Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2023 Jan 26;3(1):e0000832. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000832

Factors that determine women’s autonomy to make decisions about sexual and reproductive health and rights in Nepal: A cross-sectional study

Adweeti Nepal 1,*, Santa Kumar Dangol 1, Sujan Karki 2, Niraj Shrestha 3
Editor: Collins Otieno Asweto4
PMCID: PMC10022137  PMID: 36962954

Abstract

Women’s autonomy on sexual and reproductive health issues is critical to women’s health and well-being. Women have the right to decide on their fertility and sexuality, be free from coercion and violence, and achieve well-being. This study has identified women’s autonomy regarding decision and exercise of their sexual reproductive health and rights and its association with determining factors in Nepal. Descriptive and analytical statistics such as bivariate and multivariate regression analysis were performed using data from Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. The survey collected data from 12,862 women of reproductive age groups i.e. 15–49 years. However, for this study, we analyzed the data of only ever-married women and they were 9,875 in total. The analysis showed that women’s autonomy in exercising their sexual reproductive health rights is highly associated with media exposure after controlling demographic variables. The frequency of exposure to media (i. less than a week: adjusted odds ratio (AOR):1.383; confidence interval (CI):1.145–1.670, p<0.001, ii. at least once a week: AOR:1.657; CI:1.359–2.021, p<0.001) is positively associated with women’s autonomy. Furthermore, factors like women from Janajati (AOR:1.298; CI:1.071–1.576, p<0.01) and other Terai ethnic groups (AOR:1.471; CI:1.160–1.866, p<0.01), higher education attainment (AOR:1.482; CI:1.164–1.888, p<0.01), richest wealth quintile (AOR:1.527; CI:1.151–2.026, p<0.01), paid work (AOR:1.277; CI:1.045–1.561, p<0.05) and living in Lumbini Province (AOR:0.622; CI:0.486–0.797, p<0.001) and Sudur Paschim Province (AOR:0.723; CI:0.554–0.944, p<0.05) were found to be significantly associated with women’s autonomy in sexual and reproductive health decision making. Similarly, women’s autonomy is also increased with their increased age. In conclusion, women’s exposure to media, improved socio-economic status and increased age influence their autonomy to make decisions about sexual and reproductive health rights in Nepal. Therefore, this study underscores the need to address socio-economic barriers and improve women’s exposure to the media to enhance their autonomy further.

Introduction

Autonomy is a person’s capacity to self-govern and act independently, responsibly, and with conviction [1]. In this case, the person’s capacity refers to a woman’s ability to exercise sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Various autonomy theories have been developed, understood, and applied in different ways in practice under the influence of laws, politics, philosophy, and religious precepts [2]. As per the bioethical principle, the capacity of a person’s autonomy and right to direct their own life needs to be respected [3].

Women’s autonomy on SRHR enables them to decide whether or not to participate in a sexual relationship with their husband or partner, their ability to decide on the use of contraception, and their rights to make independent decisions to seek and access sexual and reproductive health services [48]. In line with the commitments made in the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which emphasized women’s empowerment and reproductive rights issues, Nepal has taken SRHR as post-2015 agenda for translating rights from rhetoric to practice [911]. Moreover, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) five underscores the need to address structural barriers by altering the disproportionate power relations between women and men to ensure universal access to SRHR by 2030. It outlines that women have the right to live free of discrimination and violence and control and decide freely on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health (SRH) [12]. The Government of Nepal (GoN) has ratified the goals and adopted them as per the national context [13]. Following the ratification, GoN enacted the safe motherhood and reproductive health act in 2018, acknowledging the roles of reproductive health care in the lives of women and girls [14].

Despite policy provisions, the access to and utilization of sexual and reproductive health services is predominantly low among women of reproductive age, particularly those with low socio-economic status [15, 16]. Table 1 outlines that the coverage of sexual and reproductive health services:- antenatal care, institutional delivery, postnatal care, and family planning services; is comparatively lower for women from the lowest wealth quintile, having no or low education status and living hard-to-reach than women from highest wealth quintile, having secondary level education and residing in urban areas [16].

Table 1. Overview of SRHR status in Nepal by background characteristics.

SRH status Total Wealth quintile Education Residence
Highest Lowest Above secondary level No education Urban Rural
The median age of marriage among women of 25–49 years (years) 17.9 19.5 17.5 21.4 16.8 18.3 17.2
Wanted fertility rate (rate) 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.1
Birth intervals (months) 36.7 47.5 35.9 42.7 35.2 40.5 33.5
Unmet need for family planning (%) 23.7 20.5 27.0 25.0 17.9 22.7 25.3
Teenage pregnancy (%) 16.7 5.9 19.5 7.2 32.6 13.2 22.3
Antenatal care coverage (%) 83.6 95.5 73.8 94.5 73.3 87.0 79.5
Institutional delivery coverage (%) 57.4 89.6 33.9 85.4 36.4 68.6 44.2
Delivery assisted by a skilled provider (%) 58.0 88.7 33.9 84.9 37.6 67.7 46.8
Postnatal care coverage (%) 56.7 81.2 36.7 80.2 41.7 63.9 48.4
Women experience physical violence (%) 21.8 13.6 20.9 7.7 34.4 20.5 23.8
Women experience sexual violence (%) 6.9 6.6 7.7 3.8 9.2 7.1 6.6

Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2016 [15].

Study shows that age, education, husband’s education, place of residence (rural/urban), and socio-economic factors are highly associated with women’s empowerment on health-related issues [17]. Moreover, evidence suggests that women from developing countries like Nepal do not have the freedom to decide on the utilization of SRH services on their own because of harmful and discriminatory social norms and practices and a lack of financial resources [1719]. Although there is some evidence in Nepal on women’s autonomy in accessing maternal health services and family planning services, those studies have not analyzed the factors affecting women’s autonomy in decision-making about SRHR as outlined by SDGs 5: indicator 5.6.1 [8, 2022]. Therefore, this study aims to identify women’s autonomy in decision-making for SRHR and its association with determining factors.

Research methodology

The data set of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2016 has been used for the analysis. The data is obtained from https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm with a registered data user. In the NDHS 2016, the data were collected from 12,862 women of reproductive age groups. From the perspective of our study, we analyzed the data of only ever-married women from the dataset, which was 9,875 women.

As stated in the NDHS 2016 published report, the sample was stratified and selected in two stages in rural areas and three stages in urban areas. In rural areas, wards were selected as primary sampling units (PSUs), and households were selected from the sample PSUs. Similarly, one enumeration area (EA) was selected from each PSU, and households were then selected from the sample EAs in urban settings. Each province was stratified into urban and rural areas, with 14 sampling strata from seven Provinces. The samples of wards were selected independently in each stratum.

NDHS 2016 used a stratified sampling design; it used a two-stage design in rural areas and a three-stage design in urban areas [23]. First, wards of the then village development committee and municipalities were considered PSUs. Due to the bigger size of wards of municipalities in terms of population density, from each PSU, one EA was selected. Then the household was selected from EA in urban areas and from PSU in rural areas.

In the first stage of survey, 383 wards were selected with probability proportional to ward size selected independently in each sampling stratum. The survey used a sampling frame of the 2011 national population census survey. The adjustment was made in the sampling frame due to population size changes from 2011 to 2015 throughout the stratum. After selecting the EA in urban areas and PSU in rural areas, a fixed number of households were selected with probability proportional to the size from the created household listing for data collection. No household replacement or changes in the pre-selected household was done to minimize bias in the implementation stages.

The sample was not self-weighting due to non-proportion sample allocation. Oversampling was done for fewer population Provinces. Weighting factors were calculated and added to the data file. The weighting factors were to be adjusted before the data analysis to represent the national, provincial, and regional levels.

Definition and measurement of variables

Dependent variable

In this study, women’s autonomy in decision-making for SRHR is taken as a dependent variable, which might be affected by changes in the value of independent variables. The dependent variable is defined as a proportion of women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decision regarding (1) sexual relations, (2) contraceptive use, and (3) reproductive health care (Table 2). Hereafter, “women’s autonomy” is used for “women’s autonomy in decision-making for SRHR”, throughout the paper.

Table 2. Definition and measurement of the dependent variable.
Dependent variable Definition and measurement
Women’s autonomy in decision-making for SRHR Women’s autonomy is defined as the capacity of women aged 15–49 years old in decision-making and exercising their sexual and reproductive health rights making their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use, and reproductive health care [15]. In NDHS 2016, responses to three specific questions were used to measure the level of autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR:
  1. Can you say no to your (husband/partner) if you do not want to have sexual intercourse?

  2. Would you say that using contraception is mainly your decision, your (husband’s/partner’s) decision, or did you both decide together?

  3. Who usually makes decisions about health care for yourself?

Women are considered to be autonomous if they say “yes” to question 1, “your decision” to question 2, and “you” to question 3 [15]. This is the composite indicator of decision-making about sexual intercourse with their husband or partner, decision for using contraceptive, and decision-making in receiving reproductive health care services [15, 21, 22].

Independent variable

The study selected different socio-economic characteristics as the dependent variable based on previous studies and consideration of NDHS 2016. Mass media is one of the primary sources of health information for women in Nepal [15]. Therefore, exposure to media has been considered as an independent variable for explaining the autonomy of women along with the other variables, such as age, religion, caste/ethnicity, education, place of residence in terms of the Province and urban/rural, wealth quintiles, occupation and size of the household as given in Table 3.

Table 3. Definition and measurement of independent variables.
Independent variable Definition and measurement
Exposure to media It is a composite variable derived from the frequency of access to media; radio, television, and newspaper grouped into; no exposure, less than once a week, and at least once a week.
Age groups (in years) Self-reported age of the women at the time of the survey, grouped into; <20 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, 30–34 years and 35–49 years for analysis.
Religion Self-reported religious affiliation of the respondent; grouped into Hindu and other religions. Other religions cover; Muslim, Buddhist, Kirat, and Christian.
Caste/ethnicity Self-reported caste/ethnic affiliation of respondents grouped into Dalit (so-called lower caste), Janajati (indigenous groups), and other Terai caste (other than Terai Dalit/Janajati/Brahmin Chhetri), Brahmin/Chhetri (so-called higher caste), Muslim, and others. The other includes; Marwadi, Bangali, Sikh, Jain, Panjabi, and other unidentified castes/ethnic groups.
Level of education This is the attainment of the education by women which is grouped into; no education: who have never been to school, basic education: who completed the grade 10 and higher education: who studies more than 10th grade.
Husband’s education This is the attainment of the education by husband as reported by women who are grouped into; no education: who have never been to school, basic education: who completed the grade 10 and higher education: who studies more than 10th grade.
Place of residence by the Province This is the place of residence of participants by Province; Province 1, Madhesh, Bagmati, Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali, and Sudur Paschim.
Place of residence This is a type of residence; urban and rural.
Wealth quintiles It is a composite index of the cumulative living standard of a household, which is categorized into; poorest (bottom 20%), poorer (20%), middle (middle 20%), richer (20%), and richest (top 20%) based on wealth index.
Household size Household size is defined based on the number of persons living in the same house and grouped into; a household with four or fewer members and five or more.
Occupation Occupation is classified based on the self-report types of work and grouped into; no occupation (housewife and currently out of a job), agriculture, and others for the analysis of the data. Other occupations are paid work other than the agriculture sector.
Husband occupation Husband’s occupation is classified based on the report of women and grouped into; no occupation (currently out of a job), agriculture, and others for the analysis. Other occupations are mainly paid work.

Methods of data analysis

The analysis was done in three stages. Firstly, a univariate analysis was done to show the frequency distribution of dependent and independent variables. Secondly, bivariate analysis was carried out to assess the association between dependent and independent variables, where the study used the Chi-Square (χ2) test. Finally, a multivariate analysis was done to get an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess whether the socio-demographic factors are significant to women’s autonomy in decision-making to exercise their SRHR in Nepal. Stata 14.2 statistical data analysis software is used for the analysis of the data.

Ethical approval

This study is a secondary analysis of the data of NDHS 2016. The data sets are publicly available from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) program’s website https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. The NDHS had obtained ethical approval from the Nepal Health Research Council and the ethical review board of ICF Macro International to conduct the survey. Prior verbal informed consent was taken from the participants for each interview. And for the participant under 18 years written informed consent was obtained from the parent/guardian for the interview.

Results

Altogether 9,875 currently married women of the reproductive age group (15–49 years) were selected to determine the level of women’s autonomy in this study. Among the participants, most of them were from 35–49 years groups (39%), followed by 25–29 years (20%) and 30–34 years (18%). Majority of the participants were from the Hindu (87%) community. More than one-third of the participants were from Janajati (35%), followed by Brahmin and Chhetri (31%) and other Terai caste groups (16%). Two in five participants (40%) did not have any formal education, and almost the same percentage (41%) participants had only primary education. Only 19% of participants had a higher level of education. Among the study participants, more participants were from Madhesh Province (22%), followed by Bagmati (19%), Lumbini (18%), Province 1 (17%), Gandaki (10%), Sudur Paschim (9%) and Karnali (6%). More than 3 in 5 participants (61%) were from urban areas. Most of the participants (58%) had more than five or more family sizes. Almost half of the study participants (49%) were engaged in agriculture occupation (Table 4).

Table 4. Demographic variables of the study participants.

Variables Frequency Percentage
Media exposure
Not at all 1798 18.2
Less than once a week 2172 22.0
At least once a week 5905 59.8
Education
No education 3,984 40.4
Basic education 4,030 40.8
Higher education 1,861 18.8
Husband’s education
No education 1635 16.6
Basic education 5087 51.6
Higher education 3130 31.8
Age groups
<20 years 704 7.1
20–24 years 1684 17.1
25–29 years 1957 19.8
30–34 years 1726 17.5
35–49 years 3803 38.5
Caste/Ethnicity
Dalit 1265 12.8
Muslim 504 5.1
Janajati 3408 34.5
Other Terai 1593 16.2
Brahmin/Chhetri 3073 31.1
Other 32 0.3
Religion
Hindu 8552 86.6
Other 1322 13.4
Household size
4 or less 4150 42.0
5 or more 5725 58.0
Wealth quintile
Poorest 1687 17.1
Poorer 1946 19.7
Middle 2088 21.2
Richer 2107 21.3
Richest 2047 20.7
Occupation
No occupation 3142 31.8
Agriculture 4802 48.6
Others 1931 19.6
Husband’s occupation
No occupation 364 3.7
Agriculture 2161 21.9
Others 7350 74.4
Place of residence by the Province
Province 1 1655 16.8
Madhesh 2168 22.0
Bagmati 1920 19.4
Gandaki 950 9.6
Lumbini 1749 17.7
Karnali 586 5.9
Sudur Paschim 846 8.6
Place of residence
Urban 6031 61.1
Rural 3844 38.9
Total 9875 100.0

The association of women’s autonomy with explanatory variables

Women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR is highly associated with exposure to the media. Equally, autonomy is also strongly associated with women’s age and their socio-economic status like caste/ethnicity, education level, residence, wealth quintiles, household size, occupation of women, and husbands’ occupation. However, women’s autonomy was not found to be associated with their religion and husband’s educational level (Table 5).

Table 5. Results from a bivariate analysis of women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR.

Variables Total Non- autonomous (%) Autonomous (%) χ2 (p-value)
Exposure to media
Not at all 1798 82.5 17.5 97.4 (p <0.001)
Less than once a week 2172 77.6 22.4
At least once a week 5905 71.6 28.4
Education of women
No education 3984 74.2 25.8 43.6 (p<0.001)
Basic education 4031 77.9 22.2
Higher education 1860 70.0 30.0
Husband’s education
No education 1635 74.2 25.8 12.3 (p<0.05)
Basic education 5087 76.3 23.7
Higher education 3130 73.0 27.0
Age groups
<20 years 704 93.4 6.6 434.3 (p<0.001)
20–24 years 1684 87.7 12.3
25–29 years 1957 77.0 23.0
33–34 years 1725 70.8 29.2
35–49 years 3804 66.6 33.4
Caste/Ethnicity
Dalit 1264 79.6 20.4 57.5 (p<0.001)
Muslim 504 85.4 14.6
Janajati 3408 72.3 27.7
Other Terai caste 1593 74.1 25.9
Brahmin/Chhetri 3073 74.6 25.4
Others 32 72.4 27.6
Religion
Hindu 8552 74.3 25.7 11.7 (p<0.05)
Others 1322 78.7 21.3
Household size
4 or less 4150 72.9 27.1 15.6 (p<0.001)
5 or more 5725 76.4 23.6
Wealth quintile
Poorest 1687 81.3 18.7 142.7 (p<0.001)
Poorer 1946 77.2 22.8
Middle 2088 76.2 23.8
Richer 2107 75.5 24.5
Richest 2047 65.5 34.6
Occupation
No occupation 3142 78.2 21.8 99.4 (p<0.001)
Agriculture 4802 76.2 23.8
Others 1931 66.3 33.7
Husband’s occupation
No occupation 364 73.3 26.7 26.5 (p<0.001)
Agriculture 2161 70.8 29.2
Others 7350 76.2 23.8
Place of residence by the Province
Province 1 1655 70.9 29.1 99.8 (p<0.001)
Madhesh 2169 75.8 24.3
Bagmati 1920 69.0 31.0
Gandaki 950 73.9 26.1
Lumbini 1749 79.8 20.2
Karnali 586 82.3 17.7
Sudur Paschim 846 79.6 20.4
Place of residence
Urban 6031 72.3 27.7 54.7 (p<0.001)
Rural 3844 78.9 21.1
Total 9875 74.9 25.1

Determinants of women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR

The study identified that only one-fourth (25.1%) of the Nepalese women were autonomous in making their SRHR decisions. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR is highly associated with media exposure after controlling demographic variables. The women who have media exposure at least once a week (AOR:1.657; CI:1.359–2.021) are more likely to be autonomous in deciding on their own and exercising their SRHR than those who have less or do not have exposure to media. Women who had higher education (AOR:1.482; CI:1.164–1.888) were likely to have autonomy compared to the women who having no formal education. Also women from richest quintile (AOR:1.527; CI:1.151–2.026) found be autonomous than women from other wealth quintiles. Similarly, it is found that increased age also plays a role in women’s autonomy in SRHR decision making. Women of 15–19 years (AOR:0.155; CI:0.105–0.228) are less likely to have autonomy in decision-making compared to the women of 35–49 years. However, women from caste/ethnic group like Janajati (AOR:1.298; CI:1.071–1.576) and other Terai (AOR:1.471; CI:1.160–1.866) were found to be more autonomous in SRHR decision making in compare to so called higher caste i.e. Brahmin/Chhetri. Meanwhile the association is not significant for the women from Dalit caste (AOR:1.108; CI:0.898–1.358) and Muslim (AOR:0.949; CI:0.614–1.468) (refer Table 6).

Table 6. Results from a multivariate logistic regression analysis of women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercise of their SRHR.

Variables Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) p-value
Media exposure
No exposure to media Ref
Less than once a week 1.383 (CI:1.145–1.670) 0.001
At least once a week 1.657 (CI:1.359–2.021) 0.001
Education
No education Ref
Basic Education 1.017 (CI: 0.887–1.165) 0.811
Higher Education 1.482 (CI: 1.164–1.888) 0.002
Husband’s education
No education Ref
Basic Education 0.965 (CI: 0.814–1.141) 0.674
Higher Education 0.873 (CI: 0.708–1.077) 0.204
Age groups
35–49 years Ref
15–19 years 0.155 (CI: 0.105–0.228) 0.001
20–24 years 0.278 (CI: 0.219–0.351) 0.001
25–29 years 0.600 (CI: 0.452–0.690) 0.001
30–34 years 0.814 (CI: 0.8700–0.945) 0.001
Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhetri Ref
Dalit 1.108 (CI: 0.898–1.358) 0.337
Muslim 0.949 (CI: 0.614–1.468) 0.816
Janajati 1.298 (CI: 1.071–1.576) 0.008
Other Terai 1.471 (CI: 1.160–1.866) 0.002
Other 0.828 (CI: 0.345–1.988) 0.673
Religion
Hindu Ref
Other religion 0.7980 (CI: 0.609–1.046) 0.102
Household size
4 or less Ref
5 or more 0.968 (CI: 0.863–1.086) 0.582
Wealth quintile
Poor Ref
Poorer 1.149 (CI: 0.936–1.409) 0.183
Middle 1.246 (CI: 0.987–1.573) 0.064
Richer 1.178 (CI: 0.924–1.500) 0.186
Richest 1.527 (CI:1.151–2.026) 0.003
Occupation
Agriculture Ref
No occupation 0.900 (CI: 0.762–1.064) 0.219
Others 1.277 (CI: 1.045–1.561) 0.017
Husband’s occupation
Agriculture Ref
No occupation 0.716 (CI: 0.529–0.979) 0.031
Others 0.690 (CI: 0.590–0.807) 0.001
Province
Province 1 Ref
Madhesh 0.896 (CI: 0.704–1.141) 0.372
Bagmati 0.887 (CI: 0.676–1.163) 0.382
Gandaki 0.819 (CI: 0.607–1.106) 0.193
Lumbini 0.622(CI: 0.486–0.797) 0.001
Karnali 0.746 (CI: 0.545–1.021) 0.067
Sudur Paschim 0.723 (CI: 0.554–0.944) 0.017
Place of residence
Urban Ref
Rural 0.860 (CI: 0.728–1.015) 0.074
Total 9852

Bold Significant at p-value <0.05

Discussion

Our analysis discovered that only one in four married women is autonomous to make decisions about SRHR in Nepal. Autonomous women were the women who were empowered to exercise their SRHR decision making over consensual sexual relations, contraceptive use and access to sexual and reproductive health services. Exposure to media, higher level of education attainment, paid work, increased age of women, women from Janajati and other Terai caste groups and richest quintile, and place of residence in terms of the Province (Lumbini and Sudur Paschim) are significantly associated with the women’s autonomy in exercising their SRHR. However the basic education of women, husband’s education, religion, size of household, and place of residence in terms of urban vs rural do not have any significant association with women’s autonomy.

Similar to our findings, the studies conducted in lower and middle-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and India identified that media exposure is highly associated with a higher level of women’s empowerment [2426]. The evidence shows women’s exposure to mass media improves access to information which empowers them to take part in the decision-making process by changing social norms, behaviours, and practices [26]. The media positively influence a person’s will, assets, knowledge, and power relation within the family and society to make them more independent in their action [27]. Meanwhile, in Nepal, mass media is a crucial means of delivering the health-related message and creating awareness [15]. In addition, the GoN has invested significant resources in health information, education, and communication to improve sexual and reproductive health status. Therefore, the women exposed to media could have largely been exposed to the SRHR-related messages, which may have resulted in greater autonomy. This may not be the case in the other countries where rigid social norms exist. Hence, further study is needed to explore the relationship between exposure to SRHR-related message contents and women’s autonomy to exercise their SRHR.

The study showed that women with a higher education level are more likely to be empowered in practicing their SRHR. It is a known fact that education empowers women to move from weak positions of power to exercise their control in different walks of life, including reducing gender inequalities [28]. Well-educated women are more likely to be informed about their health and well-being and they can also voice their freedom of expression rights which further empower them to use their rights [29, 30]. Moreover, the study found that women with higher education had a higher level of influence in exercising their rights. A similar association was found in rural India and various developing countries [7, 3032]. But in this study, it is found that the educational background of the husband has no association with the empowerment of women. It is subject to be studied to explore the reason behind it in the context of Nepal. Also need to research the women’s autonomy level in exercising their rights when both partners have a higher and same level of education.

The study found a positive association between women’s increased age and empowerment in exercising SRHR. While the status of newly married women in the household could be a possible reason for it. In the South Asian context, including Nepal, a newly married daughter-in-law has less power in decision-making hence they follow the primary decision-makers. Moreover, the gender norms are much stricter for younger women including fertility pressure than the older women. Therefore, they get empowered as they get older with added and extended responsibilities and can decide independently [17, 33]. Moreover, other studies also identified that older women are empowered in decision-making in developing countries because of their changed status and roles with the increased age [19, 24].

In Nepal, people are discriminated against by their socio-cultural background, including caste/ethnicity, which influences women’s social position and their decision-making ability to access sexual and reproductive health services [34, 35]. Despite the fact, that Dalit women are more likely to be autonomous in SRHR decision-making than the women from Brahmin/Chhetri though the association is not significant. A study conducted in 2016 revealed that women of so-called untouchable caste groups are more likely to take part in economic activities in communities that support them to be economically empowered than the higher caste Hindu women. The assets support and enable them to take part in the independent decision-making process [36]. Moreover, the women from Janajati and other Terai caste groups are more likely to be empowered in practicing their SRHR.

This analysis has shown women’s religion does not appear as a causal factor in the context of Nepal for women’s empowerment in decision-making which is also subject to be explored in future studies. Meanwhile, Muslim women were found to be twice fewer autonomous than Janajati and other Terai ethnic women but the result is not significant. In the context of Nepal, Muslim is consider under the both ethnicity and religion. Also, more than 86% of respondents were from the Hindu religion, while other religions were in nominal numbers, which might have altered the association of faith with women’s autonomy. Therefore, further exploration of the determinants of women’s autonomy among Muslim and other religious women is recommended.

Women’s economic empowerment is central to realizing women’s rights and gender equality, hence, with the advancement in women’s economic status, health services utilization can increase as they have more financial freedom to decide independently [37]. Studies conducted in developing countries found that women’s economic level influences women’s autonomy in decision-making and exercising their power for their benefit [24, 30]. Despite the fact, this study found a significant association between women’s autonomy and economic status only among the women of highest wealth quintile. Several other factors explain the association between women’s economic status and decision-making autonomy on SRHR [33].

Research shows that employment opportunity for women increases their autonomy in decision-making because of financial freedom [33]. In developing countries such as Senegal, Indonesia, and Ethiopia, women having paid work were autonomous in decision-making to exercise their health rights [3841]. Paid employment appears as one of the factors of women’s empowerment in the decision-making process and taking action independently for sexual and reproductive health services in Nepal. Moreover, the women whose husbands paid jobs less were less likely to be empowered to do so. Similar to these findings, a national-level study conducted in Maynmar identified a positive association between women’s employment status and empowerment in deciding their health. In the same study, it was also revealed that the women whose husbands have paid jobs were less likely to be empowered and get involved in the decision-making process in the household [42].

The country recently adopted the Federal system during the NDHS 2016 data collection period, where 77 districts are clustered under 7 provinces [15]. Each district has a unique socio-economic context in Nepal, so this could be a possible explanation for the variations in the result in each province in relation to women’s autonomy and her residence province. The women of Lumbini and Sudur Paschim are significantly less likely to be autonomous than women of Province 1. Hence, further studies have to be conducted to show the association between the variables.

Evidence has shown that urban women are more likely to be autonomous in SRHR decision-making in compare to the rural women [33, 4345]. However, in this analysis the association is not significant and this might be due to improved access to media, an improved level of literacy among rural women and improved availability of sexual and reproductive health services [46].

Limitation

The findings of this study are based on the data of the NDHS 2016. The factors that influence women’s autonomy were measured based on given indicators, i.e. women’s decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use, and reproductive health care. However, SRHR includes many other dimensions and indicators beyond the three selected indicators in this study. The conclusions of this study, therefore, should be comprehended and interpreted considering these limitations.

Meanwhile, this study has addressed the quality concerns by using nationally representative data for analysis which were collected following a standard methodological process. Also, the analysis of women’s autonomy in SRHR and its associated factors is based on the indicator set by SDGs, which would be a reference for policymakers at different levels to design the SRHR program relevant to their context.

Conclusion

In Nepal, only one fourth of married women of reproductive ages are autonomous in sexual and reproductive health decision-making. Better exposure to media, educational attainment, paid work, increased age, and economic status were significantly associated with a higher level of women’s autonomy in SRHR decision-making. Moreover, women from Janajati and the other Terai caste group were also more likely to be autonomous. Women’s autonomy in SRHR decision-making also depend on her residency province. Based on the finding, it is critical to enhance women’s exposure to media and empower them educationally and financially for their increased level of autonomy. Context-specific SRHR policy and programs needed to be designed in Nepal and those programs should be focused on adolescents and young women and address the social norms and socio-economic barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services. It is also crucial to evaluate and document the different dimensions of women’s autonomy in SRHR decision-making for informed policy decision.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the DHS program for availing the NDHS 2016 data for analysis and public use.

Data Availability

This study is a secondary analysis of the data of NDHS 2016. The data sets are publicly available from The DHS program’s website https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Agich GJ. Key Concepts: Autonomy. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology. 1994;1:267–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Motloba PD. Understanding of the principle of Autonomy (Part 1). South African Dent J. 2018;73(6):418–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Osamor PE, Grady C. Autonomy and couples’ joint decision-making in healthcare. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(3):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0241-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization [Internet]. Proportion of women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care (%). 2022 [cited 2022 Feb 10]. https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/4986#.
  • 5.Gudbrandsen NH. Female autonomy and fertility in Nepal. South Asia Econ J. 2013;14:157–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pratley P. Associations between quantitative measures of women’s empowerment and access to care and health status for mothers and their children: A systematic review of evidence from the developing world. Soc Sci Med. 2016. Nov;69:119–31. Epub 2016 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mistry R, Galal O, Lu M. “Women’s autonomy and pregnancy care in rural India: A contextual analysis".Soc Sci Med. 2009. Sep;69(6):926–33. Epub 2009 Aug 3. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kc H, Shrestha M, Pokharel N, Niraula SR, Pyakurel P, Parajuli SB. Women’s empowerment for abortion and family planning decision making among marginalized women in Nepal: a mixed-method study. Reprod Health. 2021. Feb 4;18(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01087-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sen G, Govender V. Sexual and reproductive health and rights in changing health systems. Glob Public Health. 2015;10(2):228–42. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.986161 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Temmerman M, Khosla R, Say L. Sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global development, health, and human rights priority. Lancet. 2014. Aug 2;384(9941):e30–1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61190-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sippel S. ICPD beyond 2014: Moving beyond missed opportunities and compromises in the fulfillment of sexual and reproductive health and rights. Glob Public Health. 2014;9(6):620–30. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.921828 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.United Nations Population Fund. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights: measuring SDGs target 5.6. 2020 Feb.
  • 13.Government of Nepal. Sustainable Development Goals, 2016–2030, National (Preliminary) Report. National Planning Commission,Kathmandu, Nepal 2015.
  • 14.Government of Nepal. The Right to Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Health Act, 2075 (2018). Nepal Law Commission; 2018 p. 1–13.
  • 15.Ministry of Health, New ERA, ICF. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health, Nepal, 2017.
  • 16.Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, ICF International Inc. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal, 2012.
  • 17.Senarath U, Gunawardena Nalika Sepali. Women’s autonomy in decision making for health care in South Asia. Asia-Pacific J Public Health. 2009. Apr;21(2):137–43. doi: 10.1177/1010539509331590 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.United Nations Population Fund. Global Goals Indicators 5.6.1. Research on factors that determine women’s ability to make decisions about sexual and reproductive health and rights. Technical Divison, UNFPA; Right to Health and Development.2019 Oct; Vol 1.
  • 19.Sougou NM, Bassoum O, Faye A, Leye MMM. Women’s autonomy in health decision-making and its effect on access to family planning services in Senegal in 2017: a propensity score analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020. Jun 5;20(1):872. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09003-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adhikari R. Effect of Women’s autonomy on maternal health service utilization in Nepal: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2016. May 13;16:26. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0305-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.United Nations [Internet]. Sustainable Development: The17 Goals. 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 23]. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://SDGs.un.org/goals.
  • 22.United Nations Population Fund [Internet]. Goal: 5 achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. 2022 [cited 2022 Mar 23]. https://unstats.un.org/SDGs/metadata/.
  • 23.Aliaga Alferado and Ren Ruilin. 2006. Optimal sample sizes for two-stage cluster sampling in demographic and health surveys. DHS working papers no. 30. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ORC Macro. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wado YD. Women’s autonomy and reproductive health-care-seeking behavior in Ethiopia. Women Health. 2018. Aug;58(7):729–43. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2017.1353573 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Singh PK, Rai RK, Alagarajan M, Singh L. Determinants of maternity care services utilization among married adolescents in rural India. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031666 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Aboagye RG, Ahinkorah BO, Seidu AA, Adu C, Hagan JE Jr, Amu H,et al. Mass media exposure and safer sex negotiation among women in sexual unions in sub-Saharan Africa: analysis of demographic and health survey data. Behav Sci (Basel). 2021. Apr 28;11(5):63. doi: 10.3390/bs11050063 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Charlier S, Caubergs L. The women empowerment approach: a methodological guide. Gender and indicators working group. Commission on Women Development. Brussell. 2007.
  • 28.Bhat RA. Role of education in the empowerment of women in India. J Educ Pract. 2015;6(10):188–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Thind SK, Bohra GS, Kumar H. Impact of education on women empowerment. MERC Global’s Int J Management. 2019;07(4):276–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Osamor PE, Grady C. Women’s autonomy in health care decision-making in developing countries: a synthesis of the literature. Int J Womens Health. 2016. Jun 7;8:191–202. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S105483 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rammohan A, Johar M. The determinants of married women’s autonomy in Indonesia. Feminist Economics. 2009. Oct;15(4):31–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumabhangphe KM, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s group on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004. Sep 11–17;364(9438):970–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17021-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Acharya DR, Bell JS, Simkhada P, Van Teijlingen ER, Regmi PR. Women’s autonomy in household decision-making: a demographic study in Nepal. Reprod Health. 2010. Jul 15;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-7-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lama A, Buchy M. Gender, class, caste and participation: the case of community forestry in Nepal. Indian J Gender Studies. 2002;9(1):27–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pandey JP, Dhakal MR, Karki S, Poudel P, Pradhan MS. 2013. Maternal and child health in Nepal: the effects of caste, ethnicity, and regional identity: further analysis of the 2011 Nepal demographic and health survey. DHS further analysis. Calverton, Maryland, USA: NepalMinistry of Health and Population, New ERA, and ICF International. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Atteraya MS, Gnawali S, Palley E. Women’s participation in self-help groups as a pathway to women’s empowerment: a case of Nepal. Int J Soc Welf. 2016. Oct;25(4):321–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.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. Jun 23;5(6):e11190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011190 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Alemayehu M, Meskele M. Health care decision making autonomy of women from rural districts of Southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. Int J Womens Health. 2017. Apr 19;9:213–21. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S131139 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ristiana R, Handayani D. Does work influence women’s autonomy or does autonomy deliberate women to work? E3S Web Conf: ICSoLCA. 2018;74:10013. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yonas Tadesse S, Emiru AA, Tafere TE, Asresie MB. Women’s autonomy decision making power on postpartum modern contraceptive use and associated factors in North West Ethiopia. Adv Public Health. 2019:1570. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kumar BR, Kumar DK. Determinants of utilization of institutional delivery services in East Nepal: a community-based cross-sectional study. Med Phoenix. 2018. July;3(1):6–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Thandar M, Naing W, Moe HH. 2019. Women’s empowerment in Myanmar: an analysis of DHS data for married women Age 15–49. DHS Working Papers No. 143. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Awoleye AF, Victor C, Alawode OA. Women autonomy and maternal healthcare services utilization among young ever-married women in Nigeria. Int J Nurs Midwifery. 2018. Jun 30;10(6):62–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gautam S, Jeong HS. The role of women’s autonomy and experience of intimate partner violence as a predictor of maternal healthcare service utilization in Nepal. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. Mar 12;16(5):895. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16050895 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Viswan SP, Ravindran TKS, Kandala NB, Petzold MG, Fonn S. Sexual autonomy and contraceptive use among women in Nigeria: Findings from the demographic and health survey data. Int J Womens Health. 2017. Aug 23;9:581–590. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S133760 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Central Bureau of Statistics.. Nepal Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2019, Survey Findings Report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF Nepal; 2020. [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000832.r001

Decision Letter 0

Collins Otieno Asweto

14 Jun 2022

PGPH-D-22-00866

Factors that Determine Women’s Autonomy in Decision Making for their Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Adweeti,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 27th June 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article, therefore should be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

2. Please update the 'Competing Interests' statement with this "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist".

3.  We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall the secondary analysis was conducted correctly with interesting findings. However some of findings can be a basis for the further studies. For instance on p.14 ratio of autonomous Muslims is twice less than ratio of autonomous Janajati. The line 159 and 160 states on absence of any association of autonomy with religion. Interesting finding is that higher education of women has more positive impact on autonomy than high education of their husbands. Could be interesting to see the cases where both are highly educated. Exposure to the media is associated with autonomy but it could be one of the possible factors among few which influences these women autonomy. Perhaps can be other factors along with exposure to media which leads to the greater autonomy. Impact form exposure to media depends on the context which media has and in Nepal mass media probably does talk about women rights. Unfortunately its not the case in all countries to the same extend and authors can be cautious with replication of these recommendation to other country contexts.

Reviewer #2: The study entitled “Factors Determining Women’s Autonomy in Decision Making for their Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” by Adweeti et al. discusses the factors that contribute to women’s autonomy in decision making on their sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). The authors have written on a very important and interesting topic. However, some points should be considered in the revision of the manuscript:

1. There are some typographical and grammatic errors within the text that require correction to improve legibility.

2. The introduction outlines the progress and commitments made by Nepal in improving women’s decision making in their sexual and reproductive health and rights. The authors should consider adding additional literature on how their study relates to previously published research on women’s decision making on their SRHR.

3. The authors should consider checking the measurement of the dependent variable and the cited reference [15] which does not have the questions used to measure autonomy.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. K. Goshliyev

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000832.r003

Decision Letter 1

Collins Otieno Asweto

5 Jul 2022

Factors that Determine Women’s Autonomy to Make Decisions About Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Study

PGPH-D-22-00866R1

Dear Adweeti

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Factors that Determine Women’s Autonomy to Make Decisions About Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This study is a secondary analysis of the data of NDHS 2016. The data sets are publicly available from The DHS program’s website https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES