Skip to main content
The Scientific World Journal logoLink to The Scientific World Journal
. 2020 Mar 23;2020:8978041. doi: 10.1155/2020/8978041

Spousal Separation and Use of and Unmet Need for Contraception in Nepal: Results Based on a 2016 Survey

Suresh Mehata 1,, Yuba Raj Paudel 2, Amit Dhungel 3, Mohan Paudel 4, Janak Thapa 5, Deepak Kumar Karki 6
PMCID: PMC7125498  PMID: 32280312

Abstract

Nepal is facing a large-scale labour migration—both internal and international—driven by economic and employment opportunities. There is sparse literature available at the national level which examines the link between migration and contraceptive use. This study aimed at identifying contraceptive use and the unmet need for family planning (FP) and exploring its correlates among the married women of reproductive age (MWRA) by their husbands' residence status, using data from Nepal Demographic Health Survey 2016–a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. A stratified two-stage cluster sampling in rural and a three-stage sampling in urban areas were used to select the sampling clusters, and data from 11,040 households were analyzed. Reported values were weighted by sample weights to provide national-level estimates. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was calculated using multiple logistic regressions using complex survey design, considering clusters, and stratification by ecological zones. All analyses were performed using Stata 15.0. Among the total MWRA, 53% were using a contraceptive method, whereas the proportion of contraceptive use among the cohabiting couple was 68%. The unmet need for contraceptive use was 10% among cohabiting couples and 50% among the noncohabiting couples. Contraceptive use was significantly low among the women reporting an induced abortion in the last five years and whose husbands were currently away. A strong negative association of spousal separation with contraceptive use was observed (aOR:0.14; p < 0.001) after controlling other covariates, whereas a positive association was observed with the unmet need (aOR:8.00; p < 0.001). Cohabiting couples had a significantly higher contraceptive use and lower unmet need compared with the couples living apart. Between 2006 and 2016, contraceptive use increased by 1% per year among cohabiting couples, although this increase is hugely attributable to the use of traditional methods, compared with modern methods. The labour migration being a significant and indispensable socioeconomic phenomenon for Nepal, it is necessary to monitor fertility patterns and contraceptive use by cohabitation status in order to ensure that the national family planning interventions are targeted to address the contraceptive and fertility needs of the migrant couples.

1. Background

Despite political instability, slow economic growth, and significant geographic and economic barriers to health care, Nepal has made considerable progress in improving reproductive health over the last two decades. Despite these gains, progress on universal access to reproductive health measured by the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) and unmet need for family planning remains unsatisfactory. Significant inequalities in use of and unmet need for contraceptives still exist by the place of residence, age-group, and migration status.

In Nepal, international migration and rural-to-urban migration within Nepal [migration may be seasonal, temporary, semipermanent, or permanent; its nature often depends on the reason for migration] are rapidly increasing [1]. A recent study in Nepal showed about a third of the households (30%) had at least one member of the family migrated. The proportion of migration was higher in the rural and disadvantaged regions of Nepal—the mid-western and far-western regions of the country compared with urban and relatively developed regions [2]. The Nepal Household Survey 2012 showed that almost half (47%) of households had at least one member migrating either inside or outside the country [3]. One in ten households (10%) had two migrants, 5% of the households had three migrants, and 7% had four or more migrants. The peak age for male migrants was within the age-groups 20–29 years. Among the male migrants, a majority fell in age-group 15–39 years, with the peak age group of 20–29 years, whereas a majority of female were in 15–29 years age-group [3]. The Nepal Household Survey 2012 also revealed that most of the migrants moved for employment reasons (59%), and this was true among both the group of migrants from urban (53%) and rural (60%) areas. Over a quarter (27%) of households had at least one migrant living overseas, with 6% of the households having at least two migrants and 2% having at least three international migrants (HHS 2012). Rural households (27%) were slightly more likely to have a migrant living overseas than the urban households (24%).

There is sparse literature examining the link between migration and contraceptive use and/or fertility. Using NDHS 2016 data, this study examines spousal separation and its effect on contraceptive use in Nepal [4]. Previous work on this topic using 2011 NDHS data [5] and the data from 40 rural districts [1] showed a significantly higher unmet need and lower use of modern contraceptives among couples living separately compared with cohabiting couples. Spousal separation was shown to play a crucial role in the decline of total fertility in the absence of a corresponding rise in the contraceptive uptake in Nepal [5], which is also supported by a recent mixed method study [2] that identified recently married couples delaying to plan for a baby due to spousal separation, usually husband. In this regard, regular monitoring of contraceptive use according to the changing migration trends and measuring the disaggregated fertility pattern/contraceptive use according to the cohabitation status can help policy makers and planners make an informed decision for family planning programming. This study was conducted to investigate a recent pattern in family planning use according to husband's residence status and study factors associated with the contraceptive use and unmet need for FP among cohabiting and noncohabiting women, to expand the evidence base and help policy makers make evidence based decisions.

2. Materials and Methods

Data for this study were drawn from Nepal Demographic Health Survey 2016 [4], a nationally representative survey conducted to provide up-to-date estimates on basic health and demographic indicators. A detailed methodology has been presented in the NDHS 2016 full report [4]. In brief, a stratified two-staged cluster sampling in rural and a three-staged sampling in urban areas were used in order to select the clusters. A total of 383 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected using probability proportional to their size methods [6]. Subsequently, 30 households per cluster were selected with an equal probability systematic selection criterion. Interviews were completed for 11,040 households, yielding a response rate of 99%.

2.1. Variables

The dependent variable in this analysis was use of and unmet need for contraceptives among MWRA currently residing with husbands (cohabiting) and women whose husbands lived away (noncohabiting). Three major predictor variables were included in this analysis: individual factors (such as age, education, had an induced abortion in the last five years, and ever used emergency contraceptives), household-level variables (such as caste/ethnic group and wealth quintile), and community-level variables (such as urban/rural residence, provinces, and ecological zone).The method used to compute the wealth index is described in the NDHS 2016 report [3].

2.2. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using Stata version 15 software. Reported values were weighted by sample weights to provide national estimates. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was calculated using multiple logistic regression, with all covariates (age, education, ecological zone, place of residence, provinces, wealth quintile, number of living children, caste/ethnicity, women who had induced abortion, and ever used emergency contraceptives) included simultaneously in the model using complex survey design, considering clusters, and stratification by ecological zones. p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant in this study. Because disaggregating family planning use and the unmet need for family planning by husband's residence status give a more realistic picture of family planning program performance at the population level, we present disaggregated results for the married women of reproductive age (MWRA) currently living with their husbands and women whose husbands lived away [1]. A sensitivity analysis was also carried for noncohabiting couples to identify the duration of separation (≤1 year vs > 1 year) that has more impact on use of and unmet need for family planning.

3. Results

Among married women of reproductive age (MWRA), spousal separation was observed among 34% of the participants with a median duration of 11 months (data not shown). Among women whose husbands were currently living away, nearly half of them (49.3%) were separated for more than a year. More than one-third (36%) were separated for less than 6 months, and 14.7% were separated for 6–11 months. Spousal separation was more common among MWRA in rural areas (37%) than their urban counterparts (32%). The peak age for spousal separation was within the age-groups 20–29 years [20–24 (45%) and 25–29 (43%)]. The highest spousal separation was observed among those who reside in Province 4 (42%) and Province 2 (39%), among the third wealth quintile groups (40%) and among those who were Muslims and hill Dalits (39%) (Table 1). Higher spousal separation was observed among women reporting ever use of emergency contraception (39%) than those never had an emergency contraception (34%).

Table 1.

Background characteristics of married women by their cohabitation status with their husbands, 2016.

Women's characteristic   Cohabitation status Total MWRA
Cohabiting Noncohabiting
n % N %
No. of living children
 None 648 63.2 377 36.8 1025
 1–2 3066 60.8 1978 39.2 5044
 3–4 2148 72.4 817 27.6 2965
 5+ 659 78.4 181 21.6 840

Age-groups (years)
 15–19 418 59.4 286 40.6 704
 20–24 929 55.1 755 44.9 1684
 25–29 1118 57.1 839 42.9 1957
 30–34 1084 62.8 642 37.2 1726
 35–39 1075 71.2 436 28.8 1510
 40–44 1030 80.3 253 19.7 1283
 45–49 868 85.9 143 14.1 1011

Level of educational
 No education 2784 69.9 1200 30.1 3984
 Primary 1182 63.8 670 36.2 1853
 Secondary 1797 62.1 1094 37.9 2891
 Higher 758 66.1 389 33.9 1147

Place of residence
 Urban 4112 68.2 1919 31.8 6031
 Rural 2409 62.7 1434 37.3 3844

Province
 Province 1 1118 67.5 537 32.5 1655
 Province 2 1329 61.3 839 38.7 2168
 Province 3 1446 75.3 473 24.7 1920
 Province 4 553 58.2 397 41.8 950
 Province 5 1150 65.8 599 34.2 1749
 Province 6 388 66.2 198 33.8 586
 Province 7 537 63.5 309 36.5 846

Ecological zone
 Mountain 396 68.7 180 31.3 576
 Hill 2791 67.3 1359 32.7 4150
 Terai 3334 64.8 1814 35.2 5148

Wealth quintile
 Poorest 1107 65.6 580 34.4 1687
 Poorer 1235 63.5 711 36.5 1946
 Middle 1263 60.5 825 39.5 2088
 Richer 1359 64.5 749 35.5 2107
 Richest 1557 76.1 490 23.9 2047

Caste/ethnicity
 Hill Brahmin 769 69.1 343 30.9 1112
 Hill Chhetri 1141 63.6 654 36.4 1794
 Terai Brahmin/Chhetri 125 75.1 41 24.9 166
 Other Terai caste 1057 66.3 536 33.7 1593
 Hill Dalit 476 60.8 308 39.2 784
 Terai Dalit 301 62.7 179 37.3 481
 Newar 362 80.1 90 19.9 452
 Hill Janajati 1283 64.2 717 35.8 2000
 Terai Janajati 674 70.5 282 29.5 956
 Muslim 306 60.7 198 39.3 504
 Others 27 83.8 5 16.2 32

Had an induced abortion in the last five years
 No 6199 66.0 3190 34.0 9389
 Yes 322 66.3 164 33.7 486

Ever had emergency contraceptives
 No 6435 66.1 3299 33.9 9734
 Yes 86 61.0 55 39.0 141
Total 6522 66.0 3533 34.0 9875

Among all MWRA, 53% were using any contraceptives; of whom 81% were using modern methods rather than traditional ones (data not shown). This proportion of contraceptive use (any method) among cohabitating couples increased to 68% (Figure 1), whereas only 24% of women whose husbands lived away reported using any contraceptive methods (Table 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Trend of CPR (any method) and unmet need among total MWRA and the MWRA cohabiting with their husbands (NDHS 2001 to 2016).

Table 2.

Use of any method of FP (%) and its difference by cohabitation status among married women, 2016.

Women's characteristic Cohabiting Noncohabiting Difference
Any method (N) Any method (N)
Living children
 None 21.4 648 5.1 377 16.3
 1–2 69.9 3066 18.8 1978 51.1
 3–4 78.1 2148 40.3 817 37.8
 5+ 68.2 659 37.0 181 31.2

Age-groups (years)
 15–19 33.4 418 8.2 286 25.2
 20–24 50.1 929 9.8 755 40.3
 25–29 65.6 1118 19.5 839 46.1
 30–34 76.2 1084 28.9 642 47.3
 35–39 79.9 1075 40.4 436 39.5
 40–44 77 1030 38.5 253 38.5
 45–49 68.2 868 48.0 143 20.2

Highest educational level
 No education 69.5 2784 32.1 1200 37.4
 Primary 66.3 1182 22.3 670 44
 Secondary 64.5 1797 17.8 1094 46.7
 Higher 69.9 758 15.0 389 54.9

Place of residence
 Urban 69.6 4112 23.1 1919 46.5
 Rural 64.2 2409 24.0 1434 40.2

Province
 Province 1 72.9 1118 18.2 537 54.7
 Province 2 59.8 1329 28.5 839 31.3
 Province 3 70.7 1446 30.0 473 40.7
 Province 4 72.1 553 15.6 397 56.5
 Province 5 63.4 1150 18.4 599 45.0
 Province 6 65.5 388 23.0 198 42.5
 Province 7 73.5 537 29.2 309 44.3

Ecological zone
 Mountain 68.9 396 23.1 180 45.8
 Hill 70.2 2791 20.5 1359 49.7
 Terai 65.3 3334 25.8 1814 39.5

Wealth index
 Poorest 63.5 1107 21.6 580 41.9
 Poorer 70 1235 24.6 711 45.4
 Middle 66.3 1263 24.0 825 42.3
 Richer 64.6 1359 23.8 749 40.8
 Richest 72.3 1557 22.5 490 49.8

Ethnicity
 Hill Brahmin 76.6 769 17.7 343 58.9
 Hill Chhetri 70.1 1141 19.0 654 51.1
 Terai Brahmin/Chhetri 70.8 125 20.4 41 50.4
 Other Terai caste 61 1057 30.8 536 30.2
 Hill Dalit 69.2 476 22.5 308 46.7
 Terai Dalit 51.5 301 26.4 179 25.1
 Newar 67.6 362 32.1 90 35.5
 Hill Janajati 69.7 1283 19.5 717 50.2
 Terai Janajati 77.6 674 38.6 282 39
 Muslim 39.2 306 14.8 198 24.4

Had an induced abortion in the last five years
 No 67.4 6199 24.0 3190 43.4
 Yes 72.5 322 12.5 164 60

Ever had emergency contraceptives
 No 67.6 6435 23.5 3299 44.1
 Yes 67.6 86 24.6 55 43

Total 67.6 6521 23.5 2354 44.1

Missing = 32.

The use of contraceptives among women currently residing with husbands and women whose husbands lived away was most common for the age range 35–49 years, the age range when women are most likely to want to stop (rather than delay or space) childbearing. By provinces, among the women currently residing with husbands and women whose husbands lived away, the highest use of contraceptive methods was observed among those residing in Province 7 (74% and 29%, respectively).

The largest gap in contraceptive use (any method) by husband's cohabitation status was observed among those with a higher level of education (55%), those residing in Province 4 (57%) followed by Province 1 (55%), hill Brahmins (59%), and who had and induced abortion in the last five years (60%) (Table 2).

Overall, unmet need of contraceptive use was 24% among any MWRA and 10% among those currently residing with husbands (Figure 1), whereas the unmet need was 50% among those women whose husbands were away. The largest crude difference in unmet need by husband's cohabitation status was observed among couples who had 1–2 living children (45%) compared with other categories (no children, 3–4 children, 5, and more). By age categories, the difference in unmet need by husband's cohabitation was almost similar among age categories covering 15–34 years (39–42%). Those with higher educational status, primary (42%), secondary (47%), and higher education (43%), had large differences in unmet need than those with no education (28%). Province 1 (48%) and Province 4 (50%) had higher difference in unmet need by husband's cohabitation status. Similarly, hills region (45%) had a higher difference in unmet need than the mountain (40%) and Terai regions (35%) of Nepal. By ethnicity, hill Brahmin (48%), hill Chhetri (46%), and hill Janajati (48%) showed the largest crude difference in unmet need than other caste/ethnicities. Women who had an abortion in the last five years had much higher difference in the unmet need for FP (51%) by husbands' cohabitation status than women reporting no abortion in the last five years (39%) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Unmet need for FP(%) and its difference by cohabitation status among married women in Nepal, 2016.

Women's characteristic Cohabiting Noncohabiting Difference
Any method Total (N) Any method Total (N)
Living children
 None 9.7 648 36.9 377 27.2
 1–2 11.1 3066 56.3 1978 45.2
 3–4 9.4 2148 41.5 817 32.1
 5+ 11.4 659 38.9 181 27.5

Age-groups (years)
 15–19 18.4 418 59.0 286 40.6
 20–24 13.8 929 55.6 755 41.8
 25–29 13.3 1118 52.4 839 39.1
 30–34 9.0 1084 50.9 642 41.9
 35–39 7.1 1075 41.8 436 34.7
 40–44 7.6 1030 37.9 253 30.3
 45–49 8.6 868 20.6 143 12.0

Highest educational level
 No education 9.4 2784 37.8 1200 28.4
 Primary 11.1 1182 53.5 670 42.4
 Secondary 12.4 1797 59.4 1094 47.0
 Higher 8.7 758 51.5 389 42.8

Place of residence
 Urban 9.8 4112 50.4 1919 40.6
 Rural 11.5 2409 48.5 1434 37.0

Province
 Province 1 9.4 1118 57.2 537 47.8
 Province 2 10.2 1329 37.0 839 26.8
 Province 3 9.9 1446 50.2 473 40.3
 Province 4 9.2 553 59.0 397 49.8
 Province 5 13.8 1150 54.9 599 41.1
 Province 6 12.9 388 50.8 198 37.9
 Province 7 7.0 537 46.1 309 39.1

Ecological zone
 Mountain 10.3 396 50.1 180 39.8
 Hill 10.7 2791 56.1 1359 45.4
 Terai 10.2 3334 44.7 1814 34.5

Wealth index
 Poorest 14.0 1107 51.8 580 37.8
 Poorer 8.8 1235 49.8 711 41.0
 Middle 9.3 1263 47.1 825 37.8
 Richer 10.6 1359 47.7 749 37.1
 Richest 9.9 1557 53.9 490 44.0

Ethnicity
 Hill Brahmin 7.2 769 55.6 343 48.4
 Hill Chhetri 10.2 1141 56.3 654 46.1
 Terai Brahmin/Chhetri 8.9 125 40.4 41 31.5
 Other Terai caste 11.4 1057 36.6 536 25.2
 Hill Dalit 15.3 476 56.7 308 41.4
 Terai Dalit 13.3 301 35.3 179 22.0
 Newar 11.8 362 52.7 90 40.9
 Hill Janajati 10.2 1283 58.4 717 48.2
 Terai Janajati 5.2 674 37.7 282 32.5
 Muslim 17.3 306 40.9 198 23.6

Had an abortion in the last five years
 Yes 16.9 322 67.4 164 50.5
 No 10.1 6199 48.7 3190 38.6

Ever had emergency contraceptives
 Yes 18.1 86 60.8 55 42.7
 No 10.3 6435 49.4 3299 39.1
Total 10.4 6521 49.6 2354 39.2

Missing = 32.

By caste/ethnicity, the lowest use of contraceptive methods was observed among Muslims currently residing with husbands (32%), whereas the highest use was observed among hill Janajati (70%) (Table 2). Among the women whose husbands were away, the less likelihood of using contraceptives was observed among those who had an induced abortion in the last five years (13%) compared with those women who did not have any induced abortion (24%). In the adjusted model, age, number of living children, education, province, caste/ethnicity, and use of induced abortion in the last five years were associated with contraceptive use among those women whose husbands away (Table 4). No difference was found on the impact of the duration of separation (≤1 year vs > 1 year) on use of and unmet need for FP.

Table 4.

Factors associated with CPR (any method) and unmet need among cohabiting and noncohabiting women in Nepal, 2016.

 Women's characteristic CPR (any method) Unmet need
Cohabiting Noncohabiting Cohabiting Noncohabiting
Adjusted odds ratio aOR aOR aOR
Living children
None 1 1 1 1
 1–2 7.03 (5.59–8.84) 2.97 (1.74–5.06) 1.95 (1.35–2.81) 3.64 (2.73–4.85)
 3–4 12.90 (9.89–16.82) 6.10 (3.41–10.91) 2.26 (1.41–3.63) 3.82 (2.73–5.34)
 5+ 9.66 (6.92–13.49) 4.25 (2.16–8.36) 2.82 (1.60–4.98) 5.39 (3.33–8.73)

Age-groups (years)
 15–19 1 1 1 1
 20–24 0.97 (0.69–1.35) 1.01 (0.56–1.83) 0.60 (0.41–0.90) 0.50 (0.36–0.70)
 25–29 1.24 (0.86–1.77) 1.93 (1.10–3.38) 0.53 (0.34–0.83) 0.35 (0.25–0.51)
 30–34 1.83 (1.27–2.64) 3.18 (1.73–5.86) 0.32 (0.21–0.50) 0.29 (0.20–0.43)
 35–39 2.21 (1.49–3.28) 5.64 (3.03–10.50) 0.25 (0.16–0.39) 0.21 (0.14–0.31)
 40–44 1.84 (1.19–2.85) 5.50 (2.87–10.53) 0.26 (0.15–0.45) 0.15 (0.09–0.25)
 45–49 1.00 (0.67–1.49) 7.30 (3.47–15.34) 0.31 (0.18–0.53) 0.07 (0.04–0.13)

Level of education
 No education 1 1 1 1
 Primary 0.92 (0.76–1.12) 1.16 (0.86–1.57) 1.05 (0.81–1.38) 1.23 (0,95–1.59)
 Secondary 1.06 (0.86–1.32) 1.43 (1.07–1.89) 1.26 (0.97–1.64) 1.32 (1.03–1.67)
 Higher 1.44 (1.02–2.02) 1.45 (0.93–2.28) 0.91 (0.59–1.39) 0.97 (0.68–1.37)

Place of residence
 Urban 1 1 1 1
 Rural 0.92 (0.77–1.08) 1.10 (0.87–1.40) 1.06 (0.85–1.31) 1.04 (0.87–1.25)

Province
 Province 1 1 1 1 1
 Province 2 0.69 (0.50–0.96) 1.14 (0.69–1.91) 0.90 (0.59–1.38) 0.83 (0.57–1.21)
 Province 3 0.76 (0.57–1.01) 2.51 (1.42–4.44) 1.07 (0.76–1.51) 0.65 (0.42–1.03)
 Province 4 0.77 (0.58–1.01) 1.01 (0.62–1.63) 0.92 (0.62–1.36) 0.86 (0.60–1.22)
 Province 5 0.63 (0.47–0.84) 0.92 (0.58–1.45) 1.49 (1.05–2.09) 0.97 (0.70–1.33)
 Province 6 0.77 (0.58–1.03) 2.13 (1.25–3.61) 1.13 (0.76–1.68) 0.61 (0.41–0.91)
 Province 7 0.81 (0.63–1.06) 2.12 (1.38–3.25) 0.77 (0.51–1.16) 0.58 (0.41–0.83)

Ecological zone
 Mountain 1 1 1 1
 Hill 0.95 (0.70–1.30) 0.78 (0.44–1.37) 1.12 (0.75–1.67) 1.24 (0.77–2.00)
 Terai 0.97 (0.67–1.39) 0.95 (0.48–1.88) 1.08 (0.67–1.74) 1.18 (0.70–2.00)

Wealth quintile
 Poorest 1 1 1 1
 Poorer 1.66 (1.35–2.05) 1.20 (0.82–1.76) 0.61 (0.46–0.82) 1.15 (0.84–1.57)
 Middle 1.73 (1.35–2.23) 1.09 (0.72–1.65) 0.63 (0.45–0.88) 1.18 (0.87–1.61)
 Richer 1.54 (1.20–1.97) 1.06 (0.65–1.74) 0.69 (0.49–0.97) 1.12 (0.81–1.57)
 Richest 1.91 (1.43–2.56) 0.98 (0.52–1.85) 0.71 (0.50–1.01) 1.41 (0.88–2.25)

Caste/ethnicity
 Hill Brahmin 1 1 1 1
 Hill Chhetri 0.85 (0.64–1.14) 1.07 (0.69–1.66) 1.20 (0.82–1.75) 1.05 (0.75–1.46)
 Terai Brahmin/Chhetri 0.77 (0.43–1.37) 1.57 (0.57–4.31) 1.35 (0.69–2.64) 0.46 (0.23–0.90)
 Other Terai caste 0.52 (0.34–0.79) 3.17 (1.85–5.43) 1.54 (0.93–2.57) 0.33 (0.21–0.52)
 Hill Dalit 0.96 (0.71–1.30) 1.59 (1.01–2.49) 1.79 (1.15–2.78) 0.98 (0.67–1.43)
 Terai Dalit 0.41 (0.24–0.70) 2.12 (1.07–4.19) 1.95 (1.11–3.43) 0.37 (0.22–0.61)
 Newar 0.73 (0.43–1.22) 2.61 (1.00–6.84) 1.87 (1.03–3.41) 0.75 (0.36–1.58)
 Hill Janajati 0.94 (0.72–1.23) 1.45 (0.94–2.24) 1.21 (0.81–1.82) 1.00 (0.75–1.35)
 Terai Janajati 1.27 (0.87–1.86) 4.32 (2.55–7.31) 0.69 (0.40–1.19) 0.39 (0.25–0.60)
 Muslim 0.20 (0.13–0.31) 1.01 (0.50–2.02) 2.57 (1.45–4.53) 0.41 (0.25–0.67)

Had an abortion in the last five years
 No 1 1 1 1
 Yes 1.08 (0.74–1.56) 0.42 (0.26–0.68) 1.62 (1.06–2.47) 1.65 (1.14–2.39)

Ever had emergency contraceptives
 No 1 1 1 1
 Yes 0.79 (0.41–1.50) 1.59 (0.57–4.39) 2.02 (0.91–4.49) 1.28 (0.56–2.91)

All the variables presented are included in the model.

In the multivariate model, maternal age, number of living children, education, province, wealth quintile, and caste/ethnicity were associated with contraceptive use among those currently residing with husbands (Table 4). The higher likelihood of contraceptive use was observed among those currently residing with husbands with higher education than the participants with no education (aOR:1.44; 95% CI: 1.02–2.02). Significantly lower contraceptive use was observed among women reporting an induced abortion in the last five years and whose husbands were currently away (aOR:0.42; 95% CI: 0.26–0.68). Reporting of ever use of emergency contraception was not significantly associated with the lower use of contraceptives (any method) both among cohabiting and noncohabiting couples.

Similarly, maternal age, number of living children, province, wealth quintile, caste/ethnicity, and use of induced abortion services in the last five years were associated with unmet need among women currently residing with husbands (Table 4). An inverse relationship of age with the unmet need was observed. Similarly, age, number of living children, education, province, caste/ethnicity, and use of induced abortion services in the last five years were associated with unmet need among women whose husbands were away (Table 4). A strong negative association of spousal separation with contraceptive use was observed (aOR:0.14; p < 0.001) after controlling other covariates, whereas a positive association was observed with unmet need (aOR:8.00; p < 0.001) (data not shown in table).

4. Discussion

Our aim in this study was to study the effect of spousal separation on use of and unmet need for contraceptives in Nepal. The analysis revealed that although family planning use (any method) has slightly increased or leveled off with the any MWRA group, there is an increment of 11% (from 57% in 2006 to 68% in 2016)—with an approximate rise of 1% annually among the cohabiting couples. The overall CPR is 53% among any MWRA, while this rate is much higher at 68% among the cohabiting couples as shown by the NDHS 2016 [4]. Likewise, unmet need for family planning among any MWRA is 24%, whereas this is only 10% among the cohabiting couples. This shows that although overall unmet need remained almost constant between 2006 and 2016, it has decreased by 6% among the cohabiting couples. These findings clearly suggest that presenting aggregate information (without disaggregating the rates with status of cohabitation) on contraceptive use and unmet need can be misinterpreted, which can ultimately affect the appropriate use of scarce resources and prioritization of the family planning program within the neediest population subgroups of the entire MWRA age range. On the other hand, increasing share of the traditional method among the cohabiting couples (4.7% in 2006 to 13.8% in 2016) [4, 5] is another factor to be considered to examine whether this has indeed affected the fertility structure and has not led to increasing unintended pregnancies.

Nepal's labour-related out-migration is male dominated, even though the number of female migrants has seen a rise in recent years. In 2013/2014 alone, of 521,878 total labour migrants, a majority was males (94.5%) [7]. Additionally, a significant number of men and women work in India, who are more likely to be undocumented because of open border policy between India and Nepal [8]. Approximately 8% of Nepalese were out of the country as shown by the 2011 household census, and majority of the out-migrants were of reproductive age [9].

There is a complex and dynamic relationship between migration and fertility. Much of the literature discusses the “fertility-depressing effect” of spousal separation for a short term [1013]. The fertility depression effect is described as having a reduced fertility rate. Some argue that the fertility-depressing effect is expected to be higher (or more visible) in areas of high fertility and low contraceptive use [13] and also depends on the duration of separation and postpartum amenorrhea [14]. While others argue that migration can result in increased fertility because of higher coital frequency after return from migration [15]. A study from Mozambique revealed that wives of successful migrants were more likely to use modern contraceptives than wives of nonmigrants or less successful migrants [13], thus validating the principle of selective hypothesis [14]. The selective hypothesis proposes that migrants are self-selective groups who consciously control marriage and prefer fewer children [16]. Furthermore, the use of contraceptives when husband is away may depend on service accessibility, sociocultural factors, and women's autonomy. One recent study from Nepal documents that young couples are delaying plan to have a child due to strong socioeconomic pressure [2]. The study explored young couples becoming more conscious to not to bear a child before having themselves economically empowered—which in most cases was to migrate to industrial/developed countries for job opportunities due to increasing unemployment rates at the home country. Increasing aspirations to provide quality education to their kids, the cost of health care, and responsibility to take care of old family members back home has pushed today's youths to migrate out of the country—with Gulf countries becoming the top destination. It appears that migration to countries other than India (which used to be the top destination before) have delayed childbearing because of relatively longer spousal separation. On the other hand, rising general literacy and exposure due to migration must have created an immense pressure on young couples to limit their family size as they become more aware and sensitive about their future and resources needed to plan a family well. With a recent trend of female migration, the study also identified that recently married couples who had unintended pregnancy even opted for abortion, besides economic pressure, which to some extent could have been eased by the legalized and accessible abortion services in Nepal [17]. Furthermore, breakdown of the traditional family structure with a move towards nuclear family might have been another factor behind why couples today plan for a less number of children. With a joint family structure, it is natural that couples have always grandparents and other family members to take responsibility for raising a child. However, recently, this is becoming a less common phenomenon in Nepal. Considering all of these sociocultural factors, we add into the argument that the fertility structure should be seen as a complex and dynamic indicator. Analysis of the impact of spousal separation is the beginning of it, thus moving further from simply concluding the fertility structure as an outcome of a nation's contraceptive prevalence rate.

A large difference in contraceptive use (any method) by husband's cohabitation status among women from well-off groups (higher education and higher wealth quintiles) than those with less education and lower wealth quintile suggests these groups have a higher tendency to refrain from using contraceptives when their husbands are away. Thapa et al. (2014) found that improvements in knowledge and awareness of legalization of abortion, circumstances in which abortion is allowed, and places to obtain services were largely limited among women with higher education and higher wealth quintile [17]. It was estimated that 137,000 legal and over 186,000 illegal abortions were conducted in 2014 in Nepal [18] and figure continue to rise annually [19]. Given the easy availability of surgical and medical abortion in Nepal, educated and wealthy women could have misused abortion service as a means of family planning. Even though the current analysis did not show any association of the ever use of emergency contraceptives with the current use of contraceptives (any method) or unmet need for family planning both among cohabiting and noncohabiting women, over-the-counter availability of emergency contraceptives (ECPs) has proved to be popular among young and educated women in Nepal [20]. ECP use is often under-reported in household surveys such as DHS [20]. Hence, for many noncohabiting women, abortion services and emergency contraceptives could have been the means for meeting fertility regulation needs in Nepal.

This study also found the significantly lower contraceptive use and higher unmet need for family planning among those who had had an induced abortion in the last five years and whose husbands were currently away. A study among women who received surgical abortion in Kathmandu showed that one in five women who had an abortion left the facility without using the family planning method [21]. Almost one-third of the abortion users had a repeat abortion. Regular provision of a range of contraceptives and availability of effective counseling are lacking in many health facilities and clinics in Nepal [21]. Women whose husbands are away experience societal and familial pressure not to use contraceptives. When unplanned pregnancy occurs—either due to husband's unplanned arrival or due to extramarital relationship—abortion becomes the ultimate resort to end unintended pregnancy, which often results in repeated abortions.

Results from multivariate logistic regression showed that age, number of living children, education, province, wealth quintile, and caste/ethnicity were associated with contraceptive use. Increasing age and the higher number of living children were associated with higher chances of using family planning methods. The relative strength of association of increasing age (after 30 years) with the use of modern contraceptives compared with those aged 15–19 years was lower among cohabiting couples than couples living separately. Lindstorm and Giorguli argue that migration has an impact on timing of the first birth and subsequent birth patterns [11]. Cohabiting young couples (15–19 years) may be more likely to delay childbearing by using contraceptives than young couples who separate after marriage. Young couples who live separately might face familial/societal pressure to have children before they separate; however, this needs further investigation.

A significant association was observed between higher levels of education (primary, secondary, and higher) and use of modern methods among cohabiting couples. Given that access to education has increased over time, age-group needs to be taken into account when looking at the relationship between education and use of contraceptives. Additionally, NDHS 2016 found that women with higher education and cohabiting couples were more likely to use traditional methods than those with lower education and couples living separately [4].

4.1. Policy Implications

Nepal's case is unique in terms of reduction in total fertility from 4.1 in 2001 to 2.3 in 2016—a reduction of 2 children per women within 15 years' period. The overall status of CPR and unmet need do not fully explain this transition without examining the disaggregated data on contraceptive use and unmet need for family planning by cohabitation status. A further analysis of the NDHS 2011 data revealed that spousal separation played a major role in the reduction of TFR from 3.1 births per women in 2006 to 2.6 per women in 2011 [5].Therefore, it is important to present information on contraceptives use by disaggregating with respect to spousal separation. Furthermore, regular monitoring of family planning indicators according to spousal separation is necessary as the migration trends change. Such a monitoring can help program managers see a real effect of family planning-related interventions and help allocate scarce resources appropriately. Although slightly different from the focus of this study, the growing evidence of the lower birth rate and infertility among migrant couples [22] warrants a major policy reform to manage labour-related migration trend from Nepal to maintain a desired population structure.

4.2. Implications for Program

The family planning needs differ significantly between cohabiting and noncohabiting couples. One cannot deny the occurrence of sexual activity among separately living couples [23]. Additionally, spouses need adequate planning in situations where the husband's return is unannounced [1]; therefore, family planning interventions should cater the need of spouse of migrant labours through educational messages such as related to the fertility period, and provision of family planning services. In addition, program should also cater to the needs of specific subgroups such as temporarily separated couples who will be reunited later and couples from different caste/ethnic groups where family planning uptake is very low (Muslims and Terai Dalits) [5].

4.3. Future Research Recommendations

We know very little about the family planning needs of migrant population and their spouses. The DHS surveys do not adequately capture fertility desire, unmet need for family planning, and current use of family planning among this population [23]. It is not clear whether spouses of migrants have a lower need for family planning services due to lower coital frequency, whether their complex family planning needs are not being met, or whether emergency contraception or abortion is turning out as a means of family planning. Hence, in-depth qualitative studies are needed to further understand fertility desires, facilitators, and barriers for contraceptive use among spouses of labour migrants in Nepal.

5. Conclusion

This study confirms earlier findings by Ban et al. 2012 [1] and Khanal 2013 [5] that spousal separation remains a significant explanatory factor in the use of and unmet need for contraception in Nepal. Among noncohabiting couples, CPR (any method) was at 24%, which is 44 percentage points lower than among the cohabiting couples who had a CPR of 68%. The unmet need for family planning was 50% among noncohabiting couples, while it was 10% among cohabiting couples. This study found that use of family planning methods has increased at a rate of almost 1% per year (between 2006 and 2016) among cohabiting couples, although the overall use of family planning methods seems to have leveled off or slightly increased among total MWRA in Nepal. The labour migration being a significant and indispensable socioeconomic phenomenon for Nepal, it is necessary to monitor fertility patterns and contraceptive use by cohabitation status in order to ensure that the national family planning interventions are targeted to address the contraceptive and fertility needs of the migrant couples.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the DHS Programme for providing the data sets.

Data Availability

The data used in this study are available at https://www.dhsprogram.com.

Ethical Approval

The 2016 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey protocol received ethical approval from the Nepal Health Research (NHRC)–Ethical Review Board and ICF Institutional Review Board.

Disclosure

All the views expressed in this article are entirely the personal opinion of the authors, and this does not necessarily reflect the views of agencies to which they are affiliated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Ban B., Karki S., Shrestha A., Hodgins S. Spousal separation and interpretation of contraceptive use and unmet need in rural Nepal. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2012;38(01):043–047. doi: 10.1363/3804312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thapa N., Paudel M., Guragain A. M., et al. Status of Migration and Socio-Reproductive Impacts on Migrants and Their Families Left behind in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Migration and Development; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mehata S., Baral S., Chand P., Singh D., Poudel P., Barnett S. Nepal Household Survey 2012. Kathmandu, Nepal: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) Nepal, New ERA, and ICF International Inc. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Khanal M. N. Impact of Male Migration on Contraceptive Use, Unmet Need, and Fertility in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2011 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Karandikar S., Coles L., Jayawant S., Kemp A. M. The neurodevelopmental outcome in infants who have sustained a subdural haemorrhage from non-accidental head injury. Child Abuse Review. 2004;13(3):178–187. doi: 10.1002/car.850. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ministry of Labour and Employment Government of Nepal. Labour Migration for Employment, A Status Report for Nepal: 2013/14. Kathmandu, Nepal: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gartaula H. N., Niehof A. Migration to and from the terai: shifting movements and motives. The South Asianist. 2013;2(2):28–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Central Bureau of Statistics Nepal. National Population and Housing Census, 2011. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Clifford D. Spousal separation, selectivity and contextual effects: exploring the relationship between international labour migration and fertility in post-Soviet Tajikistan. Demographic Research. 2009;21:945–975. doi: 10.4054/demres.2009.21.32. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lindstrom D. P., Giorguli Saucedo S. The interrelationship of fertility, family maintenance and Mexico-U.S. Migration. Demographic Research. 2007;17:821–858. doi: 10.4054/demres.2007.17.28. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lindstrom D. P., Saucedo S. G. The short- and long-term effects of U.S. migration experience on Mexican women’s fertility. Social Forces. 2002;80(4):1341–1368. doi: 10.1353/sof.2002.0030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Agadjanian V., Yabiku S. T., Cau B. Men’s migration and women’s fertility in rural Mozambique. Demography. 2011;48(3):1029–1048. doi: 10.1007/s13524-011-0039-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Millman S. R., Potter R. G. The fertility impact of spousal separation. Studies in Family Planning. 1984;15(3):121–126. doi: 10.2307/1965462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Omondi D., Ochola C. Migration and fertility relationship: a case study of Kenya. African Population Studies. 2003;18(1):97–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jingyue Z. The influence of migration on Chinese Korean Women’s Fertility Behavior. Studies in Asian Social Science. 2016;3(1):10–20. doi: 10.5430/sass.v3n1p10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thapa S., Sharma S. K., Khatiwada N. Women’s knowledge of abortion law and availability of services in Nepal. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2014;46(2):266–277. doi: 10.1017/s0021932013000461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Puri M., Singh S., Sundaram A., Hussain R., Tamang A., Crowell M. Abortion incidence and unintended pregnancy in Nepal. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2016;42(4):p. 197. doi: 10.1363/42e2116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ministry of Health Nepal. Annual Report, Department of Health Services 2074/2075 (2017/2018) Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Thapa S. A new wave in the quiet revolution in contraceptive use in Nepal: the rise of emergency contraception. Reproductive Health. 2016;13(1):p. 49. doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0155-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thapa S., Neupane S. Risk factors for repeat abortion in Nepal. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2013;120(1):32–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan N. N. Seasonal migration induced spousal separation and infertility: growing evidences demand significance in developing countries. International Journal of Perceptions in Public Health. 2017;1(4):215–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khan R., MacQuarrie K., Nahar Q., Sultana M. The men are away: pregnancy risk and family planning needs among women with a migrant husband in Barisal, Bangladesh. 2016;(98) doi: 10.1080/26410397.2022.2097044. DHS Further Analysis Reports. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available at https://www.dhsprogram.com.


Articles from The Scientific World Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES