Socio-economic and education related inequities in use of modern contraceptive in seven sub-regions in Uganda.
Equity
Family planning
Modern contraceptives
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2023
28 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
01
12
2021
accepted:
17
10
2022
entrez:
1
3
2023
pubmed:
2
3
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advocacy for equity in health service utilization and access, including Family Planning (FP) continues to be a cornerstone in increasing universal health coverage. Inequities in Family planning are highlighted by the differences in reproductive health outcomes or in the distribution of resources among different population groups. In this study we examine inequities in use of modern contraceptives with respect to Socio-economic and Education dimensions in seven sub-regions in Uganda. The data were obtained from a baseline cross-sectional study in seven statistical regions where a program entitled "Reducing High Fertility Rates and Improving Sexual Reproductive Health Outcomes in Uganda, (RISE)" is implemented in Uganda. There was a total of 3,607 respondents, half of whom were women of reproductive age (15-49 years) and the other half men (18-54 years). Equity in family planning utilization was assessed by geography, wealth/economic and social-demographics. The use of modern family planning was measured as; using or not using modern FP. Concentration indices were used to measure the degree of Inequality in the use of modern contraceptives. Prevalence Ratios to compare use of modern FP were computed using modified Poisson regression run in STATA V15. Three-quarters (75.6%) of the participants in rural areas were married compared to only 63% in the urban. Overall use of modern contraceptives was 34.2% [CI:30.9, 37.6], without significant variation by rural/urban settings. Women in the higher socio-economic status (SES) were more advantaged in use of modern contraceptives compared to lower SES women. The overall Erreygers Concentration Index, as a measure of inequity, was 0.172, p<0.001. Overall, inequity in use of modern contraceptives by education was highest in favor of women with higher education (ECI=0.146, p=0.0001), and the concentration of use of modern contraceptives in women with higher education was significant in the rural but not urban areas CONCLUSION: Inequities in the use of modern contraceptives still exist in favor of women with more education or higher socio-economic status, mainly in the rural settings. Focused programmatic interventions in rural settings should be delivered if universal Family Planning uptake is to be improved.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Advocacy for equity in health service utilization and access, including Family Planning (FP) continues to be a cornerstone in increasing universal health coverage. Inequities in Family planning are highlighted by the differences in reproductive health outcomes or in the distribution of resources among different population groups. In this study we examine inequities in use of modern contraceptives with respect to Socio-economic and Education dimensions in seven sub-regions in Uganda.
METHODS
METHODS
The data were obtained from a baseline cross-sectional study in seven statistical regions where a program entitled "Reducing High Fertility Rates and Improving Sexual Reproductive Health Outcomes in Uganda, (RISE)" is implemented in Uganda. There was a total of 3,607 respondents, half of whom were women of reproductive age (15-49 years) and the other half men (18-54 years). Equity in family planning utilization was assessed by geography, wealth/economic and social-demographics. The use of modern family planning was measured as; using or not using modern FP. Concentration indices were used to measure the degree of Inequality in the use of modern contraceptives. Prevalence Ratios to compare use of modern FP were computed using modified Poisson regression run in STATA V15.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three-quarters (75.6%) of the participants in rural areas were married compared to only 63% in the urban. Overall use of modern contraceptives was 34.2% [CI:30.9, 37.6], without significant variation by rural/urban settings. Women in the higher socio-economic status (SES) were more advantaged in use of modern contraceptives compared to lower SES women. The overall Erreygers Concentration Index, as a measure of inequity, was 0.172, p<0.001. Overall, inequity in use of modern contraceptives by education was highest in favor of women with higher education (ECI=0.146, p=0.0001), and the concentration of use of modern contraceptives in women with higher education was significant in the rural but not urban areas CONCLUSION: Inequities in the use of modern contraceptives still exist in favor of women with more education or higher socio-economic status, mainly in the rural settings. Focused programmatic interventions in rural settings should be delivered if universal Family Planning uptake is to be improved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36855140
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09150-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09150-y
pmc: PMC9972732
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contraceptive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
201Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Womens Health. 2021 Feb 10;21(1):61
pubmed: 33568124
Contracept Reprod Med. 2020 Nov 2;5(1):19
pubmed: 33292705
Reprod Health. 2021 Feb 10;18(1):35
pubmed: 33568180
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014 Feb 04;2(1):72-92
pubmed: 25276564
Int J Equity Health. 2011 Aug 19;10:33
pubmed: 21854584
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Jun 17;3(2):195-208
pubmed: 26085018
Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(5):545-57
pubmed: 1962226
Reprod Health. 2018 Mar 6;15(1):42
pubmed: 29510682
J Glob Health. 2019 Dec;9(2):020423
pubmed: 31673339
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Sep 07;3(3):419-45
pubmed: 26374803
Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(3):429-45
pubmed: 1644507
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 18;14(7):e0219963
pubmed: 31318953
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2020 Jun;24:100499
pubmed: 32050123
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 18;15(3):e0230421
pubmed: 32187224
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e904-e911
pubmed: 31109881
BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 10;15:118
pubmed: 25884675
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Apr 24;17(1):50
pubmed: 29690902
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Apr 1;89(4):258-66
pubmed: 21479090
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 20;7:41006
pubmed: 28106100
Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Feb;85(2):100-7
pubmed: 17308730
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
Reprod Health. 2014 Aug 13;11(1):65
pubmed: 25117887
Reprod Health. 2017 Jun 29;14(1):79
pubmed: 28662710
Ethiop J Health Sci. 2017 Mar;27(2):121-128
pubmed: 28579707
Int J Womens Health. 2013 Oct 11;5:647-55
pubmed: 24143124
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2022 Jan;48(1):7-15
pubmed: 33737315
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):79
pubmed: 28764670
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 10;6(3):e009991
pubmed: 26966059
BMJ. 2015 Sep 14;351:h4147
pubmed: 26371215
Stud Fam Plann. 2018 Jun;49(2):171-179
pubmed: 29708277
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Feb 19;18(1):36
pubmed: 30782161
J Family Med Prim Care. 2021 Jun;10(6):2246-2251
pubmed: 34322420