Table 3.
Association between men’s FP network characteristics and couples’ use of contraception using generalized linear model with Poisson regression and robust standard errors
| Dependent variable: Couple currently using modern contraception | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR | RR | RR | RR | |
| Independent variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| Has a FP network | 1.92c | |||
| (0.16) | ||||
| Composition of FP network | ||||
| No FP network (Reference group) | – | |||
| Social-only FP network | 2.10c | |||
| (0.26) | ||||
| Provider-only FP network | 1.80c | |||
| (0.14) | ||||
| Mixed FP network | 2.35c | |||
| (0.21) | ||||
| Size of FP network | ||||
| No FP network (Reference group) | – | |||
| One alter in network | 1.98c | |||
| (0.17) | ||||
| Two or more alters in network | 1.58a | |||
| (0.29) | ||||
| Knows someone using modern contraceptive method | 1.41a | |||
| (0.21) | ||||
| Age (years) | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99a | 1.00 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | |
| Household size | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.98 |
| (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| Currently married | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 0.99 |
| (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.08) | (0.07) | |
| Completed primary school education | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| (0.08) | (0.09) | (0.08) | (0.07) | |
| Monthly household earnings (USD) | 1.00b | 1.00b | 1.00b | 1.00b |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Sub-district 1 (reference group) | – | – | – | – |
| Sub-district 2 | 0.00c | 0.00c | 0.00c | 0.00c |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Sub-district 3 | 0.00c | 0.00c | 0.00c | 0.00c |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Sub-district 4 | 1.01 | 1.04 | 1.03 | 0.98 |
| (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.04) | |
| Sub-district 5 | 0.94a | 0.91a | 0.99 | 0.94 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.05) | |
| Sub-district 6 | 0.71c | 0.73c | 0.70c | 0.74c |
| (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.04) | |
| Sub-district 7 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.92 |
| (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| Sub-district 8 | 0.60c | 0.60c | 0.63c | 0.51c |
| (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.01) | |
| Sub-district 9 | 0.73c | 0.69c | 0.76c | 0.69c |
| (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.03) | (0.01) | |
| Sub-district 10 | 0.72c | 0.71c | 0.75c | 0.68c |
| (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | |
| Observations | 164 | 164 | 164 | 159 |
| Mean of dependent variable | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.64 |
a significant at 0.05; b significant at 0.01; c significant at 0.001
Note: Each column presents the findings of a separate regression model. Covariates included in each of these 4 regression models were age, household size, marital status, primary school completion, and household earnings. We also included sub-district fixed effects. We used cluster robust standard errors at the sub-district level. Social-only FP network included social ties such as partner, friend, and other family members. Provider-only FP network included provider ties such as CHWs, health educators, nurses, mid-wives, and doctors. A mixed FP network included both social ties and providers ties. RR = Relative risk ratio