International Family Planning Perspectives | |
|
Dual Needs: Contraceptive and Sexually Transmitted |
| TABLE 1. Mean values (and standard deviations) and percentage distribution of family planning providers (N=42) in eight public family planning clinics, by selected characteristics, Lusaka, Zambia, August-December, 1998 | |
| Characteristic | %/mean |
| MEANS | |
| Age | 39.6 (±5.8) |
| No. of children | 3.6 (±2.0) |
| % DISTRIBUTIONS | |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 73.8 |
| Widowed | 16.7 |
| Divorced/separated | 7.1 |
| Single | 2.4 |
| Education | |
| Secondary | 64.3 |
| Postsecondary | 35.7 |
| Religion | |
| Protestant | 81.0 |
| Catholic | 19.0 |
| Ever used family planning | |
| Yes | 90.5 |
| No | 9.5 |
| Ever used male or female condom | |
| Yes | 35.7 |
| No | 64.3 |
| Currently using a method | |
| Yes | 52.4 |
| No | 47.6 |
| Total | 100.0 |
| TABLE 2. Mean values (and standard deviations) and percentage distribution of family planning clients (N=3,201), by selected characteristics | |
| Characteristic | %/mean |
| MEANS | |
| Age | 24.9 (±5.7) |
| No. of children | 2.6 (±1.8) |
| % DISTRIBUTIONS | |
| Age | |
| <20 | 14.9 |
| 20-24 | 41.2 |
| 25-29 | 25.7 |
| 30-34 | 10.4 |
| 35-39 | 5.4 |
| >=40 | 2.4 |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 93.8 |
| Cohabiting | 0.5 |
| Widowed/divorced/separated | 2.9 |
| Single (never married) | 2.7 |
| Education | |
| None | 5.7 |
| Primary | 56.5 |
| Secondary | 35.7 |
| Postsecondary | 2.1 |
| Religion | |
| Protestant | 74.5 |
| Catholic | 23.4 |
| Muslim | 0.5 |
| Other | 0.4 |
| None | 1.1 |
| No. of living children | |
| 0 | 0.8 |
| 1 | 30.3 |
| 2 | 28.6 |
| 3 | 17.9 |
| >=4 | 22.4 |
| Ever pregnant | |
| Yes | 99.5 |
| No | 0.5 |
| Ever miscarried | |
| Yes | 13.1 |
| No | 86.9 |
| Ever had stillbirth | |
| Yes | 3.5 |
| No | 96.5 |
| Method received | |
| Pill | 55.1 |
| Injectable | 36.3 |
| Condom | 3.0 |
| Spermicide | 2.6 |
| Implant | 1.6 |
| IUD | 0.9 |
| Other† | 0.5 |
| Total | 100.0 |
| †Includes emergency contraception, natural family planning, lactational amenorrhea method and tubal ligation. Note: Eleven observations are missing for the distribution by age. | |
| TABLE 3. Percentage of observed consultations that included specific elements of STI risk assessment and information, according to clients' educational level | |||
| Element | All | None or primary | >=secondary |
| (N=2,452) | (N=1,511) | (N=941) | |
| Risk-assessment questions | |||
| Any STI concerns? | 11.9 | 13.3 | 9.8** |
| No. of sex partners?† | 3.3 | 3.0 | 3.6 |
| Symptoms assessed | |||
| Vaginal bleeding | 38.7 | 39.5 | 37.5 |
| Vaginal discharge | 12.3 | 12.9 | 11.3 |
| Genital itching | 5.3 | 5.6 | 4.8 |
| Pelvic pain | 12.2 | 13.1 | 10.7 |
| STI symptoms in general | 62.7 | 65.6 | 58.0*** |
| At least one of the | |||
| above symptoms | 74.0 | 75.5 | 71.6* |
| Information exchanged | |||
| Discussed STI protection | 46.7 | 49.0 | 42.8** |
| Told method offers no STI protection‡ | 48.1 | 50.8 | 43.6** |
| *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †Clients switching from one method to another were asked whether they had had any new partners since their last visit, not their overall number of sex partners. ‡Limited to 2,278 women using methods other than the condom. Note: Significance of differences by educational level determined by chi-square tests. | |||
| TABLE 4. Odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from two logistic regression models of the determinants of whether women using methods other than the condom would know at their exit interview that their method does not protect against STIs | ||
| Characteristic | Unadjusted | Adjusted† |
| (N=2,241) | (N=2,231) | |
| Observed being told by provider | 2.63 (2.14-3.23)*** | 2.96 (2.39-3.66)*** |
| Age | ||
| 13-19 | na | 0.77 (0.58-1.02) |
| 20-29 (ref) | na | 1.00 |
| 30-39 | na | 1.06 (0.77-1.46) |
| 40-49 | na | 0.37 (0.20-0.69)** |
| Paid employee | na | 1.21 (0.94-1.56) |
| Married | na | 0.79 (0.50-1.24) |
| Wants no more children | na | 1.28 (0.96-1.72) |
| Education | ||
| None/primary (ref) | na | 1.00 |
| >=secondary | na | 2.21*** (1.76-2.76) |
| -2 log likelihood | 2,385.37 | 2,289.43 |
| **p<.01. ***p<.001. †Adjusted for the effects of client characteristics. Notes: The N for the unadjusted analysis is reduced to 2,241 women, because providers were unable to ascertain method knowledge for 37 of the 2,278 users of methods other than the condom. The N for the adjusted analysis is reduced further to 2,231, because 10 women did not supply data on age. In this and the following tables, na=not applicable and ref=reference group. | ||
| TABLE 5. Odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from three logistic regression models of the determinants of whether women using methods other than the condom were told that their method offers no protection against STIs | |||
| Characteristic | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| (N=2,268) | (N=2,056) | (N=2,056) | |
| Client characteristics | |||
| Age | |||
| 13-19 | 1.03 (0.81-1.32) | 0.98 (0.76-1.28) | 0.98 (0.76-1.28) |
| 20-29 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 30-39 | 1.31 (1.02-1.68)* | 1.30 (0.99-1.71) | 1.30 (0.99-1.71) |
| 40-49 | 1.24 (0.72-2.15) | 1.00 (0.55-1.83) | 1.00 (0.55-1.83) |
| Paid employee | 0.64 (0.52-0.78)*** | 0.67 (0.54-0.84)*** | 0.67 (0.54-0.84)*** |
| Married | 1.00 (0.71-1.41) | 0.93 (0.64-1.35) | 0.93 (0.64-1.35) |
| Wants no more children | 0.96 (0.76-1.20) | 0.94 (0.73-1.20) | 0.94 (0.73-1.20) |
| Education | |||
| None/primary (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >=secondary | 0.79 (0.66-0.94)** | 0.78 (0.65-0.94)* | 0.78 (0.64-0.94)* |
| Provider characteristics | |||
| Years at clinic | na | 1.15 (1.11-1.20)*** | 1.16 (1.11-1.20)*** |
| Education | na | ||
| Secondary (ref) | na | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >=secondary | na | 0.61 (0.50-0.74)*** | 0.61 (0.50-0.74)*** |
| Clinic characteristics | |||
| Large clinic (A or B level) | na | na | 0.99 (0.80-1.23) |
| -2 log likelihood | 3,107.40 | 2,698.40 | 2,698.40 |
| *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Notes: Model 1 controls for the effects of client characteristics. Model 2 controls for the effects of client and provider characteristics. Model 3 controls for the characteristics of clients, providers and clinics. The sample of 2,278 users of methods other than the condom is reduced by 10 missing observations for age in Model 1, and by an additional 212 cases in Models 2 and 3, because the provider connected with those cases could not be interviewed. | |||
| TABLE 6. Odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from three logistic regression models of the determinants of whether women using methods other than the condom who were told about STI protection correctly received that message | |||
| Characteristic | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| (N=1,067) | (N=952) | (N=952) | |
| Client characteristics | |||
| Age | |||
| 13-19 | 0.70 (0.45-1.10) | 0.76 (0.47-1.24) | 0.77 (0.47-1.26) |
| 20-29 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 30-39 | 1.16 (0.68-1.98) | 1.09 (0.63-1.89) | 1.08 (0.62-1.87) |
| 40-49 | 0.45 (0.17-1.19) | 0.51 (0.17-1.54) | 0.49 (0.16-1.50) |
| Paid employee | 1.19 (0.74-1.93) | 1.18 (0.72-1.95) | 1.12 (0.67-1.85) |
| Married | 0.50 (0.20-1.29) | 0.54 (0.21-1.39) | 0.61 (0.24-1.59) |
| Wants no more children | 1.24 (0.76-2.03) | 1.20 (0.72-2.00) | 1.24 (0.74-2.06) |
| Education | |||
| None/primary (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >=secondary | 2.04 (1.36-3.05)** | 1.82 (1.20-2.76)** | 1.64 (1.08-2.50)* |
| Provider characteristics | |||
| Years at clinic | na | 0.99 (0.91-1.08) | 1.02 (0.93-1.13) |
| Education | |||
| Secondary (ref) | na | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >secondary | na | 0.62 (0.42-0.91)* | 0.53 (0.35-0.81)** |
| Clinic characteristics | |||
| Large clinic (A or B level) | na | na | 0.40 (0.24-0.68)** |
| -2 log likelihood | 880.83 | 787.99 | 774.69 |
| *p<.05. **p<.01. Notes: Model 1 controls for the effects of client characteristics. Model 2 controls for the effects of client and provider characteristics. Model 3 controls for the characteristics of clients, providers and clinics. Of the 1,095 users of a method other than the condom who were observed being told that their method offered no STI protection, 28 cases are omitted from Model 1 because no data were available on knowledge about method protection for those women, and an additional 115 cases are omitted from Models 2 and 3 because the provider connected with those cases could not be interviewed. | |||
 |
 |
© copyright 2002, the Alan Guttmacher Institute. |