Table 5.
Association between network characteristics and couples’ use of contraception adjusting for couples’ pregnancy desires and contraceptive decision-making as a couple
| Dependent variable: Couple currently using modern contraception | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) Excludes partners from network variables | |
| Independent variables | |||
| Composition of FP network | |||
| No FP network (Reference group) | – | – | – |
| Social-only FP network | 2.33c | 1.55b | 1.27b |
| (0.43) | (0.24) | (0.10) | |
| Provider-only FP network | 1.91c | 1.58a | 1.17 |
| (0.27) | (0.34) | (0.11) | |
| Mixed FP network | 2.54c | 1.74a | 1.46c |
| (0.40) | (0.44) | (0.14) | |
| Couples’ pregnancy desires | |||
| Wants to become pregnant (Reference group) | – | ||
| Does not want to become pregnant | 1.57e+ 06c | ||
| (1.68e+ 06) | |||
| Is not certain | 8.38e+ 05c | ||
| (8.70e+ 05) | |||
| Decision-making about contraceptive use with partner | |||
| Man decides (Reference group) | – | ||
| 1.56 | |||
| His partner decides | (0.63) | ||
| 1.22 | |||
| Couple decides together | (0.47) | ||
| Observations | 145 | 132 | 164 |
| Mean of dependent variable | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.65 |
a significant at 0.05; b significant at 0.01; c significant at 0.001
Note: We used generalized linear model with Poisson regression and robust standard errors. We reported relative risk ratios. 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