Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0237212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237212

Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

Tesfaye Regassa Feyissa 1,2,*, Melissa L Harris 2, Peta M Forder 2, Deborah Loxton 2
Editor: Zelalem T Haile3
PMCID: PMC7410321  PMID: 32760140

Abstract

Introduction

Contraception can help to meet family planning goals for women living with HIV (WLHIV) as well as to support the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT). However, there is little research into the contraceptive practice among sexually active WLHIV in Ethiopia. Therefore, we aimed to examine contraceptive practice among sexually active WLHIV in western Ethiopia and identify the factors that influenced such practice using the Health Belief Model (HBM).

Methods

A facility-based cross-sectional survey of 360 sexually active WLHIV was conducted from 19th March to 22nd June 2018 in western Ethiopia. The eligible participants were WLHIV aged between 18 and 49 years who reported being fecund and sexually active within the previous six months but were not pregnant and not wanting to have another child within two years. Modified Poisson regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that influenced contraceptive practice among sexually active WLHIV in western Ethiopia.

Results

Among sexually active WLHIV (n = 360), 75% used contraception with 25% having unmet needs. Of the contraceptive users, 44.8% used injectables, 37.4% used condoms and 28.5% used implants. Among 152 recorded births in the last five years, 17.8% were reported as mistimed and 25.7% as unwanted. Compared to WLHIV having no child after HIV diagnosis, having two or more children after HIV diagnosis (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio [APR] = 1.31; 95%CI 1.09–1.58) was associated with increased risk of contraceptive practice. However, sexually active unmarried WLHIV (APR = 0.69; 95%CI 0.50–0.95) were less likely to use any contraception compared to their sexually active married counterparts. Importantly, high perceived susceptibility (APR = 1.49; 95%CI 1.20–1.86) and medium perceived susceptibility (APR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.28–1.87) towards unintended pregnancy were associated with higher risk of contraceptive use than WLHIV with low perceived susceptibility.

Conclusions

Although contraceptive use amongst sexually active WLHIV was found to be high, our findings highlight the need for strengthening family planning services given the high rate of unintended pregnancies, the high rate of unmet needs for contraception, as well as the lower efficacy with some of the methods. Our findings also suggest that the HBM would be a valuable framework for healthcare providers, programme planners and policymakers to develop guidelines and policies for contraceptive counselling and choices.

Introduction

In 2017, nearly two-thirds of the 25.7 million people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) were women [1, 2], with similar proportions identified in Ethiopia [3]. The 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) guideline states there should be no criterion barrier in the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) [4] which helped with reductions in HIV-related morbidity and mortality [5]. With the current ART expansion, meeting contraceptive needs is crucial to not only achieving fertility goals [6] but also reductions in maternal mortality [79], child mortality and children who are being orphaned [9]. Contraception could also play a critical role in the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) [10] because it averts unintended births [11]. Therefore, strengthening contraceptive programs could play a role in ending the epidemics of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) by 2030 (the Sustainable Development Goal 3.3) [12].

Despite the benefits of contraception, there are considerable contraceptive use gaps amongst women living with HIV (WLHIV) [13, 14], particularly in SSA. With high rates of unintended pregnancy [11] and abortion [15], there appears to be a high unmet need for contraception among WLHIV [16] and contraceptive failure [17]. According to the WHO, women with an unmet need are “those who are fecund and sexually active but are not using any method of contraception, and report not wanting any more children or wanting to delay the next child” [18].

With improved survival of the HIV-positive population because of ART [19, 20], WLHIV need clear reproductive life plans with ready access to contraception. Studies that have examined contraceptive practice among WLHIV have focused on married women [20, 21]. This places unmarried women who are sexually active at increased risk of unintended pregnancy due to the assumption made about sex only happening within the context of marriage (and therefore a lack of reproductive planning for these women through health services) [22].

While it has been advised by the WHO that WLHIV have the right to choose any contraceptive methods similar to HIV-negative women [17], the contraceptive choice in the presence of HIV appears more complex because WLHIV are required to balance the prevention of both unintended pregnancy and HIV transmission [23, 24].

Evidence suggests that theory-based research can explain not only contraceptive behaviors but also provide strategies for increased uptake and continuation [25]. In contraceptive research, the Health Belief Model (HBM) offers an important perspective whereby modifying and enabling factors (such as socio-demographic, structural, psychological and reproductive factors) interplay with personal perceptions and cues to action to influence the decision to use contraceptives [26] (see Fig 1). According to the HBM, there are four constructs of perceptions: (a) perceived susceptibility to dictate the perceived chance of pregnancy (unintended) if contraception is not used; (b) a perceived severity that describes consequences of getting and being pregnant amongst WLHIV which include perceptions regarding mother to child transmission of HIV; (c) perceived benefits of contraception which include effectiveness, dual protection, and reversibility of the methods; and (d) perceived barriers of contraceptive use include side effects of contraception. Cues to action are internal and external signals used to activate readiness to change [26]. There are several studies that have used the HBM to predict contraceptive utilization [2731]; however, no study has used the HBM in relation to contraceptive use amongst WLHIV.

Fig 1. Contraceptive behaviour of women living with HIV using the health belief model.

Fig 1

To inform policy and programs regarding the contraceptive use for sexually active WLHIV, understanding WLHIV’s contraceptive use within this framework is crucial [32]. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate contraceptive use among sexually active WLHIV in western Ethiopia using the HBM as a conceptual framework.

Materials and methods

Study design and settings

This study used a facility-based cross-sectional survey among WLHIV in western Ethiopia. The study was conducted in East and West Wollega Zones of western Ethiopia from 19th March to 22nd June 2018.

Study population and sampling

The study participants were recruited using a systematic sampling of HIV-positive women attending HIV clinics across four health facilities (two hospitals and two health centers). The recent treat-all policy meant there was no criteria barrier to starting ART [4], encouraging all PLHIV to commence ART immediately after HIV-positive diagnosis. To facilitate this in Ethiopia, a unique ART number is assigned to PLHIV to monitor their ART treatment and HIV management, and to coordinate care across different settings. For the recruitment process, a list of ART clients (each with a unique ART number) was obtained from the daily appointment calendar, excluding the personal identifiers of each client. Among 2,445 reproductive-age WLHIV, a systematic sampling of every second woman from each health facility was used to select study participants with selected WLHIV invited to participate in the study. All participants were contacted at a HIV clinic of the selected health institutions when they came for their ART services.

Eligibility for this analysis was restricted to non-pregnant WLHIV who reported: (a) being sexually active within the last six months at survey completion; (b) being fecund; (c) not wanting to have another child within two years [33, 34]; and (d) completed the questions on contraceptive use. As shown in Fig 2, among the 1,082 women who were surveyed, 360 sexually active WLHIV who met the eligibility criteria were included for analysis.

Fig 2. Flow chart illustrating the eligibility process to obtain the final sample for analysis of sexually active WLHIV.

Fig 2

Data collection procedures

Data collection was conducted using a standard survey questionnaire which was developed based on the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey questionnaire [35] and guided by existing literature on contraception, as well as concepts within the HBM [26]. The tool was originally prepared in English and subsequently translated into the local language, Oromo. Data quality was maintained by training data collectors on the questionnaire, consenting procedures and completing surveys. To ensure validity (measuring what it aims to measure) and reliability (consistency of measurements) [36] of the questionnaire, the questions were mainly adapted from the Demographic and Health Survey (https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR328/FR328.pdf) [35] and Family Planning 2020 questionnaires (https://www.familyplanning2020.org/) [34], which were widely tested in many countries, including Ethiopia. Because of ethical and logistic reasons, a pilot study was carried out on 30 participants in the health facilities that were selected for main data collection. These women were not included the main data collection. Based on those results and feedbacks, some questions were modified (such as contraceptive use and fertility characteristics) for the main survey. The training and pilot testing were conducted for five days. Data were collected by five trained female nurses who had previous experience in data collection, and were fluent in the local language. The data collectors were never involved in the participants’ care. Data collection was conducted face-to-face with mobile-based surveys. The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software [37] was used for data collection. Data collection was overseen by a supervisor for completeness and consistency. Furthermore, the data completeness, accuracy and consistency across the data collectors were checked in the REDcap database after transferring data to the database daily. Any concerns were further discussed during the next morning with data collectors.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of The University of Newcastle, Australia (H-2017-0289), and the Oromia Regional State Health Bureau Research Ethics Committee, Ethiopia (BEFO/HBISH/1-16/257). Official permission was obtained from hospitals, health centers, and respective HIV-clinics included in our study. An information statement was provided to all participants prior to obtaining informed verbal consent. To ensure informed verbal consent from participants, the data collectors read the information statement in the local language, Oromo. There are low literacy levels among women in Ethiopia, (42% of women in Ethiopia are literate) [35], so informed verbal consent was more appropriate and was approved by both ethics committees. In addition, it was a survey and the research involved no more than low risk [38]. Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions prior to the interview. The consent procedure took place in a separate private room by female nurse data collectors after WLHIV had finished their routine clinical care appointment. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they were free to decline participation or withdraw their consent at any time. It was made clear that participation in this study had no bearing on their receipt of clinical care. The participants were also informed that the survey involved some questions that they might find embarrassing or too personal and some that might cause them to worry about their reproductive health issues. Further, participants were informed that they did not have to answer any question that they did not feel comfortable with, and they could withdraw at any time or simply choose not to answer a particular question. Female nurses were prepared to provide psychological support if the need arose. Anonymised data were stored on password-protected Ipads during data collection. Data were stored on secure and password-protected computers.

Measures

Outcome variables (contraceptive use)

Participants were asked if they had done something or used any method to delay or avoid getting pregnant during the data collection period, i.e., between March and June 2018 (yes/no). Contraceptive users were asked about the method(s) used, which included: short-acting contraception (pills, condoms and injectables); long-acting reversible contraception (implants and Intra-Uterine Devices [IUDs]); and permanent contraception (vasectomy and tubal ligation). Simultaneous use of condoms and any other method(s) was defined as dual use for this study. Based on responses, we further created five exclusive groups of contraceptive users: (a) condom use only; (b) short-acting contraception only (pills, injectables); (c) dual use of condoms plus short-acting contraception (pills, injectables); (d) long-acting only (IUDs, implants); and (e) dual use of condom and long-acting contraception (IUDs, implants). Contraceptive continuation was also determined by the length of time the women were using the method(s) without interruption (≤12 months, >12 to < 36 months, and ≥ 36 months). Contraceptive users were also surveyed with respect to the following: partners’ support of their contraceptive use (supportive, indifferent and not supportive); the source of the recent methods (hospital, health center, health post, private-for-profit, and non-government organization); whether there was counselling on possible side effects of contraceptives (yes/no); and whether they were informed about what to do concerning side effects (yes/no). Those women who reported not using contraception were also asked if they had intended to use contraception (yes/no).

Explanatory factors

Using the HBM framework, potential predictors of contraceptive use focused on (a) modifying and enabling factors; (b) perceptions regarding conception and contraception; and (c) cues to action. The dimensions of modifying and enabling factors included a broad range of the following: (i) socio-demographic characteristics, (ii) HIV-related factors, and (iii) reproductive characteristics.

Socio-demographic characteristics included. the type of health facility being accessed for ART (categorized as hospitals and health centers); age (in years); marital status (categorized as married and unmarried); residence (urban and rural); schooling (no formal education, primary education, secondary education, and any post-secondary education); monthly family income (less than 1500 Ethiopian Birr, ≥ 1500 Ethiopian Birr, and don’t know); and main decision-maker regarding income use (respondent, partner or joint decisions made) [35]. Furthermore, travel time to health facility (<60 minutes, 60 to <120 minutes, and ≥120 minutes) and round cost of travel (<25 Birr, 25 to <50 Birr, and ≥50 Birr) were also assessed.

HIV-related factors included. time since HIV diagnosis and time on ART in years, which were grouped into three (≤5 years, 5 to <10 years, and ≥10 years); reported health status after ART initiation (poor/quite poor, neither good nor poor, quite good, and very good); partner tested for HIV (yes, no and don’t know); and HIV status of tested partner (HIV-negative, HIV-positive and don’t know). The recent CD4 count was collapsed into two groups based on previous thresholds for initiating ART (<350 and ≥350 cells/μL) [39].

Reproductive characteristics included. number of children living in the household (no children, 1–2 children, 3 or more); number of children not living with mother at home (no children, 1 child, 2 or more); and number of children born since HIV diagnosis (no children, 1 child, 2 or more). Furthermore, pregnancy intention at conception of all live births in the last five years of these women was categorized into intended (wanted then), mistimed (wanted later) and unwanted (not at all). HIV status of mothers at conception in the last five years was also measured (HIV-negative, HIV-positive and not known).

Personal perceptions related to conception and contraception amongst WLHIV was measured using 30 questions as guided by existing HBM research on contraceptive use [28, 40]. Perceptions regarding (a) conception susceptibility (2 items), (b) severity (6 items), (c) contraception benefits (7 items), and (d) contraception barriers (11 items) were measured using five-point Likert scales (e.g., very unlikely to very likely, lowest to highest importance, strongly disagree to strongly agree, or similar). Conception susceptibility was assessed using questions about the perceived likelihood of becoming pregnant if contraception was not used and concerns of perceived difficulty if found pregnant right now (at the time of data collection). Perceptions regarding severity included questions on: HIV transmission to partner/respondent; HIV transmission during pregnancy; HIV transmission during childbirth; HIV transmission during breastfeeding; fear of orphaning the child; and stress if decided to have a baby. Perceptions regarding contraceptive benefits included questions on: long-term protection; convenience of methods; effectiveness; dual protection; ability to use discretely; reversibility; and the immediate return of menses after stopping the contraception. Perceptions regarding contraceptive barriers included questions on: pain related to implants/IUDs; inconvenience; frequency of visits to obtain the method; interaction with ART drugs; partner influence; weight gain; sexual interruptions; increased menstrual bleeding; cessation of menstrual bleeding; and bleeding between menses. Interaction with ART drugs; sexual interruptions; cessation of menstrual bleeding; bleeding between menses; frequency of visits to obtain the method; increased menstrual bleeding; and weight gain were recoded (from 1 to 5) for consistency across all other variables.

The cues to action construct included four items measuring. provider counselling; discussion with a partner about contraceptive options; media exposure to contraceptive information; and missed menses to start contraception after intercourse.

Statistical analyses

The perception constructs and the cues to action construct (according to the HBM) were included in a principal component analysis (PCA) to summarize the data using Kaiser’s varimax rotation method and a fixed number of factors. Eigenvalues were checked, with values greater than one essential to summarize using PCA. Sampling adequacy was then tested using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO; with the threshold of 0.5 set for adequacy). Each of the five HBM PCA summed scores (conception susceptibility, severity, contraceptive benefits, contraceptive barriers and cues to action) were subsequently categorized into tertiles (e.g., high susceptibility, medium susceptibility and low susceptibility) [41].

Differences between contraceptive users and non-users were described with respect to the modifying and enabling factors as well as perceptions. Observed differences were evaluated using the Pearson chi-square (for categorical variables) and independent t-tests (for continuous variables) where applicable (level of significance at p <0.05). Fisher’s exact test was used where the Pearson chi-square was not appropriate. Following this, we initially used log-binomial regression models to obtain the prevalence ratio (PR) [42, 43], although convergence was not achieved, even when using the COPY adjustment method. As a result, Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to estimate prevalence ratios [42, 43]. Poisson regression models were initially used to identify potential factors associated with contraceptive use. Variables that were considered potential independent risk factors from the univariate analyses (p-value<0.2) were considered for a final multivariable model, to control for confounding. The strength of the association between the outcome variable and independent variables was expressed in PR with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All analyses were conducted using STATA®, version 14 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

Among 360 sexually active WLHIV who were included in this study, contraceptive use was reported by 270 (75.0%) participants with a total unmet need of 25.0%. The mean age of the study participants was 31.7 years. Two hundred and ninety one (80.8%) participants were married. The majority of the participants (60.0%) had a follow-up in hospitals for ART. The proportion of women who reported a monthly family income of less than 1,500 Ethiopian Birr was 52.2%. Regarding the decision-making on the utilization of their income, 36.7% of participants reported that they could decide on income jointly with their partner. There were significant differences between contraceptive users and non-users with respect to health facility, age, marital status, monthly family income, and decision-making regarding income use (see Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia (n = 360), according to use of contraceptives, 2018.

All women (N = 360) Contraceptive users (N = 270[75.0%]) Non-users of contraceptives (N = 90[25.0%])
Characteristics Categories n % n % n % p
Health facility Hospitals 216 60.0 142 52.6 74 82.2 <0.001
Health centers 144 40.0 128 47.4 16 17.8
Age (years) 31.7 (6.2) 31.2 (5.7) 33.1 (7.4) 0.011
Marital status Married 291 80.8 239 88.5 52 57.8 <0.001
Unmarried 69 19.2 31 11.5 38 42.2
Residence Urban 338 93.9 256 94.8 82 91.1 0.20
Rural 22 6.1 14 5.2 8 8.9
Schooling No formal education 76 21.2 61 22.6 15 17.1 0.67
Primary education 186 52.0 136 50.4 50 56.8
Secondary Education 69 19.3 52 19.3 17 19.3
Any post-secondary education 27 7.5 21 7.8 6 6.8
Missing 2 0 2
Monthly family income Less than 1,500 Ethiopian Birr 188 52.2 135 50.0 53 58.9 0.021
≥1,500 Ethiopian Birr 160 44.4 129 47.8 31 34.4
Don’t know 12 3.3 6 2.2 6 6.7
Decision-regarding income Respondent 141 39.2 85 31.5 56 62.2 <0.001
Husband/partner/family 87 24.2 68 25.2 19 21.1
Respondent and husband partner jointly 132 36.7 117 43.3 15 16.7
Travel time to health facility <60 minutes 285 79.4 214 79.6 71 78.9 0.98
60 to <120 minutes 40 11.1 30 11.2 10 11.1
≥120 minutes 34 9.5 25 9.3 9 10.0
Missing 1 1 0
Cost of travel (round trip) <25 Ethiopian Birr 290 80.8 220 81.8 70 77.8 0.15
25 to <50 Ethiopian Birr 24 6.7 14 5.2 10 11.1
≥50 Ethiopian Birr 45 12.5 35 13.0 10 11.1
Missing 1 1 0

Chi-square test used for categorical variables; t-test used for continuous variables.

Continuous variable, mean and standard deviation (SD) presented.

HIV-related, reproductive-related and HBM factors of sexually active women living with HIV

Results in Table 2 show the HIV-related, reproductive-related and HBM factors, with 111 (30.9%) women reporting that they learned of their HIV status 10 or more years ago. While all of the women were using ART (results not shown), 21.0% of them had been using ART for ten or more years. Overall, 77.2% had a CD4 cell count of greater than or equal to 350 with a mean of 611 cells/μL. Furthermore, 79.2% of women knew that their partner had been tested for HIV, of whom, 33.3% reported that their partner was HIV-negative. Only 14.5% did not have a child at home. Half of the women (48.5%) reported not having given birth since their HIV diagnosis. Among 152 recorded births given by the participants in the last five years, 17.8% were reported as mistimed births and 25.7% were reported as unwanted births. The conception of 129 (84.9%) births given by the participants were after learning of their HIV-positive result. The percentage of women who reported high perceived susceptibility to pregnancy (unintended) and severity of being pregnant while living with HIV were 20.8% and 30.7%, respectively. High perceived barriers and high perceived benefits were reported by 32.2% and 33.3% of participants, respectively. Finally, 33.3% reported high cues to action. There were significant differences between contraceptive users and non-users with respect to partner testing status, number of children living at home, number of children since HIV diagnosis, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits and perceived barriers.

Table 2. HIV-related, reproductive-related and HBM factors among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia according to use of contraceptives, 2018 (n = 360).

Characteristics Categories All women (N = 360) Contraceptive users (N = 270) Non-users of contraceptives (N = 90) p
n % n % N %
Time since HIV diagnosis ≤ 5 years 125 34.8 91 33.8 34 37.8 0.61
5 to < 10years 123 34.3 96 35.7 27 30.0
≥10 Years 111 30.9 82 30.5 29 32.2
Missing 1 1 0
Time since HIV diagnosis (in years) 7.2(3.9)
Time on ART ≤5 years 157 43.9 120 44.8 37 41.1 0.30
5 to < 10years 126 35.2 97 36.2 29 32.2
≥10 Years 75 21.0 51 19.0 24 26.7
Missing 2 2 0
Time on ART (in years) 6.2(3.6)
Health status since ART started Poor/quite poor 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 1.1 0.43††
Neither good nor poor 9 2.5 7 2.6 2 2.2
Quite good 22 6.1 16 5.9 6 6.7
Very good 328 91.1 247 91.5 81 90.0
Recent CD4 count < 350 cells/μL 78 22.8 58 22.7 20 23.3 0.91
≥350 cells/μL 264 77.2 198 77.3 66 76.7
Missing 18 14 4
CD4 (cells/μL) 601.1 (298.6)
Partner tested for HIV Yes 282 79.2 221 82.8 61 68.5 0.016
No 27 7.6 17 6.4 10 11.2
Don’t know 47 13.2 29 10.9 18 20.2
Missing 4 3 1
HIV status of the partner (n = 282) Negative 94 33.3 77 34.8 17 27.9 0.54
Positive 185 65.6 142 64.3 43 70.5
Don’t Know 3 1.1 2 0.9 1 1.6
Number of children living at home No children 52 14.5 23 8.6 29 32.2 <0.001
1–2 children 210 58.5 164 61.0 46 51.1
3 or more children 97 27.0 82 30.5 15 16.7
Missing 1 1 0
Number of children not currently living with mother at home No children 274 77.2 207 77.5 67 76.1 0.69
1 child 33 9.3 26 9.7 7 8.0
2 or more 48 13.5 34 12.7 14 15.9
Missing 5 3 2
Intention of all births in the last five years (n = 152) Intended 86 56.6 82 57.3 4 44.4 0.46††
Mistimed 27 17.8 24 16.8 3 33.3
Unwanted 39 25.7 37 25.9 2 22.2
HIV-status of the mother at conception (n = 152) HIV-negative 3 2.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 0.25††
HIV-positive 129 84.9 123 86.0 6 66.7
Unknown 20 13.2 17 11.9 3 33.3
Children born after learning HIV status No children 174 48.5 105 39.0 69 76.7 <0.001
1 child 123 34.3 105 39.0 18 20.0
2–3 children 62 17.3 59 21.9 3 3.3
Missing 1 1 0
Perceived susceptibility Low 130 36.1 71 26.3 59 65.6 <0.001
Medium 155 43.1 133 49.3 22 24.4
High 75 20.8 66 24.4 9 10.0
Perceived severity Low 119 33.8 99 37.6 20 22.5 0.031
Medium 125 35.5 87 33.1 38 42.7
High 108 30.7 77 29.3 31 34.8
Missing 8 7 1
Perceived benefits Low 122 34.2 75 28.0 47 52.8 <0.001
Medium 120 33.6 99 36.9 21 23.6
High 115 32.2 94 35.1 21 23.6
Missing 3 2 1
Perceived barriers Low 99 33.3 82 37.3 17 22.1 0.042
Medium 99 33.3 71 32.3 28 36.4
High 99 33.3 67 30.5 32 41.6
Missing 63 50 13
Cues to action Low 129 36.4 103 38.9 26 29.2 0.12
Medium 107 30.2 73 27.6 34 38.2
High 118 33.3 89 33.6 29 32.6
Missing 6 5 1

Chi-square test used for categorical variables; t-test used for continuous variables.

Continuous variable, mean and standard deviation presented.

†† Fisher exact test used.

Contraceptive use characteristics among sexually active women living with HIV

Among sexually active WLHIV, 75% used contraception. Of the women who reported contraceptive use, injectables were the most commonly used method (44.8%), followed by condoms (37.4%) and implants (28.5%). For a better understanding of contraceptive use, mutually exclusive categories were created for short-acting and reversible contraceptive users; 15.0% used condoms only, 33.5% used short-acting only, and 28.6% used long-acting only. Dual users of condoms with short-acting contraception (pills or injectables) were 15.0% while dual users of condoms with long-acting contraception (IUDs or implants) were 7.9%. The primary source of accessing contraception was health centers (51.1%). Additionally, 60.4% of the participants were informed of the side effects of the contraceptive method they were using by a health or family planning worker (see Table 3). Among women who were not using contraception, 64 (71.9%) had no intention of using contraception in the future (result not shown).

Table 3. Selected contraceptive indicators among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia, 2018 (N = 270).

Variables Categories Frequency Percent
Contraceptive method used (multiple) Condoms 101 37.4
Pills 8 3.0
Injectables 121 44.8
IUDs 20 7.4
Implants 77 28.5
Sterilization 3 1.1
Emergency contraception 1 0.4
Categories of contraceptive used (n = 266) Condoms use only 40 15.0
Short-acting only (pills, injectables) 89 33.5
Dual: Condoms and short-acting (pills, injectables) 40 15.0
Long-acting only (IUDs, implants) 76 28.6
Dual: Condoms and long-acting (IUDs, implants) 21 7.9
Final decision on contraceptive selection You alone 109 40.4
Provider 36 13.3
Partner 20 7.4
You and provider 39 14.4
You and partner 48 17.8
You, partner and provider 18 6.7
Partner support towards contraceptive use Supportive 223 82.6
Indifferent 34 12.6
Not supportive 7 2.6
Does not know I am using it 6 2.2
The reason that the partner opposes contraceptive use (n = 7) Wants to have more children 5 71.4
Religion 1 14.3
Harms my health 1 14.3
Time on contraception 12 months or less 74 27.6
>12 to 36 months 124 46.3
>36 months 70 26.1
Missing 2
Source of contraception Hospital 70 25.9
Health center 138 51.1
Health post 10 3.7
Private-for-profit 29 10.7
Non-government organization 23 8.5
Counselled on side effects Yes 163 60.4
No 107 39.6
If counselled, informed what to do concerning side effects (n = 163) Yes 157 96.3
No 6 3.7
Was informed on other contraceptive methods Yes 165 61.1
No 105 38.9
Using the method of your choice Yes 258 95.6
No 12 4.4

Predictors of contraceptive practice among sexually active women living with HIV

Among the modifying/enabling factors, the prevalence of contraceptive use among women accessing health centers for ART was 1.25 times higher than women who accessed ART through hospitals (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] = 1.25; 95%CI 1.10–1.42) (see Table 4). Compared to women who reported not having any children after HIV diagnosis, having 2 or more children (APR = 1.31; 95%CI 1.09–1.58) after HIV diagnosis was also associated with increased risk of contraceptive use. The prevalence of contraceptive use among unmarried women was 0.69 times lower than their married counterparts (APR = 0.69; 95%CI 0.50–0.95).

Table 4. Factors associated with contraceptive practice among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia, 2018 (n = 356).

Characteristics Categories Contraceptive use Unadjusted PR (95% CI) Adjusted PR (95% CI)
Yes % No %
Modifying/enabling factors
Health facility Hospitals 142 52.6 74 82.2 Ref Ref
Health centers 128 47.4 16 17.8 1.35(1.17–1.57) 1.25(1.10–1.42)
Marital status Married 239 88.5 52 57.8 Ref Ref
Unmarried 31 11.5 38 42.2 0.55(0.39–0.78) 0.69(0.50–0.95)
Decision-making regarding income Respondent only 85 31.5 56 62.2 Ref Ref
Husband/partner/family 68 25.2 19 21.1 1.30(1.03–1.63) 0.94(0.77–1.14)
Respondent and husband/ partner jointly 117 43.3 15 16.7 1.47(1.21–1.78) 1.18(0.99–1.41)
Number of children living at home No children 23 8.6 29 32.2 Ref Ref
1–2 children 164 61.0 46 51.1 1.77(1.17–2.67) 1.25(0.87–1.80)
3 or more children 82 30.5 15 16.7 1.91(1.26–2.90) 1.28(0.89–1.85)
Children born after learning HIV status No children 105 39.0 69 76.7 Ref Ref
1 child 105 39.0 18 20.0 1.41(1.18–1.70) 1.15(0.97–1.36)
2 or more children 59 21.9 3 3.3 1.58(1.32–1.88) 1.31(1.09–1.58)
Perception
Perceived susceptibility Low 71 26.3 59 65.6 Ref Ref
Medium 133 49.3 22 24.4 1.57(1.26–1.96) 1.55(1.28–1.87)
High 66 24.4 9 10.0 1.61(1.28–2.04) 1.49(1.20–1.86)
Perceived benefits Low 75 28.0 47 52.8 Ref Ref
Medium 99 36.9 21 23.6 1.34(1.08–1.66) 1.16(0.97–1.39)
High 94 35.1 21 23.6 1.33(1.07–1.65) 1.11(0.91–1.35)

Adjusted for for health facility, marital status, decision-making regarding income, number of children living at home, perceived benefits, children born after learning HIV status, and perceived susceptibilities.

After adjusting for health facility, marital status, decision-making regarding income, number of children living at home, perceived benefits, and children born after learning HIV status, women with both high (APR = 1.49; 95%CI 1.20–1.861) and medium (APR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.28–1.87) perceived susceptibilities were more likely to utilize contraception compared to those with low perceived susceptibility.

Discussion

Using the HBM, this study examined contraceptive practices in Ethiopia among sexually active WLHIV aged 18–49 years who reported being fecund and not wanting children within two years. Three-quarters of this population were using some form of contraception, which serves as a crucial step in pursuing reproductive goals as well as supporting the PMTCT programs by preventing unintended pregnancies [44]. However, we found that a quarter of the participants had unmet contraceptive needs, which requires further intervention. It was also demonstrated that prevalence of contraceptive use was significantly lower among unmarried women compared to married women, which could put sexually active unmarried WLHIV at increased risk of unintended pregnancies. However, accessing health centers for ART as well as a higher number of children being born after HIV diagnosis were associated with increased risk of contraceptive use. Interestingly, perceived susceptibilities regarding conception were significantly associated with increased risk of contraceptive use.

Despite the high rate of contraceptive use, the high prevalence of mistimed (17.8%) and unwanted births (25.7%) over the 5-year period, as well as the high unmet need for contraception at the time of data collection (25.0%), raises concerns about efficacy, accessibility, and utilization of contraception among WLHIV [9]. A cross-sectional study at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia also showed similar magnitude of unmet needs for contraception among married WLHIV (25.1%) [45]. Two-thirds of WLHIV who had an unmet need for contraception had no intention of using contraception in our study, which was consistent with a finding from Uganda (77.6%) [46]. Improving awareness and counselling regarding effective contraception is thus important. Moreover, improving the quality of contraceptive programs [47] could have a high impact on addressing unmet needs for contraception and unintended pregnancy.

Importantly, different contraceptive methods are available in Ethiopia: pills, condoms, injectables, implants, IUDs, vasectomy and tubal ligation. Our finding that showed 37.4% of contraceptive users used condoms (with 15% using it as their sole method of contraception) is consistent with a prior study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [19]. The use of condoms offers HIV prevention. However, reliance on condoms as a single contraceptive choice is suboptimal for pregnancy prevention (at 18% failure rate under typical use conditions) [17, 48]. Therefore, ensuring highly effective contraceptive use while addressing concerns related to HIV is an excellent opportunity to meet the reproductive goals of WLHIV.

Despite dual methods providing the best protection against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/HIV [17], only about a quarter of participants were using dual methods (7.9% used condoms with long-acting contraception and 15% with short-acting contraception). This finding was lower than that reported in a study from South Africa (33%) [49]. The high prevalence of STIs among WLHIV (16.3%) [50], as well as the many WLHIV who are unaware of the HIV status of their partner (7.6% reported their partner was not tested and 13.2% reported they did not know whether or not their partner had been tested) and the high rate of serodiscordance (HIV-negative partner) in our study creates additional health concerns for PLHIV. This reinforces the need for more support regarding dual use of contraception both in HIV clinics and family planning clinics.

Among hormonal contraception, injectables were the most commonly used method. This conforms to a prior study conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [19]. In our study, the second most used hormonal contraception was implants (28.5%). Injectables and implants were also the most accepted methods among the general population of Ethiopia [35] although these methods are thought to interact with some ART drugs. This raises concern around reduced effectiveness of injectables and implants methods [15, 51]. Compared to implants, injectables have a higher failure rate under typical use conditions [17]. Moreover, the adoption of IUDs was very low in our study, which might be because of misconceptions, such as negative perceptions by healthcare providers regarding its safety, negative perceptions towards IUD provision for nulliparous women and WLHIV, as well as low knowledge of IUDs [52]. Dispelling misinformation about IUDs and ensuring when WLHIV can use it safely would therefore be helpful. Importantly, women who wish to limit childbirth or want long-term protection should be supported by receiving appropriate counselling on the safety and efficacy of long-acting contraception of their choice. It is also crucial to meet contraceptive needs that align with their changing fertility intention.

Importantly, some modifying and enabling factors were associated with contraceptive use. Women accessing ART at health centers were more likely to use contraception compared to women accessing ART at hospitals. This is concerning given that more contraceptive choices are available in hospitals. In our study, the majority of contraceptive users reported that they obtained their contraceptive methods from health centers. Given health centers are available closer to the community (distance), WLHIV might be more likely to obtain contraception from the health centers as hospitals are usually further away [53]. Enhancing quality counselling is crucial given that only about half of contraceptive users reported being counselled on contraceptive side effects and on what to do if side effects develop. This echoes findings in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [54]. Taken together, our study highlights the importance of enhancing the quality of contraceptive information, counselling and services in HIV clinics as well as family planning clinics at all levels of health facilities.

Our findings reveal significant differences in the prevalence of contraceptive use between married and unmarried sexually active WLHIV, which raises concerns about unmarried women’s access to contraception. This finding is supported by a study in Ethiopia, which showed that unmarried women were also more likely to experience unintended pregnancies [22] and abortion [55] compared to married women. Enhancing access to and utilization of contraceptive information and confidentiality is important because unmarried women might face judgmental attitudes regarding their reproductive options [56]. Providing important support and contraceptive provisions that consider the circumstances of sexually active unmarried women could bridge this gap.

The prevalence of contraceptive use among WLHIV who had two or more children since HIV diagnosis was 1.31 times higher than WLHIV who never had a child after HIV diagnosis. Challenges during previous pregnancy such as HIV-related stigma from health professionals [57], distress and fear related to maternal and child health, personal shame associated with being pregnant as a WLHIV, and uncertainty about the future of the unborn baby [58], might be reasons not to consider another pregnancy. Essentially, these underscore the need for appropriate reproductive strategies, both conception strategies and contraception. Given number of children living at home and age were not significantly associated with contraceptive use among sexually active WLHIV in our study, further investigation using a larger study may be able to better examine the impact of number of children and age on contraceptive practice.

Our study found that women’s high, as well as medium perceived susceptibilities towards unintended pregnancy had a substantial impact on contraceptive use compared with low perceived susceptibility. The perceived susceptibilities assessed the perceived chance of pregnancy (unintended) if contraception is not used. Given understanding susceptibilities motivate women to practise contraception, healthcare providers should incorporate these perceptions to guide counselling and education while supporting safer conception for those who wish to have a child.

Despite only showing an association in an unadjusted model, the effect of perceived benefits cannot be excluded. Women with a high perception about the benefits of contraceptive use had an increased risk of contraceptive use compared to women with a low perceived benefits (in an unadjusted model). Essentially, contraceptive counselling regarding long-term protection of contraception, convenience of methods, effectiveness, as well as dual protection might increase adherence [59] and uptake of contraceptive use [60]. Improving cultural acceptability and community opinion towards contraception may also enhance contraceptive use [61]. Furthermore, developing contraceptive counselling guidelines and policies based on the HBM would be valuable in supporting WLHIV to achieve their reproductive goals. It is also essential to understand more about the acceptability of side effects and issues related to specific methods. Furthermore, the perceived benefits should be seen in relation to perceived barriers. The contraceptive initiation often requires targeted interventions of improving benefits while reducing barriers. Indeed, our current study adds evidence to previous studies [2730] that show that the HBM can provide crucial insights into individual behaviours that improve contraceptive practice.

Strengths and limitations

A major strength of the study was that the study applied the HBM and examined contraceptive use among all sexually active WLHIV not just those in union or married. However, this study must be considered in light of some limitations. First, unmarried women might be reluctant to report recent sexual activity in Ethiopia due to the sensitivity of the questions and social desirability bias. Therefore, a few sexually active unmarried WLHIV might have been excluded from the analysis. Second, all the data were self-reported, which is subject to recall bias. However, the data were collected using a standardized questionnaire by experienced female data collectors who had never worked at the selected HIV clinics to minimize biases. Third, we cannot infer associations described to causality because of the cross-sectional nature of the data.

Conclusion

The majority of sexually active WLHIV in our study were using contraception, which gives insights into the role contraception plays in meeting family planning goals as well as in supporting PMTCT programs. Despite this, our findings also suggest the need for ongoing counselling and access to effective contraception given the rate of unmet needs for contraception and unintended pregnancies. Further interventions are required to address factors that impede the use of contraception when WLHIV do not want to conceive, particularly in terms of increasing the uptake of highly effective contraception because of lower efficacy of some of the methods (e.g., condom use only). The concepts within the HBM could shape contraceptive counselling for the identified ‘at risk’ women to achieve their reproductive goals as well as prevent mother to child transmission of HIV although this might require further investigation using an interventional study. Our findings also suggest the HBM would be a valuable resource for healthcare providers, program planners and policymakers to develop guidelines and policies for contraceptive counselling and choices.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank study participants and data collectors for making this research successful. We would also like to thank Natalia Soeters for language proof.

Abbreviations

AIDS

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

APR

Adjusted Prevalence Ratio

ART

Antiretroviral therapy

CI

Confidence interval

HBM

Health Belief Model

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HREC

Human Research Ethics Committee

IUD

Intrauterine device

KMO

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

PCA

Principal component analysis

PMTCT

Prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV

PR

Prevalence Ratio

REDCap

Research Electronic Data Capture

SD

Standard deviation

SSA

Sub-Saharan Africa

STIs

Sexually transmitted infections

WHO

World Health Organization

WLHIV

Women living with HIV

Data Availability

Due to the presence of potentially sensitive information provided by women living with HIV, data have been made available upon request. This requirement was imposed by Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Newcastle, Australia, and the Oromia Regional State Health Bureau Research Ethics Committee, Ethiopia which approved the research protocol. The data request may be submitted to the Research Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, Australia at rcgha@newcastle.edu.au.

Funding Statement

This study was partially supported by the Hunter Medical Research Institute/Greaves Family Postgraduate Top-Up Scholarship (Grant number G1701582). Wollega University (first author’s employer organization) facilitated the data collection process. TRF is supported by The University of Newcastle International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (UNIPRS) and The University of Newcastle Research Scholarship Central 50:50 (UNRSC 50:50). Dr Melissa Harris is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Global HIV & AIDS statistics—2018 facts. 2018.
  • 2.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Miles To Go: Global AIDS update 2017. 2018.
  • 3.Federal Ministry of Health. Demographic and Health Survey: HIV related Reports. Addis Ababa: FHAPCO; 2016.
  • 4.World Health Organization. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. Geneve: WHO; 2015. [PubMed]
  • 5.Floyd S, Marston M, Baisley K, Wringe A, Herbst K, Chihana M, et al. The effect of antiretroviral therapy provision on all-cause, AIDS and non-AIDS mortality at the population level–a comparative analysis of data from four settings in Southern and East Africa. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2012;17(8):e84–e93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cooper D, Moodley J, Zweigenthal V, Bekker LG, Shah I, Myer L. Fertility intentions and reproductive health care needs of people living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa: implications for integrating reproductive health and HIV care services. AIDS and Behavior. 2009;13 Suppl 1(supplement):38–46. Epub 2009/04/04. 10.1007/s10461-009-9550-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Spong CY, Mercer BM, D’Alton M, Kilpatrick S, Blackwell S, Saade G. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;118(2 Pt 1):323 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182255999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yoo H, Lee J, Yim JJ, Barnighausen T, Tanser F, Park SK. Effect of the number of pregnancies on mortality risk in HIV-infected women: a prospective cohort study in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS and Behavior. 2018;22(12):3971–80. Epub 2018/08/04. 10.1007/s10461-018-2232-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Halperin DT, Stover J, Reynolds HW. Benefits and costs of expanding access to family planning programs to women living with HIV. AIDS. 2009;23 Suppl 1:S123–30. Epub 2010/02/02. 10.1097/01.aids.0000363785.73450.5a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Reynolds HW, Janowitz B, Homan R, Johnson L. The value of contraception to prevent perinatal HIV transmission. Sexually transmitted diseases. 2006;33(6):350–6. Epub 2006/03/01. 10.1097/01.olq.0000194602.01058.e1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Feyissa TR, Harris ML, Melka AS, Loxton D. Unintended pregnancy in women living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS and Behavior. 2019;23(6):1431–51. Epub 2018/11/24. 10.1007/s10461-018-2346-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lim SS, Allen K, Bhutta ZA, Dandona L, Forouzanfar MH, Fullman N, et al. Measuring the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: a baseline analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1813–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adir T. Desire for children and unmet need for contraceptions among HIV positive women in Lesotho. In: paper Dw, editor.: Macro International Inc; March 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McCoy SI, Buzdugan R, Ralph LJ, Mushavi A, Mahomva A, Hakobyan A, et al. Unmet need for family planning, contraceptive failure, and unintended pregnancy among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women in Zimbabwe. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105320 Epub 2014/08/22. 10.1371/journal.pone.0105320 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bankole A, Keogh S, Akinyemi O, Dzekedzeke K, Awolude O, Adewole I. Differences in unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use and abortion by HIV status among women in Nigeria and Zambia. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health. 2014;40(1):28–38. Epub 2014/04/16. 10.1363/4002814 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jhangri GS, Heys J, Alibhai A, Rubaale T, Kipp W. Unmet need for effective family planning in HIV-infected individuals: results from a survey in rural Uganda. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2012;38(1):23–9. Epub 2011/07/29. 10.1136/jfprhc-2011-0108 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use WHO; 2015. [PubMed]
  • 18.World Health Organization. Unmet need for family planning. Geneve: WHO; 2020.
  • 19.Asfaw HM, Gashe FE. Contraceptive use and method preference among HIV positive women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:566 Epub 2014/06/07. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-566 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berhane Y, Berhe H, Abera GB, Berhe H. Utilization of Modern Contraceptives among HIV Positive Reproductive Age Women in Tigray, Ethiopia: A Cross Sectional Study. Isrn aids. 2013;2013:319724 Epub 2013/11/14. 10.1155/2013/319724 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Abebe M, Addissie A, Regassa T. Fertility desire and contraceptive utilization among people living with HIV/AIDS on ART in Hosanna Town, Southern Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal. 2012;1(4):38–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fite RO, Mohammedamin A, Abebe TW. Unintended pregnancy and associated factors among pregnant women in Arsi Negele Woreda, West Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. BMC research notes. 2018;11(1):671 10.1186/s13104-018-3778-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gruskin S, Firestone R, MacCarthy S, Ferguson L. HIV and pregnancy intentions: Do services adequately respond to women’s needs? American Journal of Public Health 2008;98(10):1746–50. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.137232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Berhan Y. Attitude of people living with HIV/AIDS to be a biological parent and their knowledge on MTCT reduction methods. Ethiop Med J. 2008;46(4):335–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lopez LM, Grey TW, Chen M, Denison J, Stuart G. Behavioral interventions for improving contraceptive use among women living with HIV. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):CD010243 Epub 2016/08/10. 10.1002/14651858.CD010243.pub3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hall KS. The Health Belief Model can guide modern contraceptive behavior research and practice. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. 2012;57(1):74–81. Epub 2012/01/19. 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00110.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Eisen M, Zellman GL, McAlister AL. A Health Belief Model Approach to Adolescents’ Fertility Control: Some Pilot Program Findings. Health education quarterly. 2016;12(2):185–210. 10.1177/109019818501200205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brown W, Ottney A, Nguyen S. Breaking the barrier: the Health Belief Model and patient perceptions regarding contraception. Contraception. 2011;83(5):453–8. Epub 2011/04/12. 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.09.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mon MM, Liabsuetrakul T. Predictors of contraceptive use among married youths and their husbands in a rural area of Myanmar. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2012;24(1):151–60. Epub 2010/09/11. 10.1177/1010539510381918 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Butame SA. The prevalence of modern contraceptive use and its associated socio-economic factors in Ghana: evidence from a demographic and health survey of Ghanaian men. Public health. 2019;168:128–36. Epub 2019/02/16. 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.12.020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kahsay ZH, Tegegne D, Mohammed E, Kiros G. Application of individual behavioral models to predict willingness to use modern contraceptives among pastoralist women in Afar region, Northern Ethiopia. PloS one. 2018;13(5):e0197366 10.1371/journal.pone.0197366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Getachew M, Alemseged F, Abera M, Deribew A. Factors affecting fertility decisions of married men and women living with HIV in South Wollo Zone, Northeast Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2010;24(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bradley SE, Croft TN, Fishel JD, Westoff CF. Revising unmet need for family planning. 2012.
  • 34.Cahill N, Sonneveldt E, Stover J, Weinberger M, Williamson J, Wei C, et al. Modern contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand satisfied among women of reproductive age who are married or in a union in the focus countries of the Family Planning 2020 initiative: a systematic analysis using the Family Planning Estimation Tool. The Lancet. 2018;391(10123):870–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia], ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA2016.
  • 36.Heale R, Twycross A. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-based Nursing. 2015;18(3):66–7. 10.1136/eb-2015-102129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2009;42(2):377–81. Epub 2008/10/22. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.FDRE Ministry of Science and Technolgy. Ethiopian National Ethics Guideline. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: FDRE Ministry of Science and Teachnolgy,; 2014.
  • 39.Munyazesa E, Emile I, Mutimura E, Hoover DR, Shi Q, McGinn AP, et al. Assessment of haematological parameters in HIV-infected and uninfected Rwandan women: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001600 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hall KS. The Health Belief Model can guide modern contraceptive behavior research and practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012;57(1):74–81. Epub 2012/01/19. 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00110.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vyas S, Kumaranayake L. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning. 2006;21(6):459–68. 10.1093/heapol/czl029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Williamson T, Eliasziw M, Fick GH. Log-binomial models: exploring failed convergence. Emerging themes in epidemiology. 2013;10(1):14 Epub 2013/12/18. 10.1186/1742-7622-10-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Deddens J, Petersen M. Approaches for estimating prevalence ratios. Occupational Environmental Medicine. 2008;65(7):501–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Padian NS, McCoy SI, Karim SS, Hasen N, Kim J, Bartos M, et al. HIV prevention transformed: the new prevention research agenda. Lancet (London, England). 2011;378(9787):269–78. Epub 2011/07/19. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60877-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Abubeker FA, Fanta MB, Dalton VK. Unmet need for contraception among HIV-positive women attending HIV Care And Treatment Service at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2019;2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lutalo T, Gray R, Santelli J, Guwatudde D, Brahmbhatt H, Mathur S, et al. Unfulfilled need for contraception among women with unmet need but with the intention to use contraception in Rakai, Uganda: a longitudinal study. BMC Women’s Health. 2018;18(1):60 10.1186/s12905-018-0551-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dehlendorf C, Henderson JT, Vittinghoff E, Grumbach K, Levy K, Schmittdiel J, et al. Association of the quality of interpersonal care during family planning counseling with contraceptive use. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;215(1):78.e1–e9. 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mayhew SH, Colombini M, Kimani JK, Tomlin K, Warren CE, Integra I, et al. Fertility intentions and contraceptive practices among clinic-users living with HIV in Kenya: a mixed methods study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):626 Epub 2017/07/07. 10.1186/s12889-017-4514-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kaida A, Laher F, Strathdee SA, Money D, Janssen PA, Hogg RS, et al. Contraceptive use and method preference among women in Soweto, South Africa: the influence of expanding access to HIV care and treatment services. PloS One. 2010;5(11):e13868 10.1371/journal.pone.0013868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kalichman SC, Pellowski J, Turner C. Prevalence of sexually transmitted co-infections in people living with HIV/AIDS: systematic review with implications for using HIV treatments for prevention. Sexually transmitted infections. 2011;87(3):183–90. 10.1136/sti.2010.047514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10013):53–60. Epub 2015/09/14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Simmons KB, Zapata L, Curtis KM. Health care provider perceptions of the safety of IUDs for women with HIV. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2018;50(2):67–73. Epub 2018/04/01. 10.1363/psrh.12056 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shiferaw S, Spigt M, Seme A, Amogne A, Skrøvseth S, Desta S, et al. Does proximity of women to facilities with better choice of contraceptives affect their contraceptive utilization in rural Ethiopia? PloS One. 2017;12(11):e0187311 10.1371/journal.pone.0187311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Teshome A, Birara M, Rominski SD. Quality of family planning counseling among women attending prenatal care at a hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2017;137(2):174–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Worku S, Fantahun M. Unintended pregnancy and induced abortion in a town with accessible family planning services: the case of Harar in eastern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2006;20(2):79–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cooper D, Harries J, Myer L, Orner P, Bracken H. ‘‘Life is still going on”: Reproductive intentions among HIV-positive women and men in South Africa. Social Science & Medicine 2007;65:274–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Feyissa GT, Lockwood C, Woldie M, Munn Z. Reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings: A systematic review of quantitative evidence. PloS One. 2019;14(1):e0211298 10.1371/journal.pone.0211298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ashaba S, Kaida A, Coleman JN, Burns BF, Dunkley E, O’Neil K, et al. Psychosocial challenges facing women living with HIV during the perinatal period in rural Uganda. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176256 Epub 2017/05/02. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176256 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Halpern V, Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Stockton LL, Gallo MF. Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(10). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dehlendorf C, Krajewski C, Borrero S. Contraceptive counseling: best practices to ensure quality communication and enable effective contraceptive use. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2014;57(4):659–73. Epub 2014/09/30. 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000059 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Belda SS, Haile MT, Melku AT, Tololu AK. Modern contraceptive utilization and associated factors among married pastoralist women in Bale eco-region, Bale Zone, South East Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):194 10.1186/s12913-017-2115-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zelalem T Haile

30 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30290

Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Feyissa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zelalem T. Haile, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.  If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

5. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

We would like to thank study participants and data collectors for making this research successful. TRF is supported by The University of Newcastle International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (UNIPRS) and The University of Newcastle Research Scholarship Central 50:50 (UNRSC 50:50). Dr Melissa Harris is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA). We would also like to thank Natalia Soeters for language edition.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

This study was partially supported by the Hunter Medical Research Institute/Greaves Family Postgraduate Top-Up Scholarship (Grant number G1701582). Wollega University (first author's employer organization) facilitated data collection process. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please refer to the comments from the reviewers below to revise and resubmit your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: This paper describes a cross-sectional study examining contraceptive use among women living with HIV in Ethiopia. The authors sought to describe types of contraceptives used, prevalence of unmet need, and predictors of contraceptive use among a sexually active women who were not currently pregnant or planning to become pregnant. They also employed the Health Believe Model to assess beliefs about facilitators and barriers to contraceptive use and how this was associated with use. The authors found that contraceptive use was high, and identified a number of factors associated with contraceptive use, including marital status, number of children born since HIV diagnosis, and perceived susceptibility to unintended pregnancy. The authors conclude that their findings highlight the need for strengthening family planning services.

This research addresses an important topic, and while none of the findings are surprising the data collection appears to be well conducted and the findings can contribute to a body of literature assessing unmet need. However, as written, I have major concerns with this manuscript that I would recommend addressing before publication, as well as a number of minor comments.

Major concerns:

1. There were a number of grammatical errors, unclear sentences, and paragraphs that mixed concepts. The manuscript is also much lengthier than necessary, and does not focus very well on the topic of interest. I have noted some of these below, but it needs more editing than what is listed below. While I do think the science is sound, I would not recommend publication until there is thorough editing for grammar, sentence structure, and flow.

2. It is unclear why stepwise selection was used “to control for potential confounders” when this appears to be an exploratory analysis to identify factors independently associated with contraceptive use. Stepwise regression is often used when you have a specific exposure and outcome of interest, and you want to identify factors that may be confounding the relationship between those two variables. Here, you did not identify a specific exposure of interest, but still used this technique to identify a final model which you then presented as adjusted ORs, but then also presented those that didn’t make it into the model as unadjusted ORs. It wasn’t really addressed what it means for something to be in the final model or not. I believe a more appropriate approach is to present the findings of the multivariate model without stepwise selection. Those that are significant at your pre-specified alpha level are then the variables that are independently associated with contraceptive use when controlling for the other variables in your model. I think this analysis should either be changed, or better explained how you interpret your results.

3. I couldn’t really identify how the authors defined unmet need. This is simple to include and is necessary to compare to other studies that are assessing unmet need.

Minor concerns:

Introduction

1. This section in general is lengthier than it needs to be.

2. The first paragraph has a number of sentences with unclear wording or grammatical errors. This includes lines 48-49 “The 2015 WHO guideline avoids medical or clinical barriers”, line 50 “Along this improvement”, and line 55 “pregnancies has also benefits”.

3. Line 60-61 “Due to ART [16, 17], WLHIV need clear reproductive life plans with ready access to contraception” – What does this mean? Because they are living longer?

4. Line 71: I believe this should say “prevention of both pregnancy and HIV transmission”.

5. Line 71-74: Most of these things would also be a concern for women without HIV- should focus on transmission.

6. Line 88: should say “which include”

Methods

7. Lines 100-104: A lot of this detail, like exact population size and distance to the capital, is unnecessary

8. Lines 109: Should say “fecundity” or “being fecund”.

9. Line 111-112: You say an inclusion criterion includes having a demand of contraception. How is this defined? Did they report this, or was it determined based on meeting eligibility criteria for a-c?

10. For a number of variables, including length of time the women were using the method(s) without interruption and time on ART in years, you have some categories that are overlapping (e.g. >12-36, �36).

11. Lines 176-177: I think the caps here are unnecessary. You use italics for emphasis elsewhere; I think you could use that here as well.

12. Lines 199-206: I’m a little confused about this. Was this done for a previous analysis or specifically for this analysis? If done for a previous analysis, I would just state that summary scores were derived using PCA and the methods have been previously described, then cite where this has happened. If this was done specifically for this analysis, I would move it to the statistical analysis section.

13. Lines 211 and 214: p-value shouldn’t be capitalized

14. Statistical analysis section: Poisson with robust standard errors to get prevalence ratios performs better than logistic regression for ORs with cross-sectional data.

Results

15. Line 223: This is the first time unmet need is introduced and it was not defined.

16. Table 1: This is stylistic, but it is easier for the eye if the n and % are near each other (so n is right aligned and % is left aligned)

17. Table 1: The first foot note doesn’t seem to actually appear in the table? Also footnotes should read left to right, top to bottom, so the other footnote should be switched.

18. Line 239: Should be “reporting”

19. Line 248: You should restate what susceptibility and severity are referring to

20. Lines 270-282: Referring back to my comment above about your statistical approach, this way of reporting is a bit confusing. If the ones you report as unadjusted did not remain significant in the final model, this should be stated.

21. Lines 285-299: This final section is descriptive and would make more sense to be presented earlier.

Discussion

22. Lines 314-315: How does the prevalence of unmet need found in your study compare to that found in other studies?

23. Line 333-335 “There is considerable evidence that utilizing pre-exposure prophylaxis (although not currently available in Ethiopia) could address some of the gaps related to HIV transmission among non-condom users [40]” This does not seem particularly relevant considering your population is living with HIV. Since this paper is very lengthy it would be better to stick with things relevant to your findings.

24. Line 361: This is repetitive

25. Line 362-364: Wording unclear

26. Line 382-383 “were about fourteen times more likely to use contraception compared to women who never had a child after HIV diagnosis” You should acknowledge here that you had an extremely small sample size and wide confidence intervals for this finding.

27. Lines 383-388: It seems like this would be the expected outcome, as women with more children are probably less likely to want more children and are likely older. Did you consider this, or look at this at all in your data? Seems like a more simple explanation than the ones listed here.

28. Line 391: “This perception evaluated the chance of unintended pregnancies.” It’s not clear to me what this means.

29. Line 396: It’s unclear to me what “ruled out” means in this context.

30. Line 398: I think the “perceived susceptibility” here should be perceived benefit?

31. Lines 399-402: “Essentially, improved perceptions regarding contraception such as long-term protection, convenience of methods, effectiveness as well as dual protection for these women are critical factors identified by the HBM in our study and might increase uptake of contraception.” Did your findings really support this? How do you interpret the finding that most of your “HBM factors” did not appear in your final model?

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s report

Title: Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

Version: 1

Date: 21 January 2020

Reviewer’s report:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia by Feyissa et al. on a very important subject. This is a well- written manuscript that is grounded in the Health Belief Model with clear objective and well written introduction. The methods are sound. The results are adequately presented and well synthesized against previous evidence and the model adapted as the conceptual framework. The authors also acknowledged the weaknesses/limitations in their study. Their conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and addressed the main question posed. I strongly believe this manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to the field of public health and therefore, should be considered for publication pending editor's decision.

Nonetheless, these are few suggestions, which I think could strengthen the paper before publication.

Abstract

1. This is a well written abstract. However the authors can add a brief background to the abstract.

2. Line 21 Please specify the exact date (e.g 1st March to 1st June 2018)

3. Line 29 should read… were associated with increased “odds of” contraceptive practice.

4. Line 41, keywords: Health belief should be “health belief model”

Introduction

5. Very good introduction with adequate review of literature. However, this can be more strengthened when discussed within the context of the SDGs. Specifically goal 3.3

6. Line 63-64, can you please specify some of these studies?

Conceptual framework

7. Please this is a very minor comment. I would suggest the authors bring a sub-heading “conceptual framework” and also provide a diagrammatical representation of the variables considered in the model and how they are related to the outcome variable (s).

Materials and Methods

8. Line 98 should be read “Materials and Methods”

9. Is it possible to provide a map indicating the study settings?

10. Can you provide a sample of the instrument used for the data collection as an attachment (supplementary file)?

11. Line 101 can you please specify the exact date?

12. From Figure 1, the total women surveyed are 1082. Was this the total number of HIV positive women attending HIV clinics across the 4 facilities you were able to reach? If yes, how many were in each facility? How did you ensure representativeness across the facilities?

13. Although you have given a very nice flow of the way the 360 sample was arrived at but kindly explain how the systematic random sampling was used to arrive at the unit of analysis.

14. Line 119, please where was the piloting done? and what informed the choice of that place for the piloting? How many WLHIV were used for the piloting?

15. Line 122, please how long were the nurses trained and on what?

16. Line 169-170, please how was data on CD4 counts collected, self reported?? or from their records?? this should be acknowledged at the discussion section?

17. Line 203-205, please what informed the categorization of the “susceptibility” into tertiles (example: high susceptibility, medium susceptibility and low susceptibility?

18. Statistical analyses.

a. Please how was the adjustment done? (see Table 3).

b. Please what informed the choice of the reference categories?

c. Kindly specify how the missing values were treated at the inferential analysis stage.

Results

19. I suggest you bring the Table 4 (Selected contraceptive indicators among sexually active women with HIV in western Ethiopia, 2018) before Table 3 (Factors associated with contraceptive practice among sexually 283 active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia, 2018) to make all the descriptive results come before the inferential results(logistic regression).

Discussion

20. Line 304, the sentence… “supporting the PMTCT programs by preventing unintended pregnancies” should be supported with evidence

21. The authors have done an excellent job by acknowledging the weaknesses of their study including the study design, however, they did not acknowledge the strength of their study. I also suggest this should be given a sub-heading for easy reading.

Conclusion

22. Well written conclusions emanating from the study’s findings. Despite this can you please bring a subheading “conclusions and policy implications” directly after the strength and weaknesses of the study to make it easy for readers who wish to go to the conclusion section directly do that at ease.

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Zelalem T Haile

8 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-30290R1

Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Feyissa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Aug 22 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zelalem T. Haile, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I am happy to inform you that it is provisionally accepted for publication pending your response to the minor points made by the review. Therefore, I invite you to respond to these comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. A rapid response on your part will facilitate a prompt publication process.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: The authors to a greater extent have addressed all my major concerns. Therefore, pending Editors decision, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: Review of contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper which reviewed contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV. The researchers found that contraceptive use amongst sexually active WLHIV was found to be high compared to previous studies. WLHIV having two or more children after HIV diagnosis and with high and medium perceived susceptibility towards unintended pregnancy were more likely to use contraception. However, unmarried women were less likely to use contraception.

This paper is well written. Please find some minor editions from attached documents

Kind regards,

Reviewer #4: Remarks to the Authors

The manuscript entitled as “Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia” is a research study that was conducted among sexually active women living with HIV in Ethiopia. This is an interesting study aimed at examining contraceptive practice among sexually active women living with HIV and identify the factors that influenced such practice using the Health Belief Model. Overall the study is clear and the results are consistent with the aim of the study. However, I recommend the following minor changes for the manuscript.

Introduction

1. The Introduction is well organized. However, the concepts described in the introduction are numerous, can be shortened for clarity.

2. Line 49- better to write it as ‘World health organization (WHO)’

Materials and methods

1. Line 102- Better to remove the sentence on line 102. ‘Nekemte and Gimbi are the capitals of the respective zones.’

References

1. The reference lists should be re-checked for clarity. E.g. Ref - 17, and 18.

2. Write in full words abbreviations/acronyms used in reference lists. E.g. Ref - 1, 2, and 3.

3. Write in small letter. Ref. 4.

[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 One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0237212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237212.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Jul 2020

Dear Dr Zelalem T. Haile

Thank you for considering our recent manuscript “Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia”. We greatly appreciate the effort and comments from the reviewers.

In response to your letter dated July 08, 2020 regarding our manuscript, we would like to provide the following clarifications and amendments. We have attached both a clean and annotated version of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2

The authors to a greater extent have addressed all my major concerns.

Therefore, pending Editors decision, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Response: Thank you for your time in reviewing the previous and current versions of our manuscript. The comments were very helpful.

Reviewer #3

Review of contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper which reviewed contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV. The researchers found that contraceptive use amongst sexually active WLHIV was found to be high compared to previous studies. WLHIV having two or more children after HIV diagnosis and with high and medium perceived susceptibility towards unintended pregnancy were more likely to use contraception. However, unmarried women were less likely to use contraception.

This paper is well written. Please find some minor editions from attached documents

Kind regards,

Response: We have amended the manuscript as per your editions.

Reviewer #4

The manuscript entitled as “Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia” is a research study that was conducted among sexually active women living with HIV in Ethiopia. This is an interesting study aimed at examining contraceptive practice among sexually active women living with HIV and identify the factors that influenced such practice using the Health Belief Model. Overall the study is clear and the results are consistent with the aim of the study. However, I recommend the following minor changes for the manuscript.

Introduction

1. The Introduction is well organized. However, the concepts described in the introduction are numerous, can be shortened for clarity.

Response: We have edited for clarity and reduced the length of the introduction section.

2. Line 49- better to write it as ‘World health organization (WHO)’

Response: As per the comment, we have amended the statement and reads, ‘The 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) guideline states there should be no criterion barrier in the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) [4] which will help in reductions in HIV-related morbidity and mortality [5]’.

Materials and methods

1. Line 102- Better to remove the sentence on line 102. ‘Nekemte and Gimbi are the capitals of the respective zones.’

Response: We have deleted the statement.

References

1. The reference lists should be re-checked for clarity. E.g. Ref - 17, and 18.

2. Write in full words abbreviations/acronyms used in reference lists. E.g. Ref - 1, 2, and 3.

3. Write in small letter. Ref. 4.

Response: As per the suggestions, we have amended the references.

Decision Letter 2

Zelalem T Haile

23 Jul 2020

Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

PONE-D-19-30290R2

Dear Dr. Feyissa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zelalem T. Haile, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Zelalem T Haile

27 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-30290R2

Contraceptive use among sexually active women living with HIV in western Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Feyissa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Zelalem T. Haile

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Clean Response to reviewers 2 09 03 2020.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Due to the presence of potentially sensitive information provided by women living with HIV, data have been made available upon request. This requirement was imposed by Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Newcastle, Australia, and the Oromia Regional State Health Bureau Research Ethics Committee, Ethiopia which approved the research protocol. The data request may be submitted to the Research Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, Australia at rcgha@newcastle.edu.au.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES