.62 3.00 3.76 25.09*** 1.18 36.36***
Household expenditure (rupees) 2,531.40 2,749.53 2,525.89 3.66 0.00 7.31**
Mean spousal communication score 0.68 0.63 0.58 6.19* 37.83*** 15.34***
% using family planning 41.3 30.8 34.6 1.84 6.71** 30.82***
*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001.†F statistic for means, X2 for percentages. Note: Wave one=1994; wave two=1997.

back to text

table of contents         top of page


© copyright 2002, the Alan Guttmacher Institute.