Are modern contraceptives acceptable to people and where do they source them from across Nigeria?

BMC International Health and Human Rights

Bannet Ndyanabangi²  Agathe Lawson²  Benjamin SC Uzochukwu³  Chinyere Mbachu³  Chinwe Ogbonna²  Jane C Enemuoh³  Obinna E Onwujekwe¹ 

[1]Department of Health Administration and Management, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu State, Nigeria

[2]United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), New York, USA

[3]Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu State, Nigeria

关键词: Nigeria;    Inequity;    Sources;    Acceptability;    Modern contraceptives;   

Others  :  855322
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-698X-13-7

 received in 2012-02-18, accepted in 2013-01-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Understanding the extent that different modern contraceptives are acceptable to different populations groups and where they get the commodities from will help in developing specific interventions that will help to scale-up the availability of the contraceptives.

Methods

The study took place in urban and rural sites in six states across Nigeria. Data on acceptability and sources of the contraceptives was collected from at least 770 randomly selected mostly female householders from each state respectively using a questionnaire. Acceptability of the different contraceptives was scored by the respondents on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). The relationships between acceptability and sources of the contraceptives with socio-economic status and geographic location of the respondents were examined.

Results

The use of modern contraceptives in general was acceptable to 87% of the respondents. Male condom was the most acceptable means of contraceptive with an average score of 5.0. It was followed by implants with and oral contraceptive pill with average scores of 4.0, whilst IUD was the least acceptable with an average score of 2.9. The private sector was the major source of contraceptives to different population groups. Both male and female condoms were mostly procured from patent medicine dealers (PMD) and pharmacy shops. Intra Uterine Devices (IUDs) and implants were mostly sourced from public and private hospitals in the urban areas, whilst injectibles were mostly sourced from private hospitals. Oral contraceptives were mostly sourced from pharmacy shops and patent medicine dealers. There were SES and geographic differences for both acceptability and sources of the contraceptives. Also, the sources of different contraceptives depended on the type of the contraceptive.

Conclusion

The different contraceptives were acceptable to the respondents and the major source of the contraceptives was the private sector. Hence, public-private partnership arrangements should be explored so that universal coverage with contraceptives could be easily achieved. Interventions should be developed to eliminate the inequities in both acceptability and sources of different contraceptives. The acceptability of all the contraceptives should be enhanced with relevant behaviour change communication interventions especially in areas with the lowest levels of acceptability.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Onwujekwe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kerins M, Maguire E, Fahey D, Glucksman E: Emergency contraception. Has over the counter availability reduced attendance at emergency departments? Emerg Med J 2004, 21:67-68.
• [2]Carr D, Khan M: The Unfinished Agenda: Meeting the needs for family planning in less developed countries. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau; 2004.
• [3]United Nations Development Programme: (UNDP). UN population division policy brief. 2009, 1. Available at http://www.scribd.com webcite
• [4]Singh S, Darroch JE, Vlassoff M, Nadeau J: Adding it up: The benefits of investing in sexual and reproductive health. New York, NY: The Alan Guttmacher Institute; 2003. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/addingitup.pdf webcite
• [5]Jackson R, Schwarz E, Freedman L, Darney P: Advance supply of emergency contraception: effect on use and usual contraception - a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 102(1):8-16.
• [6]Chen S, Guilkey DK: Determinants of contraceptive method choice in rural Tanzania between 1991 and 1999. Stud Fam Plann 2003, 34(4):263-276.
• [7]Camp S, Wilkerson D, Raine T: The benefits and risks of the over-the-counter availability of levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Contraception Elsevier J 2003, 68:309-317.
• [8]Gillespie D, Ahmed S, Tsui A, Radloff S: Unwanted fertility among the poor: an inequity? Bull World Health Organ 2007, 85:100-107.
• [9]Ahmed S, Creanga AA, Gillespie DG, Tsui AO: Economic status, education and empowerment: implications for maternal health service utilization in developing countries. PLoS One 2010, 5:e11190.
• [10]Esprey E, Ogburn T, Howard D, Qualls C, Ogburn J: Emergency contraception: pharmacy access in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Obstet Gynecol J 2003, 102(5):918-921.
• [11]United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Policy project briefing paper on perspectives on unmet need for family planning in West Africa: Niger. 2005. Available at http://www.policyproject.com webcite
• [12]Gakidou E, Vayena E: Use of modern contraception by the poor is falling behind. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e31.
• [13]United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA): Scope of work for the willingness to pay for contraceptive study. 2010.
• [14]Adewole LF, Oye-Adeniran BA, Iwere N, Oladokun A, Gbadegesin A, Babarinsa LA: Contraceptive usage among abortion seekers in Nigeria. West Afr J Med 2002, 21(2):112-114.
• [15]Family Health International: Community-based Distribution serves unmet needs. 1999, 19:3. Available at http://www.fhi.org webcite
• [16]Abiodun OM, Balogun OR: Sexual activity and contraceptive use among young female students of tertiary educational institution in Ilorin, Nigeria. Contraception 2009, 79:146-149.
• [17]Okpani AOU, Okpani JU: Sexual activity and contraceptive use among female adolescents: A report from Port Harcourt. Afr J Reprod Health 2000, 4:40-47.
• [18]Amazigo U, Silva N, Kaufman J, Obikeze DS: Sexual activity and contraceptive knowledge and use among in-school adolescents in Nigeria. Int Fam Plan Persp 1997, 23:28-33.
• [19]Okech TC, Wawire NW, Mburu TK: Contraceptive Use among Women of Reproductive Age in Kenya’s City Slums. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2011, 1:2.
• [20]Oladapo A: Where do people in Nigeria get contraception? PLOS 2005, 2(11):e366.
• [21]Oye-Adeniran B, Adewole I, Umoh A, Oladokun A, Gbadegesin A, Ekanem E: sources of contraceptives for users in Nigeria. PLOS Med 2005, 2(11):e306.
• [22]Creanga A, Gillespie D, Karklins S, Tsui A: Low use of contraception among poor women in Africa:an equity issue. Bull World Health Organ 2011, 89:258-266.
• [23]Sharma S, Smith S, Pine M, Winfrey W: Formal and Informal Reproductive Healthcare User Fees in Uttaranchal, India. Washington, DC: Constella Futures, POLICY Project; 2005a.
• [24]United States Agency for International Development (USAID) /Health Policy Initiative (HPI): Achieving Equity for the Poor in Kenya. Washington D: Understanding Level of Inequities and Barriers to Family Planning Services; 2007. Available at http://www.healthpolicyinitiative.com webcite