Table 2. Bivariate analyses of unmet need for contraception in Cambodian females aged 15–29 years.
| Characteristics |
No unmet need for contraception (n, %) |
Unmet need for contraception (n, %) |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual level of Social Ecological Modela | |||
| Age in years (N = 4823) | |||
| 15–19 20–24 25–29 |
434 (84.7%) 1663 (87.8%) 2162 (89.4%) |
78 (15.3%) 230 (12.2%) 256 (10.6%) |
0.01* |
| Region (N = 4823) | |||
| Rural Urban |
3075 (88%) 1184 (89%) |
419 (12%) 145 (11%) |
0.3 |
| Wealth status (N = 4823) | |||
| Poorest Poorer Middle Richer Richest |
826 (86.3%) 804 (88.3%) 723 (88.7%) 822 (89.6%) 1084 (88.5%) |
131 (13.7%) 106 (11.7%) 92 (11.3%) 95 (10.4%) 140 (11.5%) |
0.2 |
| Woman’s current employment (N = 4822) | |||
| Yes No |
2913 (90.2%) 1345 (84.5%) |
318 (9.8%) 246 (15.5%) |
0.001* |
| Respondent occupation groups (N = 4821) | |||
| Not working Professional/technical Clerical Sales Agricultural/self employed Services Skilled manual Unskilled manual Do not know |
928 (85.2%) 186 (91.2%) 61 (86%) 688 (90%) 1376 (88.3%) 217 (88.2%) 732 (90.1%) 56 (90.3%) 13 (100%) |
162 (14.8%) 18 (8.8%) 10 (14%) 77 (10%) 182 (11.7%) 29 (11.8%) 80 (9.9%) 6 (9.7%) 0.0 (0%) |
0.01* |
| Women’s education level (N = 4823) | |||
| No Education Primary Secondary Higher |
432 (88.4%) 1885 (87.5%) 1730 (88.7%) 212 (92.2%) |
57 (11.6%) 269 (12.5%) 220 (11.3%) 18 (7.8%) |
0.2 |
| Parity (number of children) (N = 4823) | |||
| No children 1–2 children 3 or more children |
882 (90.5%) 2975 (88.4%) 402 (83.2%) |
93 (9.5%) 390 (11.6%) 81 (16.8%) |
0.001* |
| Microenvironment level of Social Ecological Modela | |||
| Person who decides about woman’s access to healthcare (N = 4448) | |||
| Respondent Together (husband and wife) Husband only Someone else in the household (mother/parent in law) |
1585 (87.3%) 1975 (88.2%) 315 (88.7%) 28 (75.7%) |
231 (12.7%) 265 (11.8%) 40 (11.3%) 9 (24.3%) |
0.1 |
| Person who decides about purchasing major household items (N = 4446) | |||
| Respondent Together (husband and wife) Husband only Someone else in the household (mother/parent in law) |
557 (86.6%) 3076 (88.2%) 198 (88.8%) 71 (77.2%) |
86 (13.4%) 412 (11.8%) 25 (11.2%) 21 (22.8%) |
0.01* |
| Decision for family size (N = 4422) | |||
| Both want same number of children Husband wants more children Husband wants less children Do not know |
2610 (88.6%) 649 (85.5%) 213 (89.5%) 405 (84.5%) |
336 (11.4%) 110 (14.5%) 25 (10.5%) 74 (15.4%) |
0.01* |
| Macroenvironment level of Social Ecological Modela | |||
| Participants heard about family planning media messages on radio in the last three months (N = 4822) | |||
| Yes No |
1575 (88.7%) 2683 (88%) |
200 (11.3%) 364 (12%) |
0.4 |
| Participants heard about family planning media messages on television in the last three months (N = 4822) | |||
| Yes No |
2112 (88.8%) 2146 (87.8%) |
266 (11.2%) 298 (12.2%) |
0.2 |
| Accessible distance to health facility and getting medical help for herself (N = 4823) | |||
| Not difficult Very difficult |
2805 (88.8%) 1454 (87.4%) |
355 (11.2%) 209 (12.6%) |
0.2 |
Notes.
Pearson Chi square test was used as the statistical test of significance.
Dataset obtained from Cambodian Demographic and Health Survey 2014 (N = 4823), but there are some missing values in some variables in the dataset.
*
p-value is significant if <0.05.
a
Bronfenbrenners Social Ecological Model used as theoretical framework: Individual level (intrapersonal level including age, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, practices; area of residence; employment; education and wealth status; Microenvironment level (interpersonal level including partners and peers; institutional and community level; Macroenvironment level (policy enabling, laws).
Reference: Bronfenbrenner, 1979.