Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247484. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247484

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

Tariku Dingeta 1,*, Lemessa Oljira 1, Alemayehu Worku 2, Yemane Berhane 3
Editor: José Antonio Ortega4
PMCID: PMC7899365  PMID: 33617550

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the increasingly wider availability of contraceptives and the high levels of unmet need for family planning in rural Ethiopia, contraceptive utilization among young married women is low. Studies on associated factors in Ethiopia so far have been focused on individual factors with little emphasis on socio-cultural factors. This study aimed to assess the association between contraceptive utilization and socio-cultural factors among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based survey was conducted among young married women aged 14–24 years. A total of 3039 women were interviewed by trained data collectors using a structured questionnaire. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) was used to identify factors associated with contraceptive utilization using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

The current contraceptive prevalence rate was 14.1% (95% CI: 12.8–15.5). Perceived social approval (AOR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.60–2.30) and perception of friends’ contraceptive practice (AOR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.20–1.54) were significantly and positively associated with contraceptive utilization. On the contrary, increased score of belief in contraceptive myths was significantly and negatively associated with contraceptive use (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49–0.73). Moreover, recent exposure to family planning information (AOR = 1.67; 95% CI: 1.22–2.28), ever-mother (AOR = 9.68; 95% CI: 4.47–20.90), and secondary and above education level (AOR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.38–2.70) were significantly associated with higher odds of contraceptive utilization.

Conclusion

Only about one-in-seven young married women were using contraceptive methods. Socio-cultural factors significantly influence young married women’s contraceptive utilization. Interventions to address social norms and pervasive myths and misconceptions could increase the use of contraceptive methods in young married women.

Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of 10–24 years young population in the world and half of them are girls [1]. In Ethiopia, more than 17% of adolescents (15–19) and 60% of young adult (20–24) girls are in a marital relationship [2]. Despite a modest decline in the last 10 years still more than 35% of young girls in Eastern and Southern Africa are married before their 18th birthday [3]. Young women face very strong pressure to bear children soon after marriage to prove their fertility potential. Giving birth at an early age and in shorter intervals are well-known factors that compromise the well-being of mothers and their children [4, 5]. In Ethiopia, unintended pregnancy among young married women is very high and constitutes the leading cause of preventable mortality and morbidity [6, 7].

Young married women in low and middle-income countries have high unmet need for contraception. Young women in the region also often used short-term methods that are related to higher failure and discontinuation [8, 9]. Moreover, 90% of the adolescent unintended pregnancies occur among those who had an unmet need for contraception [6]. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), only less than one-third of 15–19 years and less than half of 20–24 years of married women who want to wait two or more years are using some kind of modern contraceptive methods [10]. The contraceptive utilization among 15–19 years old married women in Ethiopia was 36.5% compared to 46.4% among those 25–34 years married women [11].

Contraception among young women who face pressures to bear children is influenced by multiple factors [12, 13]. Demographic and economic characteristics including age, educational status, and wealth status were associated with married women’s contraceptive utilization [14, 15]. Individual factors such as knowledge of contraceptive methods and self-efficacy were also shown to be associated with women’s contraceptive utilization [16–19]. Studies have also reported the influence of socio-environmental factors such as spousal communication, women’s household decision-making autonomy, and inaccessibility of contraceptive services [20–22].

Recently, literature increasingly recognizes the strong influence of perceived social norms and beliefs in contraceptive myths on young married women contraceptive utilization [21, 23, 24]. A perceived social norm is commonly shared beliefs regarding people in their social networks’ (reference group) approving of contraceptive practice (injunctive norm), or believing that most people in their network are practicing contraception (descriptive norm) [25–27]. Perception of friends, parents, and husbands’ approval influences young married women’s contraceptive utilization. Mother in-law’s pressure to bear children also preclude young women from using contraceptive methods [23, 28, 29]. The perception of contraceptive behavior of friends had also consistent effects on the probability of contraceptive use. Young women who believed that most of their friends are using contraceptives had a higher likelihood of contraceptive use [30, 31]. Moreover, studies have shown the influence on young married women’s contraceptive use of belief in myths and misperception or beliefs in rumors not supported by evidence regarding contraceptive methods [24, 30, 32–36].

Despite recent arguments showed the influence of social norms and negative beliefs about contraceptive methods on young women contraceptive utilization [29], contraceptive researches in Ethiopia had been limited to women’s demographic, reproductive and institutional factors. Hence, understanding these socio-cognitive influences on young married women contraceptive utilization is critical for improving the well-being of young mothers and their children [37]. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the association of perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths with the young married women contraceptive utilization in eastern Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Study setting and period

A community-based survey was conducted in Kersa Demographic and Health Surveillance System (Kersa HDSS) site, Kersa District, Eastern Ethiopia. Kersa HDSS is established by Haramaya University in 2007. The HDSS constitutes twenty-one rural and three urban kebeles (the smallest administration unit in Ethiopia). Six health centers and nineteen health posts provide primary health care services including family planning in the study district. The HDSS involve 195,341 people and more than 26,061 households. More than 80% of married women in the study site were married before 20 years and about 75% of them gave birth before the age of 20 years. These figures are higher compared to the national figure which showed 69% of married reproductive-age women were married before 20 years and 57.4% give birth by the age of 20 years. The total fertility rate (TFR) among reproductive-age women in the study site was 5.5 which is also far higher than 4.6 children per woman (2.3 in urban areas and 5.2 in rural areas) in Ethiopia. The annual population growth rate in the study area was 2.9% [2, 38, 39]. The study was conducted from March 9-May 29, 2018.

Study population, sampling and sample size

This study population constituted currently married young women, less than 25 years of age, who were permanent residents of the study sites. The Kersa HDSS database was used to identify the list of households with the targeted population. A total of 3102 young ever-married women were identified from the HDSS database. In a community-based survey such as this one, where multiple Likert scale questions are used to measure the exposure variables and there are a large number of covariates, having the largest possible sample size is important to achieve an acceptable margin of error even within the smallest possible subgroup of interest and to adjust for multiple confounding factors. Thus, all the 3102 eligible young married women identified from the KDS-HRC database were included in the study to get possible maximum sample size since the population was well defined (complete sampling frame is available) and small to be interviewed with the manageable resource, time, and quality.

Data collection

Data were collected through a face-to-face interview by trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire. The English version of the questionnaire was developed by reviewing relevant literature and standard questionnaires. We followed the DHS questionnaire protocol for questions on contraceptive knowledge and utilization. Then, the questionnaire was translated into the local language (Afan Oromo). The questionnaire was intensively reviewed for content and face validity in the context of the study community. The questionnaire was pretested among young married women who were residing in a similar setting outside of the study area. Female data collectors who fluently speak Afan Oromo were recruited and trained on the study tool, interviewing techniques, and field data collection procedures. Data collectors have interviewed eligible participants who consented to participate through home to home at a private place around their home to keep confidentiality of response. The field research supervisors closely monitored the data collection process and checked the filled questionnaire for completeness and accuracy on a daily basis.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Institutional Health Research Ethics Review Committee (IHRERC) of Haramaya University, College of Health and Medical Sciences. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant. The interviewer had read the information sheet to each woman and asked to sign using a fingerprint if the woman couldn’t sign by painting colour pen on her finger. The research ethics review committee has waived the consent from parents or guardians of the minors based on article 8.3.5.3 of the Ethiopian national research Ethics review guideline which states the possibility of married or parenting minors to give written informed consent on their own behalf [40].

Variables and measurements

The outcome variable was current contraceptive utilization. The women were asked if they or their spouse were currently using any contraceptive method to prevent or delay pregnancy. Those who responded ‘yes’ were further asked which contraceptive methods they were using to identify common method of choices.

Perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths were the primary explanatory variables. Perceived social norms include two aspects: Perceived social approval (injunctive norm) and perception of friends’ contraceptive practice (descriptive norm). Perceived social approval reflects perceived pressures to conform to others while descriptive norm reflects on the perceived prevalence of the contraceptive utilization [25, 41]. Perceived social approval from people in social network (injunctive norm) was measured by 4 items adapted from literature and modified based on the FGD and IDI conducted before the data collection [42, 43]. The items include “My parents believe I should use birth control to prevent pregnancy, “Most of my friends believe using birth control is important, “My husband believes I should use contraceptives”, and “My mother in-law believe I should use contraceptives”. The response range from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to strongly agree (5) and the index score was constructed by dividing the total scores for the total number of items (S2 Table). The possible score ranges from 1–5 with a higher score indicating that participants perceive their referents approve more their contraceptive use. Factor analysis also showed that all the four items loaded on a single factor with 0.83 Cronbach’s alpha, indicating satisfactory reliability. The perceptions of friends’ contraceptive practice(descriptive norm) was assessed by a single item adapted from Sutton and Walsh-Buhi [44] asking the respondent to consider her peers (women who are similar to her) and how many were using contraceptives method with the response ranges from ‘none’ (1) to ‘all’ (5). The higher the score indicates the stronger the likelihood that respondents thought their peers were using contraceptive methods.

Belief in contraceptive myths was measured based on agreement with 6 specific statements identified from previous literature reflecting contraceptive related myths and misconceptions [45]. The statements include: “Contraceptives are dangerous to women’s health, “Contraceptives can harm women’s womb”, “Contraception would ruin sexual mood”, “Use of a contraceptive can make a woman infertile”, “Contraceptives can give you deformed babies”, and “Women who use contraceptive methods may become promiscuous”. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale which ranges from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5) (S1 Table). The index was constructed by summing the item scores and dividing the total score by the number of items. The possible total score is in the range from 1 to 5, a higher score indicates strong belief in the myths or misconceptions regarding contraceptive methods. Factor analysis showed that all items loaded on a single factor with minimum loading factors of 0.47 and maximum of 0.74 with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75 indicating satisfactory reliability.

The multivariate analysis controls for possible confounding covariates contraceptive self-efficacy, knowledge, inter-spousal communication, household decision-making autonomy, recent exposure to FP information, age, educational status, parity (ever-mother/never-mother), number of desired children, and wealth status as covariates.

Contraceptive self‐efficacy was measured by four items asking the respondents how confident or sure they were they could use contraceptives and insist the husband on contraception. The items include how sure was the woman that: she could tell her husband that she wanted to use family planning, … she could use family planning, … she could discuss topic of family planning with her husband, and … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The item responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all sure’ (1)” to ‘completely sure’ (5). The overall contraceptive use self‐efficacy score was constructed by summing the item’s score and dividing by the number of items [46]. The scale score ranges from 1–5 and a higher score indicates a higher level of confidence to use contraceptive methods. The scale had good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77).

Spousal communication was measured using 4-items asking the respondent how often the woman may discuss things with her husband [46]. Each woman was asked how often she discusses with her husband things that happened during the day, her worries or feelings, how many children to have, and whether to use contraceptive methods. The item response options range from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (4). The overall inter-spousal communication scale was constructed by summing the item’s score and dividing by the number of items. The higher spousal communication scale indicates a higher level of inter-spousal communication.

Women’s household decision-making autonomy was intended to assess a woman’s influence over a range of key household decisions affecting her life and measured using the 10-items scale adapted from literature. The response options for each item included: wife alone, wife and husband together, the husband alone, respondent and another person, and someone else. All indicators converted into binary variables where responses of wife alone or wife and husband together scored as 2 and all other responses scored as 1. The scale score was the sum of item scores divided by the number of items and ranges from 1‐2 [46].

Contraceptive knowledge was another covariate assessed using 15 items adapted from literature and emphasizing knowledge of specific contraceptive methods [47, 48] (S2 Table). The responses were scored as “0” for an incorrect answer and “1” for a correct answer and total score obtained by summing all items. The score ranges from 0 to 15 points and dichotomized as good knowledge of contraception if median score and above, and low knowledge of contraception if less than the median score.

Exposure to FP information in the last 12 months was also measured by asking the respondents whether they were told about FP during their visit to a health facility, or by a Health Extension Worker (HEW) or other Health care Workers (HCWs) who visited their home; or heard on radio, TV; or read on newspaper or magazine, posters/leaflets; and/or discussed FP at community event/conversation. The variable was disaggregated into two categories as exposed to FP information if yes to at least one of the question and no otherwise [49].

Wealth index was computed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) based on items assessing household facilities and possessions. Five components were extracted based on eigenvalues >1, factor loadings > |0.3| and the cumulative proportion of variance explained by each component. The score of the first component or factor comprising several heavily loaded variables and accounting for the largest variation in the data was categorized into quintiles where each individual falls into a poorest, poorer, medium, richer and richest wealth index. Additionally, socio-demographic characteristics included in the analysis are current age, age of marriage, educational status, place of residence (rural and urban), alive and number of desired children.

Data management and analysis

The completed questionnaires were double entered into EpiData Version 3.1 and analyzed using STATA 14 statistical software. The missing values of each variable were less than one percent, and the chance of missing was unrelated to any of the variables or missing completely at random. Hence, a complete case analysis was used to handle the missing data. Proportions with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for categorical variables and means with standard deviation calculated for continuous variables. Bivariate analysis was carried out between contraceptive use and the main independent variables and covariates. After checking for multicollinearity by examining the correlation matrix, hierarchical multivariate logistic regression was executed to determine the association of main independent variables with contraceptive utilization after adjusting for other covariates. The first model contained only the main independent variables. Due to multicollinearity between age and parity of women, the second and third multivariate regression models were built by excluding the parity and age of women respectively. Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) was used to assess the goodness of fit and inform the selection of models. The model with the lowest AIC value is model 2b, including parity and excluding age (Table 2). Odds Ratio (OR) was used to evaluate the association at a p-value ≤0.05 significance level.

Table 2. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to show association of young married women contraceptive utilization with perceived social norm and belief in contraceptive myths in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

Variables Frequency(%) of contraception Crude OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Yes No Model 1 Model 2a Model 2b
Perceived social approval (injunctive norm) Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.4 2.4(2.13–2.74) 2.1(1.70–2.33) *** 2.01(1.64–2.40)*** 1.9(1.60–2.30)***
Perception of friends’ contraceptive practice(descriptive norm) Mean = 3.4 Mean = 2.5 1.8(1.65–2.02) 1.5(1.30–1.63) *** 1.41(1.21–1.63)*** 1.34(1.20–1.54)***
Belief in Contraceptive myths Mean = 2.1 Mean = 2.5 0.55(0.47–0.65) 0.58(0.5–0.68) *** 0.56(0.46–0.69)*** 0.60(0.49–0.73) ***
Age of women in years: 14–17 26(5.21) 473(94.8) 1 1
                        18–19 65(11.90) 482(88.12) 2.45(1.53–3.93) 1.51(0.84–2.72)
                        20–24 277(18.10) 1254(81.91) 4.02(2.65–6.10) 2.11(1.21–3.40)***
Educational status of women
        No education 129(9.5) 1,233(90.5) 1 1 1
        Primary 94(19.0) 401(81.01) 2.2(1.7–2.9) 1.50(1.0–2.30) * 1.70(1.10–2.50) *
        Secondary and higher 135(19.8) 547(80.21) 2.2(1.72–2.9) 1.90(1.33–2.71) *** 1.93(1.38–2.70) ***
Residence: Rural 298(12.5) 2,080(87.5) 1 1 1
        Urban 71(36.04) 126(64.0) 3.9(2.8–5.4) 1.20(0.60–2.40) 1.12(0.57–2.20)
Wealth Index: Poorest 46(10.20) 405(89.80) 1 1
        Poorer 56(12.50) 392(87.50) 1.26(0.83–1.90) 11.34(84–2.20) 1.26(0.78–2.04)
        Middle 65(14.04) 398(85.96) 1.43(0.96–2.15) 0.97(0.60–1.60) 0.90(0.54–1.44)
        Richer 58(12.80) 395(87.20) 1.29(0.86–1.95) 1.37(0.86–2.17) 1.22(0.76–1.94)
        Richest 62(13.54) 396(86.46) 1.38(0.92–2.07) 1.01(0.62–1.63) 0.99(0.61–1.64)
Number of desired children:    > 5 children 133(11.34) 1040(88.7) 1 1 1
                                       ≤ 5 children 216(18.8) 933(81.2) 1.8(1.43–2.3) 1.38(1.02–1.85) 1.35(1.01–1.81)
Self-efficacy for contraception Mean = 3.8 Mean = 3.2 2.0(1.75–2.3) 1.1(0.90–1.34) 1.05(0.87–1.27)
Women’s household decision making autonomy Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.4 2.56(1.56–4.2) 1.82(0.90–3.73) 2.15(1.09–4.22) *
Spousal communication Mean = 1.6 Mean = 1.8 2.0(1.7–2.3) 1.10(0.85–1.34) 1.14(0.91–1.42)
Knowledge of family planning
        High knowledge 239(18.6) 1,118(90.53) 2.2(1.7–2.8) 1.67(1.21–2.35) ** 1.67(1.22–2.27) **
        Low knowledge 117(9.5) 1,044(81.4) 1 1 1
Exposure to FP information in the last 12 months:
        Yes 180(23.8) 1,621(89.8) 2.7(2.2–3.4) 1.54(1.11–2.15)** 1.67(1.22–2.28)**
        No 185(10.24) 577 (76.2) 1 1 1
Parity:    Never mother 17(2.0) 840(98.0) 9.6(5.85–15.07) 9.68(4.47–20.90) ***
                Ever-mother 351(16.25) 1809 (83.75) 1 1
AIC value 1881 1339 1281

Abbreviations: OR, Odds ratio; CI, Confidence interval; FP, Family planning

*p<0.05

** p<0.01

***p<0.001

Model 1: Multivariate logistic regression analysis with main independent variables

Model 2a: Multivariate logistic regression analysis with main independent variables and all other covariates excluding ever-mother status due to its multicollinearity with age

Model 2b: Multivariate logistic regression analysis with main independent variables and all other covariates excluding age due to its multicollinearity with ever-mother status.

Results

Among the total 3102 young married women identified from the DHSS data base, 3039 were interviewed making the response rate 97.9%. The mean (±SD) age of study participant was 19.6 (±2.6) years. About half, 1487 (48.9%) were married before 18 years with 17.7 (±1.8) years mean (±SD) age at marriage. The majority of the participants were a rural resident, 2805(92.3%), and Muslim, 2934 (96.5%). More than half of the participants 1626(53.5%) has no formal education. The majority of the participants reported being ever pregnant, 2431 (80.0%), 2,214(72.1%) had a minimum of one child, and 435 (14.4%) were pregnant. The median reported walking distance from the nearest health facility was 30 minutes and 72.0% of the respondents reported living within 1 hour walking distance from the nearest health facility (Table 1).

Table 1. Background characteristics of married young women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

Variables Response category Frequency %
Age of participants in years 14–17 609 200
18–19 628 20.7
20–24 1802 59.3
Age of marriage in years 13–17 1487 48.9
18–19 1088 35.8
20–23 464 15.3
Religion Muslim 2934 96.5
Christian 105 3.5
Level of education No education 1626 53.5
Primary (1–4 grade) 579 19.1
Secondary and higher (5+ grade) 834 27.4
Husband’s main occupation Farmer 2706 89.4
Others€ 322 10.6
Number of children alive No children alive One child 851 28.0
Two children 1130 37.2
Three and more children 861 28.3
197 6.5
ANC follow up for last pregnancy every had (n = 2407) Yes 1,305 54.2
No 1,102 45.8
Ever heard of contraceptive method Yes 2788 91.7
No 251 8.3
Advised FP during health facility visit in the last 12 months No 2,610 85.9
Yes 429 14.1
Received FP advise from HEWs or others HCWs visited home in the last 12 months No 2,633 87.0
Yes 395 13.0
Heard FP via radio in the last 12 months No 2,589 85.45
Yes 441 14.55
Seen FP information on television in the last 12 months No 2,845 93.9
Yes 184 6.1
Read about family planning in a newspaper or magazine in the last 12 months No 2975 98.2
Yes 55 1.8
Read about family planning in a pamphlet/ posters/ leaflets in the last 12 months No 2,967 97.9
Yes 64 2.1
Heard FP during community conversation/events in the last 12 months No 2,810 92.7
Yes 221 7.3

Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal care; HEWs, Health Extension Workers; HCWs, Health Care Workers; FP, Family planning.

€ = Other category includes employees, daily laborer and merchants.

Ever use of contraceptive methods was reported by 695 participants (22.9%, 95% CI: 21.2%-24.6%). Among the study participants, 369 (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-15.5%) were currently using a contraceptive method. The mean (±SD) duration of continuous utilization among currently using contraceptive was 9.4 (±8.9) months with a range of 1–36 months. Current contraceptive utilization was significantly higher among young adults than adolescent women (p-value <0.0001). Injectable was the most used method 172(47.2%) and nearly all 355(96.2%) were using the contraceptive methods to delay rather than limiting pregnancies. Only 17(2%) never mother women were currently using contraceptive methods (p-value <0.001). More than two-thirds 255(69.1%) of contraceptive users were receiving the method from health center (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Current contraceptive utilization of young married women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia.

Fig 1

Factors associated with contraceptive utilization

In multivariable logistic regression, perceived social approval (AOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.60–2.30) and perception of friends’ contraceptive practice (AOR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.20–1.54) were significantly associated with higher odds of contraceptive utilization. Differently, the higher the score of belief in contraceptive myths was significantly associated with lower likelihood of contraceptive utilization (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49–0.73). Moreover, odds of contraceptive utilization were significantly higher among participants with better contraceptive knowledge (AOR = 1.67; 95% CI: 1.22–2.27), recent exposure to FP information (AOR = 1.67; 95% CI: 1.22–2.28), ever-mother (AOR = 9.68; 95% CI: 4.47–20.90), and who attended secondary education and above (AOR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.38–2.70) (Table 2).

Discussion

This study revealed that less than one in seven young married women were using contraceptive methods. Perceived social approval and perception friends’ contraceptive practice were positively associated young women contraceptive utilization. Moreover, the more young women believe in contraceptive myths was negatively associated with their contraceptive utilization.

The current study found that only 14.2% of the participants reported the current utilization of contraceptive methods. This finding is far below the 32–47% level of contraceptive use among 15–24 years married women in a sub-group analysis of studies on reproductive-age women and DHS reports in Ethiopia [11, 50]. Moreover, our finding is far below 40.7% of Oromia, the region where this study was conducted, but higher than 3.4% in the neighboring Somali region [2]. In addition to geographical closeness, the population has close cultural and religious similarities with the Somali region’s population, a region with a contraceptive prevalence among the lowest in Ethiopia. Hence, it could be concluded that the prevalence of contraceptive use in Eastern Ethiopia is low. The persistent low contraceptive utilization in the area could be due to the socio-cultural pressure to prove fertility immediately after marriage and norms that encourage large family size in rural settings of some low and middle-income countries [36, 51]. This is possibly due to the social pressure on married young women to prove their fertility or have a first child as early as possible after marriage regardless of age. Thus, the finding reinforces the importance of interventions to empower girls and discourage the norm of early marriage to delay the age at marriage among girls in the study area [52]. Lack of negotiation and communication ability with husbands and family members and mistrust towards contraceptive methods might also hinder young women’s use of contraceptives [53]. Moreover, health workers in some rural low-income countries are also unwilling to provide advice on contraceptives contrary to their official mandate because of the powerful norms that disapprove of young mother contraceptive use [29, 36].

This study identified significantly higher odds of current contraceptive utilization among young women with higher perceived social approval and friends’ contraceptive practice. In line with results from our study, previous studies showed the influences of perceived social support on young married women contraceptive use [18, 54]. Several previous qualitative studies have also recognized the effect of social network approval on young women’s contraception. Young women’s contraceptive decision is more likely influenced by husbands’ expectation of children at younger age and mothers-in-law expectation of grand children [33, 36, 55]. These underscore the persistent influence of external pressures on young married women’s contraceptive decisions mainly from husbands and mother in-law. Furthermore, evidence also showed young women’s strong willingness of conforming to the social expectation of childbearing [56]. Consequently, the low contraceptive use in our study could be due to many of them complying with the social expectation encouraging childbearing and disapproving of contraception among young women. Young women’s abiding of the social expectation may be due to mistrust of contraceptive methods and low skill of negotiation and communication with husbands and other family members. Thus, people in young women’s social network mainly husbands and mother-in-law needs to be part of the contraceptive program in a way that builds safe spaces to discuss and learn about contraceptive services.

Moreover, in support of previous evidence, our study established the positive influence of perception of friends’ contraceptive practice on young women’s contraceptive use [30]. This finding suggested that women can learn or receive support from friends regarding contraception. The more belief in friends’ contraception approval would also create a chance of discussing contraception among themselves which helps as a way of gaining knowledge and sharing experiences [53]. However, the negative effect of belief in friends’ contraceptive approval may be more pronounced in low prevalence settings like our study area since many may refrain from contraceptive use by wrongly justifying their non-utilization as within the bounds of common practice.

Another important finding was the significant negative association of belief in contraceptive myths with current contraceptive utilization. The more young women believe in contraceptive related myths, the lower likelihood of reporting contraceptive use. This result confirms the previous evidence that identified a negative effect of contraceptive related misconceptions on women contraceptive utilization [35, 45]. Young women in rural Ethiopia enter into marriage at an early age with limited FP information. Thus, they often depend on informal sources of contraceptive information such as friends through which false rumors and contraceptive methods’ negative effects are more distributed [29]. Another possible explanation is that some of the contraceptive related myths may be social misconceptions beyond individual beliefs; that leads to social disapproval of contraception during young age. Thus, our findings suggest the need for intervention programs that targeted the identified myths and misconceptions to improve young women’s contraceptive use alongside preventing early marriage.

This study relied on self-reported data through face-to-face interviews on culturally sensitive topics. Thus, social desirability biases cannot be ruled out and could result in under-reporting of contraceptive use. Some might also agree or disagree in a socially desirable way with the statements used to assess perceived norms and contraceptive myths. However, we made efforts by ensuring the privacy of respondents during the interview and matching interviewer and respondent by age and sex to minimize the bias. Despite the necessary precaution through improving the clarity of survey items and balancing positively and negatively worded items, respondents may opt for a neutral choice of Likert-scale item or may provide affirmative responses. The positive association between contraceptive use and subjective norms also may be due to contraceptive users’ higher likelihood of feeling others’ approval than its actual influence on contraceptive use. The traditional norm of not using contraception might perpetuate reporting of the myths that learned from their social networks as barriers to contraceptive utilization. Hence, the relationship of contraceptive myths might be due to post-hoc rationalization of a refusal to contraceptive utilization. Lastly, the social norm is a stem of individual perception of social approval of desired behavior (i.e., perceived social approval), beliefs of what would happen if failing to comply with the approved norm (i.e., possible sanctions), and attitude to comply with the norm (i.e., sensitivity to conform) [57] yet the current study limited to perceived social approval like some other previous studies [18, 54]. Hence, a longitudinal study is needed to develop a full picture of the social norm, understanding the relations between the various constellations, and design tailored intervention to shift the conservative norms which disapprove of young women’s contraception.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate low contraceptive utilization among young married women in rural Ethiopia. Socio-cultural factors, mainly perceived social approval of contraception and belief in contraception myths, were significantly associated with young women contraceptive utilization. Family planning education should address social norms that disapprove of contraception and target myths and misconceptions regarding modern contraceptive methods. Additionally, training of health workers is needed to interact and share information with mothers seeking maternal and child health to dispel pervasive myths and misconceptions.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Frequency of each item used for measuring perceived social approval and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Frequency of each item used to assess knowledge of contraceptive methods among young married women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Minimal data set.

(DTA)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Haramaya University and Addis Continental Institute of Public health for technical support; the study participants and data collectors for their kind cooperation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

TD LO HURG-2018-02-04 Haramaya University www.haramaya.edu.et No-The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mohamed Y. Africa’s defining challenge: Project Syndicate; 2017 [Available from: http://www.africa.undp.org/content/rba/en/home/blog/2017/8/7/africa_defining_challenge.html.
  • 2.CSACE I. Ethiopia demographic and health survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.UNICEF. United Nations Children’s Fund, Child Marriage: Latest trends and future prospects, UNICEF, New York, 2018.; 2018 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cornet A. Current challenges in contraception in adolescents and young women. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25 Suppl 1:S1–10. 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32835e06fd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Godha D, Hotchkiss DR, Gage AJ. Association between child marriage and reproductive health outcomes and service utilization: a multi-country study from South Asia. The Journal of adolescent health: official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2013;52(5):552–8. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Institute Guttmacher. Adding it up: investing in contraception and maternal and newborn health, 2017, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2017. Annotated version available at https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adding-it-upcontraceptionmaternal-newborn-health-foradolescents-ethiopia. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yenealem F, Niberet G. Prevalence and associated factors of unintended pregnancy among pregnant woman in Gondar town, North west Ethiopia, 2014. BMC Research Notes. 2019;12(1):161 10.1186/s13104-019-4203-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chandra-Mouli V, McCarraher DR, Phillips SJ, Williamson NE, Hainsworth G. Contraception for adolescents in low and middle income countries: needs, barriers, and access. Reproductive Health. 2014;11(1):1 10.1186/1742-4755-11-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Radovich E, Dennis ML, Wong KLM, Ali M, Lynch CA, Cleland J, et al. Who Meets the Contraceptive Needs of Young Women in Sub-Saharan Africa? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2018;62(3):273–80. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Haider TL, Sharma M. Barriers to family planning and contraception uptake in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. International quarterly of community health education. 2012;33(4):403–13. 10.2190/IQ.33.4.g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ethiopian Public Health Institute, ICF. Ethiopia mini demographic and health survey 2019: key indicators. EPHI and ICF Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thulaseedharan JV. Contraceptive use and preferences of young married women in Kerala, India. Open Access Journal of Contraception 2018. 9:1–10. 10.2147/OAJC.S152178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tirivayi N. Barriers to and Facilitators of Contraceptive Use Among Married Adolescent Girls in Six Sub-Saharan African Countries In: Konte M, Tirivayi N, editors. Women and Sustainable Human Development: Empowering Women in Africa. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 125–41. 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Islam AZ, Mostofa MG, Islam MA. Factors affecting unmet need for contraception among currently married fecund young women in Bangladesh. The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care: the official journal of the European Society of Contraception. 2016;21(6):443–8. 10.1080/13625187.2016.1234034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yadav D, Dhillon P. Assessing the Impact of Family Planning Advice on Unmet Need and Contraceptive Use among Currently Married Women in Uttar Pradesh, India. PLOS ONE,. 2015;10(3):e0118584 10.1371/journal.pone.0118584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hall KS, Castaño PM, Westhoff CL. The Influence of Oral Contraceptive Knowledge on Oral Contraceptive Continuation Among Young Women. Journal of Women’s Health. 2014;23(7):596–601. 10.1089/jwh.2013.4574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Worku AG, Tessema GA, Zeleke AA. Trends of Modern Contraceptive Use among Young Married Women Based on the 2000, 2005, and 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys: A Multivariate Decomposition Analysis. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(1):e0116525 10.1371/journal.pone.0116525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kiene SM, Hopwood S, Lule H, Wanyenze RK. An empirical test of the Theory of Planned Behaviour applied to contraceptive use in rural Uganda. Journal of health psychology. 2014;19(12):1564–75. 10.1177/1359105313495906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Babalola S, John N, Ajao B, Speizer I. Ideation and intention to use contraceptives in Kenya and Nigeria. Demographic Research. 2015;33(8):211–38. 10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Williamson LM, Parkes A, Wight D, Petticrew M, Hart GJ. Limits to modern contraceptive use among young women in developing countries: a systematic review of qualitative research. Reproductive Health. 2009;6(1):3 10.1186/1742-4755-6-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.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. 10.1177/1010539510381918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Uddin J, Pulok MH, Sabah MN. Correlates of unmet need for contraception in Bangladesh: does couples’ concordance in household decision making matter? Contraception. 2016;94(1):18–26. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Elmusharaf K, Byrne E, O’Donovan D. Social and traditional practices and their implications for family planning: a participatory ethnographic study in Renk, South Sudan. Reproductive Health. 2017;14(1):10 10.1186/s12978-016-0273-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McClendon KA, McDougal L. Intersections of girl child marriage and family planning beliefs and use: qualitative findings from Ethiopia and India. 2018;20(7):799–814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Costenbader E, Lenzi R, Hershow RB, Ashburn K, McCarraher DR. Measurement of Social Norms Affecting Modern Contraceptive Use: A Literature Review. Studies in family planning. 2017;48(4):377–89. 10.1111/sifp.12040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mackie G, Moneti F, Denny E, Shakya H. What are Social Norms? How are They Measured? UNICEF/UCSD Center on Global Justice Project Cooperation Agreement. Working paper. URL: http://dmeforpeace.org/sites/default/files/4%2009 …; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marcus R, Harper C, Brodbeck S, Page E. Social norms, gender norms and adolescent girls: A brief guide. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mardi A, Ebadi A, Shahbazi S, Esmaelzade Saeieh S, Behboodi Moghadam Z. Factors influencing the use of contraceptives through the lens of teenage women: a qualitative study in Iran. BMC public health. 2018;18(1):202 10.1186/s12889-018-5116-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kate P, Nicola J. Social norms stop Ethiopian girls from making safe choices about pregnancy. 2020. Available at https://theconversation.com/social-norms-stop-ethiopian-girls-from-making-safe-choices-about-pregnancy-131491 [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Colleran H, Mace R. Social network- and community-level influences on contraceptive use: evidence from rural Poland. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2015;282(1807). 10.1098/rspb.2015.0398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hildebrand DFN, Veloso AR. Factors that influence the use of birth control by Brazilian adolescents. Brazilian Business Review. 2012;9(Special Ed):120–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ngum Chi Watts MC, Liamputtong P, Carolan M. Contraception knowledge and attitudes: truths and myths among African Australian teenage mothers in Greater Melbourne, Australia. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(15–16):2131–41. 10.1111/jocn.12335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Irani L, Speizer I, Barrington C. Attitudes, beliefs and norms relating to contraceptive use among young migrant and non-migrant adults in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Glob Public Health. 2013;8(9):1048–62. 10.1080/17441692.2013.838598 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hallab MG, Garrettc J, Barringtona C. La situación económica: Social determinants of contraceptive use in rural Honduras. Global Public Health. 2014;9(4):455–68. 10.1080/17441692.2014.890238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ghule M, Raj A, Palaye P, Dasgupta A, Nair S, Saggurti N, et al. Barriers to use contraceptive methods among rural young married couples in Maharashtra, India: Qualitative findings. Asian J Res Soc Sci Humanit. 2015;5(6):18–33. 10.5958/2249-7315.2015.00132.X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mutumba M, Wekesa E, Stephenson R. Community influences on modern contraceptive use among young women in low and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional multi-country analysis. BMC public health. 2018;18(1):430 10.1186/s12889-018-5331-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Scholmerich VL, Kawachi I. Translating the Social-Ecological Perspective Into Multilevel Interventions for Family Planning: How Far Are We? Health Educ Behav. 2016;43(3):246–55. 10.1177/1090198116629442 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Assefa N, Oljira L, Baraki N, Demena M, Zelalem D, Ashenafi W, et al. HDSS Profile: The Kersa Health and Demographic Surveillance System. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2016;45(1):94–101. 10.1093/ije/dyv284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zelalem D, Semahegn A, Tesfaye G, Sileshi B. The level and patterns of fertility among women in Kersa Demographic Surveillance and Health Research Center (KDS-HRC) Field site, Kersa District, East Ethiopia. Fertility Research and Practice [Internet]. 2015. 2015/11/17; 1(18). 10.1186/s40738-015-0010-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Technology FMoSa. National Research Ethics Review Guideline Fifth Edition Fifth ed. Addis Ababa 2015 p. 56.
  • 41.Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mayaki F, Kouabenan DR. Social norms in promoting family planning: a study in Niger. South African Journal of Psychology. 2015;45(2):249–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bader VG. Influences On Contraceptive Use Among College Women. Kansas City, Missouri: University Of Missouri-Kansas City; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sutton JA, Walsh-Buhi ER. Factors influencing college women’s contraceptive behavior: An application of the integrative model of behavioral prediction. J Am Coll Health. 2017;65(5):339–47. 10.1080/07448481.2017.1312414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gueye A, Speizer IS, Corroon M, Okigbo CC. Belief in Family Planning Myths at the Individual and Community Levels and Modern Contraceptive Use in Urban Africa. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health. 2015;41(4):191–9. 10.1363/4119115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.CARE USA. Women’s Empowerment Multidimenssional Evaluation of Agency, Social Capital and relations(WEMEASR): A tool to measure women’s empowerment in sexual, reproductive and maternal health programs. Atlanta, GA: Author; 2014
  • 47.Kaye K, Suellentrop K, Sloup C. The Fog Zone. How Misperceptions, Magical Thinking, and Ambivalence Put Young Adults at Risk for Unplanned Pregnancy. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy; 2009 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Frost JJ, Lindberg LD, Finer LB. Young adults’ contraceptive knowledge, norms and attitudes: associations with risk of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;44(2):107–16. 10.1363/4410712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Oluwasanu MM, John-Akinola YO, Desmennu AT, Oladunni O, Adebowale AS. Access to Information on Family Planning and Use of Modern Contraceptives Among Married Igbo Women in Southeast, Nigeria. International quarterly of community health education. 2019;39(4):233–43. 10.1177/0272684X18821300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ebrahim NB, Atteraya MS. Structural correlates of modern contraceptive use among Ethiopian women. Health Care for Women International. 2018;39(2):208–19. 10.1080/07399332.2017.1383993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Crivello G, Boyden J, Pankhurst A. ‘Motherhood in childhood’: Generational change in Ethiopia. Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics. 2019;3(1–2). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.World Health Organization. Preventing early pregnancy and poor reproductive outcomes among adolescents in developing countries [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shahabuddin ASM, Nöstlinger C, Delvaux T, Sarker M, Bardají A, Brouwere VD, et al. What Influences Adolescent Girls’ Decision-Making Regarding Contraceptive Methods Use and Childbearing? A Qualitative Exploratory Study in Rangpur District, Bangladesh. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0157664 10.1371/journal.pone.0157664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wasti SP, Simmons R, Limbu N, Chipanta S, Haile L, Velcoff J, et al. Side-Effects and Social Norms Influencing Family Planning Use in Nepal. Kathmandu University medical journal (KUMJ). 2017;15(59):222–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ochako R, Mbondo M, Aloo S, Kaimenyi S, Thompson R, Temmerman M, et al. Barriers to modern contraceptive methods uptake among young women in Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:118 10.1186/s12889-015-1483-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Beyeza-Kashesy J, Neema S, Ekstrom AM, Kaharuza F, Mirembe F, Kulane A. "Not a boy, not a child": A qualitative study on young people’s views on childbearing in Uganda. Afr J Reprod Health. 2010;14(1):71–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Cislaghi B, Heise L. Theory and practice of social norms interventions: eight common pitfalls. Globalization and health. 2018;14(1):83 10.1186/s12992-018-0398-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

José Antonio Ortega

15 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-05351

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believes in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

In particular, reviewers 1 and 3 provide very helpful comments to improve the paper. They agree that the setup needs improvement, in particular posing better the research question. You willl benefit from looking at the strobe statement that provides a checkup of research and reporting soundness, https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf

In addition, as reviewer 3 points out, stating that the data is available without restriction is not enough to meet PLOS ONE data sharing requirements. The data should indeed be available. Check the journal policy, you have a range of options: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. In your resubmission we invite you to opt for one of them. Otherwise, we would be unable to accept the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. 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.

In addition, please provide further details of the pre-testing of this questionnaire, including the exact number of participants and where they were recruited from.

3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study.

In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

4. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required to ensure there are no errors of grammar: "Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia".

Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information.

5. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors examined the influence of perceived social norms and beliefs about contraception on contraceptive use among married adolescents and young women in Ethiopia. Data is obtained from a community survey of 3039 young married women aged 14-24 years. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with contraceptive use.

General comment:

The topic is a very interesting one that is relevant to family planning policies and programmes. There is a growing body of evidence on the link between perceived social norms/contraceptive beliefs and contraceptive use. Although there is merit in the contribution to knowledge, the paper has some conceptual flaws in the analysis and presentation of the results that should be fixed before consideration for publication. Authors included in their analysis of the effects of beliefs on contraceptive use, participants who are not aware of any contraceptive method. This introduces biases in the results. It is not possible to evaluate someone's beliefs and use of contraceptives when they are not aware of it. Analysis of the link between beliefs and contraceptive use should be restricted to those who have ever heard of contraception. It is not clear what study design was used. The study cannot be generalized given its weak design. There are a lot of grammatical errors that should be corrected by a language expert for it to meet publication standards.

Specific comments

Title:

The title of the paper should be written in a proper way highlighting its core content. Currently, it sounds more like a conclusion of the study rather than a title. It should be revised!. The title includes the text‘…in rural Ethiopia’ yet the sample includes participants from urban settings.

Abstract

There is a lack of clarity on how the association between outcome and independent variables are reported. Report only factors associated with contraceptive use.

Introduction

Outlining a conceptual model would be useful. The authors should also highlight key hypotheses to be tested in the study.

 

Methods:

It is not clear why the study computed a sample size of 1566, yet all 3102 young women in the study area were interviewed. It does not add value to calculate the sample size when a census is used. There need to clarify why all young women were interviewed instead of the number that was sampled.

The inclusion of place of residence, rural vs. urban, is problematic given that the urban sample size is negligible. The result is greatly biased given that the sample was not stratified to allow for comparison between rural and urban.

There is a high correlation between age and number of children that might affect the results when these two variables are included in the regression model. Also, adolescents <19 years are more vulnerable and are not as exposed compared to young women 20-24. The study can be strengthened by comparing participants <19 years with those aged 20-24 years

Result

Table 2: Instead of bi-variate logistic regression, do a simple comparison between contraceptive users and non-users by perceived social approval and beliefs using column totals. It also important to compare the mean scores of index indicators between users and non-users

Table 3: The title is ‘Multivariate logistic regression…’ However, there are some bi-variate results in columns 2&3. These should move to Table 2.

It is not clear which variables are controlled in the multivariate model. This makes it very difficult to infer the effects of perceived social norms and beliefs on contraceptive use. A more precise way to handle this would to running a separate model with the main independent variables without controls and another with the controls.

Review how the logistic regression results are reported. There seems to a confusion between the outcome and independent variables in the way the odds are reported. It is, therefore, very difficult to understand the magnitude and the direction of the effect of the independent factors on the outcome.

Reviewer #2: Comments for manuscript

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believes in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

I believe it is well articulated and useful manuscript. My comments are, in the result section mean and standard deviations should be reported rather than SE.

Discussion: there is low contraceptive utilization in your study area even compared to the surrounding areas. You tried to tell us the presence of persistent socio-cultural norms that encourages large family size and then non-use of contraceptives methods at young age in rural setting. But the utilization is still lower than other rural areas. I suggest to find out more on the possible factors that contributed low utilization in your study area.

Reviewer #3: 1. Introduction: In the final statement of the introduction, in which you describe the aim of the study, it would be beneficial to describe this in more detail, so that you are very clearly stating the aim and the scope of the paper. Stating that the aim is to assess contraceptive behavior is perhaps too broad. Please also see below comments on pieces that could be elaborated on in the introduction, specifically the main independent variables.

2. Study setting: The description of the study site is very useful. It would be helpful to list the statistics you listed for the site for Ethiopia in general, so we can compare it to the average for the country. This will help to put your findings in context.

3. Methods and materials: It would be helpful to clarify how the sample was actually chosen. This section on sampling would benefit from the actual equation used with the inputs provided (contraceptive utilization, precision, design effect, and non-response). Why were all women included if the sample size was far exceeded? Were women contacted in their homes (was this a household survey?) Additionally, since half of the sample had no education, it may be useful to clarify how written informed consent was obtained for those who may not be able to read/write.

4. Variables and measurements: It would be very helpful to understand whether these injunctive norms and descriptive norms fit into a conceptual framework of some sort. How are these norms theorized to affect behavior? It would be very helpful to have a description of these norms/their expected effect on behavior in the introduction section of this paper, to help frame the research you conducted to the audience. Please also specify what all of the response options are for each of the norm and myths and misconception variables.

Did you hypothesize any sort of relationship between your two main predictor variables? It would be helpful to explain how you think the norms as well as the belief in myths/misconceptions might be related, in the introduction. Did you predict that one would be more important than the other, or that while they might be independently associated with the outcome, one would no longer be significant in multivariate analyses?

There are a lot of scale variables included, especially for variables that are not main predictors for the model. You may consider reassessing whether all of these are needed. Additionally, if you decide to keep them all, please elaborate on the items included in the contraceptive knowledge scale.

5. Data analysis: Is table 2 necessary for helping to understand the paper? I didn’t understand the purpose of this analysis from the description in the methods, perhaps because you had already described how the scales were calculated in the previous section of the methods. The Cruide ORs Table 2 may be too much information, and could be considered for an appendix if you decide it is needed. If it is needed, please elaborate on its purpose more in this section of the methods. I also don’t think you need to refer to the table numbers in the methods section.

The sentences where you describe that the scale variables were all included as continuous variables in the model is confusing because you describe how these variables were developed/coded in the variables and measurement section. I think you could put these sentences in the variables section instead.

The data analysis section should also clearly state that multivariate logistic regression was conducted, I don’t think this statement was included.

6. Results: The frequencies for age in Table 1 do not add up to 100. If there are missing data, please clarify this. On the other hand, the frequencies add up to more than your total sample size. Please clarify.

For the duration of continuous utilization, is that among current users only?

I don’t understand the purpose of the Cruide ORs from Table 2 in the body of the paper, perhaps it could be included in an appendix.

7. Results: The text describing Table 3 needs to be heavily revised. The odds ratios are not described in the correct way – the odds are of current contraceptive use, not of the background characteristics. Please revise here and in the abstract and discussion as well. Please also continue to be very clear about the outcome and include “current” in contraceptive use.

It would also be helpful to show the reference groups for all variables, even those with 2 categories. Then you could also add the Frequency(%) of contraception for each variable. I would also put the main predictor variables at either the beginning or the end of the table so they stand out.

8. I think the discussion clearly explores a lot of the main findings from the results. In the paragraph on descriptive norms, in the second sentence, it’s unclear whether the authors are arguing that it’s a misperception that most young women aren’t using contraception, when this study showed only 14% were using. Please elaborate on this possible reason women aren’t using. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to elaborate on the relationships between these two norms as well as the relationship between norms and believing in myths. Please also spend a bit more time elaborating on suggested interventions and future research, perhaps among positive deviants.

I’m not sure I understand this sentence in the limitations: “Additionally, it could be argued that the positive association between contraceptive use and subjective norm may be due to contraceptives users may more likely to perceive others’ approval than who were not using.” Please elaborate.

Minor/Other:

Was there a minimum age for inclusion in this study?

Figure 1 is very hard to read.

I think this study would strongly benefit from a copy-edit for clarity, grammar, and minor issues with formatting in the text (this, along with the description of the ORs as mentioned above is the reason I selected No for Question 4).

PLOS One author guidelines state that contacting the corresponding author for data is not sufficient to meet their data availability guidelines.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: George Odwe. Ph.D.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-05351.docx

Decision Letter 1

José Antonio Ortega

2 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-05351R1

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in eastern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

I believe the manuscript has greatly benefitted from most changes. One of the referees agrees with the changes, referee 3 has not answered but I believe that most of the comments have been taken. Making the data available is also a great move that can help increase the visibility of the article.

  1. One of the characteristics that set apart this analysis from others is the focus on young AND married women. There should be some reference on pressure to procreate once married (i.e: https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/5918, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932000003552). When this is understood, the low contraceptive prevalence of this group is understood better: they want to have children, particularly their first child. Probably the “policy” recommendation would not be so much “use contraceptives after getting married” but “marry later” given this cultural association. This should be highlighted to understand the context of such low contraceptive use as commented by reviewer 3.

  2. Also, in that respect, it would help to give comparable statistics on contraceptive prevalence for a similar group in Ethiopia from DHS. [I have seen you do it in the discussion comparing with DHS2016 in l. 329-330, I still give the data I looked for MiniDHS2019] For instance, it can be computed from the MiniDHS2019 (https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/PR120/PR120.pdf). It shows 36.5 prevalence for 474 currently married women 15-19 and 52.2 prevalence for 951 married women 20-24. Based on this a proportion for married women 15-24 can be estimated and provided as a reference. Indeed CP is very low in this region. While DHS does not provide a figure for Kersa, CP is not low in Oromia (40.7 compared to 41.4 nationally). However, neighbouring Ethiopia Somali shows only has 3.4 CP. Is there some clear a priori reason for this low uptake?

  3. Differences could also arise due to a different protocol in asking about contraceptive use. This should be acknowledged somewhere as a limitation since the DHS protocol is the standard for measuring CP internationally. Difference might lie in that DHS, before asking about use, asks about knowledge of each method.

  4. In contrast, line 333-334 is too vague: “the persistent socio-cultural norms that encourages large family size and then non-use of contraceptives methods at young age in rural setting of developing country”. There are many rural setting in developing countries where it is not the case. Also phrasing in singular form is not correct. Maybe “the persistent socio-cultural norms that encourage large family size and then non-use of contraceptive methods at young ages in this rural setting”

  5. There is no clear information on when the survey was carried out. That should be made clear.

  6. I also see missing data in the dataset. I guess most correspond to women that are not married. How handling of missing data was carried out should be mentioned in the methods section.

  7. I understand your argument of multicollinearity of age and parity, also raised by referee 1, but for the reason given above (pressure to become mother), it would be good to include at least a variable distinguishing ever-mothers. One would expect the variables of age lose importance after including it, but it is ok. Also much lower CP for non-mothers would be expected. Please include the variable in the multivariate analysis since non-mothers are less likely to use contraception. Note that l.205 says you are controlling by parity which seems not to be the case (after the addition of the variable, it will).

  8. The title has been changed but it still does not read correctly. “believing” should be “belief”, and it still reads too long. I would suggest “Low contraceptive use, perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia”.

  9. There is no need to put all results in the abstract, just the main ones, in lines 45-53.

  10. The text would still requires copy-editing. Some suggestions in that respect, focusing in the abstract, but there is a need to check everything, particularly the discussion.

  • l. 39-40: “aged 14-24” instead of in the age-group 14-24.

  • L. 45: Remove “the” in the “the perceived social approval”

  • L. 56: Remove “the” in “the sociocultural…”.

  • L. 57: Replace “are necessary” which does not stem from the analysis, and “to improve”, which assumes a value judgement regarding contraceptive use, with “could increase” or something similar.

  • Avoid “unmet needs” (l. 73), use “unmet need”.

  • L. 336: suppress “norm”

  • L. 339-40: Rephrase. “Despite” does not make sense. Also “imperative” is too strong.

  • L. 364 should be “mothers”

  • L. 366: suppress “be”

  • L. 367-68 do not make sense. Rephrase.

  • L. 375: Again the problem with “belief” (noun) and “believe” (verb) but the other way round. It should be “believe in” instead of “belief the”.

  • L. 379: Again rephrase “developing countries”. This example is not representative. Just suppress “in developing countries”. Also “which even accompanied by” is wrong. In general this paragraph needs copy-editing.

  • L- 388 Also check all this page for grammar. Example: “This tended to resulted” maybe “result”. You can use “Grammarly.com” or a similar tool that will indicate all these problems.

  • L. 410: Socio-cultural, not social-cultural. Also commas missing before mainly and after myths.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: The authors have adequately addressed most of comments. I have not additional comments on the revised manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[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.

Decision Letter 2

José Antonio Ortega

21 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-05351R2

Low contraceptive use, perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

Some of the issues raised have been addressed but others have not. In particular, two points remain:

3- Possible limitation, differences with DHS protocol.

You argue that this is not an issue, but I cannot judge this based on the information I have. I am concerned, for instance, about probing questions regarding knowledge that can make a difference (and are known to make a difference). Please provide a copy of the questionnaire so that this can be assessed. If the protocol is exactly the same, please make it clear in the paper If it is different, acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different.

7- I insist in the model with an ever-mother covariate. You could include both models for comparison, but I think it is even more important after showing the strong bivariate link, As I said there are important reasons to include it: married youth with no children are very likely to desire getting pregnant and, therefore, not to use contraception.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247484. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247484.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Oct 2020

3- Possible limitation, differences with DHS protocol.

You argue that this is not an issue, but I cannot judge this based on the information I have. I am concerned, for instance, about probing questions regarding knowledge that can make a difference (and are known to make a difference). Please provide a copy of the questionnaire so that this can be assessed. If the protocol is exactly the same, please make it clear in the paper If it is different, acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different.

Response: We understand your concern and describe the similarity of our questions with the DHS questionnaire in the revised manuscript. A copy of the DHS questionnaire is found on the following website: http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR328/FR328.pdf . The questionnaire specific to contraception is indicated on ‘APPENDIX E’, under the title ‘SECTION 3. CONTRACEPTION’ and page 402 or pdf page 435

7-I insist in the model with an ever-mother covariate. You could include both models for comparison, but I think it is even more important after showing the strong bivariate link, As I said there are important reasons to include it: married youth with no children are very likely to desire getting pregnant and, therefore, not to use contraception.

Response: We appreciate your concern and addressed it by including both models (age and ever-mother status) based on your suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

José Antonio Ortega

11 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-05351R3

Low contraceptive use, perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

There were two issues left:

- ISSUE 1: ​3- Possible limitation, differences with DHS protocol.

You argue that this is not an issue, but I cannot judge this based

on the information I have. I am concerned, for instance, about

probing questions regarding knowledge that can make a

difference (and are known to make a difference). Please provide

a copy of the questionnaire so that this can be assessed. If the

protocol is exactly the same, please make it clear in the paper If

it is different, acknowledge that as a possible limitation and

describe in what ways it is different.

RESPONSE: You are giving me a link to the DHS questionnaire. I know that one. What I was asking was to provide a copy of YOUR questionnaire. I am still unable to assess what I was mentioning. And, as I said, it is not a question of simmilarity. If it is not identical in the protocol (example: probing with knowledge of methods, ...) you have to acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different. That is still missing.

ISSUE 2: I insist in the model with an ever-mother covariate. You could

include both models for comparison, but I think it is even more

important after showing the strong bivariate link, As I said there

are important reasons to include it: married youth with no

children are very likely to desire getting pregnant and, therefore,

not to use contraception.

RESPONSE: We appreciate your concern and

addressed it by including both models

(age and ever-mother status) based on

your suggestion.

I welcome the addition of the model. You must see how important is the coefficient on ever-mother. But, still, the model is not commented in the text. You should. Please go back to my original comments on the reason for my insistence with including the variable:

I understand your argument of multicollinearity of age and parity,

also raised by referee 1, but for the reason given above (pressure

to become mother), it would be good to include at least a variable

distinguishing ever-mothers. One would expect the variables of

age lose importance after including it, but it is ok. Also much

lower CP for non-mothers would be expected. Please include the

variable in the multivariate analysis since non-mothers are less

likely to use contraception. Note that l.205 says you are

controlling by parity which seems not to be the case (after the

addition of the variable, it will).

Please comment on this in the main text. Please also change the names of the models that do not read well.  You can call them model 2a and model 2b or models 2 and 3 or something like that.  Please also add some measure of model fit for models 1, 2a and 2b that could be used to choose among them, such as AIC, BIC, Nagelkerke pseudo R-squared, etc. Make sure that the results reported throughout the text refer to the best model and make it clear in the text.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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.

Decision Letter 4

José Antonio Ortega

20 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-05351R4

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

There were two issues left.

1. Regarding the questionnaire, you convinced me that you were following the same DHS protocol.  I suggest changing the current sentence "We followed the DHS questionnaire protocol in adapting the questions used to assess contraceptive knowledge and utilization" with something more to the point "We followed the DHS questionnaire protocol for questions on contraceptive knowledge and utilization"

2. I think my instructions were clear "Please also add some measure of model fit for models 1, 2a and 2b that could be used to choose among them, such as AIC, BIC, Nagelkerke pseudo Rsquared, etc. Make sure that the results reported throughout the text refer to the best model and make it clear in the text.". 

What you have done is to include a sentence that reads confusing "We used Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Pseudo R2 in building the regression models. The model with low AIC and BIC, and high Pseudo R2 scores were considered as the final model. Additionally, the model fitness tested using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests". There is no other mention of AIC, BIC or Pseudo R2 in the text. What is going on?

I will be more clear:

1. Choose ONE model selection criterium. I'd suggest AIC.

2.. Report in table 2 the AICs for the different models. In particular look at what model is best according to the criterium: model 2a or model 2b, and make notice of it in the main text.

3. Make sure that all references in the text and abstract to results from the models refer to the best model from step 2.

COMEBACK ISSUE: The title changed again. It is OK except for "believing" that should be BELIEF.

NEW ISSUE: Since you are highlighting in the paper the connection with the variables on social pressure and contraceptive myths,  I see that in the "limitations" paragraph (399-416) there is no mention regarding possible alternative interpretations of the contraceptive myths variable which are clearly there in an observational setting such as post-hoc rationalization. In particular you should add something along these lines "Regarding the impact of belief in contraceptive myths, it cannot be ruled out that the relationship is not causal but due to post-hoc rationalization of a refusal to use contraception".

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2021 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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.

Decision Letter 5

José Antonio Ortega

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-05351R5

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

Congratulations on a much improved manuscript. The vast majority of issues regarding substance have been addressed. There are important problems regarding readability, though. This is important since a poorly written manuscript will be much less influential.

A first problem of factual incorrection that needs to be rewritten is this:

72 Previous studies have reported the highest levels of unmet need, and the lowest and interrupted

73 contraceptive utilization among young married women in developing countries [8].

The cited study does not say what is being said here. It is not a comparative study, it only studies unmet need of young women. In addition, it is not true that young married women have the highest unmet need levels. For instance, https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol38/45/38-45.pdf show that sexually active unmarried young-women have higher levels of demand and unmet need in most DHS surveys than their married counterparts. If we look at unmet need by age in Ethiopia, for instance DHS 2016, in table 7.10.1 we find that unmet need is highest for married women 35-39, and in table 7.10.2 the same applies to all sexually active women. Table 7.10.2 indicates that 15-19 and 20-24 actually have the lowest levels of unmet need.

Regarding editing, I provide a detailed assessment of problems. In particular the section on variables and measurement is written very poorly. Throughout the text there remain problems of grammatically incorrect sentences. I give you a detailed list of problematic sentences and proposed solutions, but the final text must be checked throughout afterwards. I also insert a couple of problems that are not only grammatical.

85 associated with women’s contraceptive utilization [15-18]. Studies have also been reported the

85 associated with women’s contraceptive utilization [15-18]. Studies have also reported the

89 Recently, literature increasingly recognizing the strong influence of perceived social norms and

89 Recently, literature increasingly recognizes the strong influence of perceived social norms and

91 perceived social norm is commonly shared beliefs about most people in their social networks’ (reference group) approval of contraceptive practice 92 (injunctive norm), and believe that most

93 people in their network contraceptive behavior (descriptive norm)

91 perceived social norm is commonly shared beliefs regarding people in their social networks’ (reference group) approving of contraceptive practice 92 (injunctive norm), or believing that most

93 people in their network contraceptive behavior (descriptive norm)

94 parents, and husbands' approval influences married young women’s contraceptive utilization

94 parents, and husbands' approval influences young married women’s contraceptive utilization

96 methods [22, 27, 28]. The perception of contraceptives behavior of Friends

96 methods [22, 27, 28]. The perception of contraceptive behavior of friends

98 friends using contraceptives

98 friends are using contraceptives

Moreover,

99 studies have been shown the influence of belief in myths and misperception or beliefs of rumors

100 not supported by evidence about contraceptive methods on young married women’s contraceptive

101 use [23, 30-35].133 questions used to measure the exposure variables and a large number of variables assessed like

Moreover,

99 studies have been shown the influence on young married women’s contraceptive use of belief in myths and misperception or beliefs in rumors

100 not supported by evidence regarding contraceptive methods  [23, 30-35].

In a community-based survey in which multiple Likert scale

133 questions used to measure the exposure variables and a large number of variables assessed like

134 this study, having the largest possible sample size

In a community-based survey such as this one, where multiple Likert scale

133 questions are used to measure the exposure variables and there are a large number of covariates, having the largest possible sample size …

135 error within

135 error even within

147 women who were residing in a similar setting outside of the study area. The female data collectors

147 women who were residing in a similar setting outside of the study area. Female data collectors

150 participants and who consented

150 participants who consented

164 The outcome variable was the current contraceptive utilization.

164 The outcome variable was current contraceptive utilization.

165 their spouse were currently using any contraceptive method to prevent or delay pregnancy. Those

166 responded ‘yes’

165 their spouse were currently using any contraceptive method to prevent or delay pregnancy. Those

166 who responded ‘yes’

178 in-law believe I should use contraceptive”.

178 in-law believe I should use contraceptives”.

179 strongly agree (5) and the index score was constructed by summing the items score and dividing

180 the total scores for the total number of items 179 strongly agree (5) and the index score was constructed by dividing

180 the total score by the total number of items

180 the total scores for the total number of items (S2 Table). The possible score range from 1-5 with

180 the total scores for the total number of items (S2 Table). The possible score ranges from 1-5 with

181 a higher score indicates that participants perceive their referents are more approve of their

181 a higher score indicating that participants perceive their referents approve more their

184 practice(descriptive norm) was assessed by single item

184 practice(descriptive norm) was assessed by a single item

186 using contraceptive method

186 using contraceptive methods

187 score indicates the stronger the likelihood that respondents thought their peers were using the

188 contraceptive method.

187 score indicates the stronger the likelihood that respondents thought their peers were using

188 contraceptive methods.

192 The statement include

192 The statements include

197 by summing the item scores and divided the total score for the number of ítems

197 by summing the item scores and dividing the total score by the number of items

198 scores range from 1-5,

198 score is in the range from 1 to 5,

203 To control for possible confounding covariates including contraceptive self‐ efficacy, knowledge,

204 inter-spousal communication, household decision-making autonomy, recent exposure to FP

205 information and socio-demographic variables such age, educational status, parity (ever206

mother/never-mother), desired number of children and wealth status were included the

207 multivariate analysis model.

203 The multivariate analysis controls for possible confounding including as covariates contraceptive self‐ efficacy, knowledge,

204 inter-spousal communication, household decision-making autonomy, recent exposure to FP

205 information and socio-demographic variables such age, educational status, parity (ever206

mother/never-mother), desired number of children and wealth status.

209 Contraceptive self‐ efficacy was measured by four items asked

209 Contraceptive self‐ efficacy was measured by four items asking

210 how confident or sure they could use contraceptive and insist husband’s

210 how confident or sure they were they could use contraceptive and insist the husband

211 items include how sure that the woman : could tell her your husband that wanted use of family

212 planning, … could use family planning, … could discuss topic of family planning with husband,

213 and … could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The items responses

211 items include how sure was the woman that : she could tell her husband that she wanted to use family

212 planning, … she could use family planning, … she could discuss topics of family planning with her husband,

213 and … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The item responses

216 by the number of item[45]. The scale score range from 1-5

216 by the number of items[45]. The scale score ranges from 1-5

217 level of confidence to use contraceptive methods. The scale had good reliability scale (Cronbach's

217 level of confidence to use contraceptive methods. The scale had good reliability (Cronbach's

220 Spousal communication was measured using a 4-items to ask the respondent how often woman

220 Spousal communication was measured using 4-items asking the respondent how often the woman

221 may discuss things with her husband [45]. Each woman was asked how often she discuss with

221 may discuss things with her husband [45]. Each woman was asked how often she discusses with

223 have, and whether to use contraceptive methods. The item response option ranges

223 have, and whether to use contraceptive methods. The item response options range

230 a range of key household decisions that affect her life and measured using the 10-items scale

230 a range of key household decisions affecting her life and measured using the 10-items scale

237 Contraceptive knowledge was another covariate assessed using 15 items adapted from literature

238 and emphasized on knowledge of specific contraceptive methods

237 Contraceptive knowledge was another covariate assessed using 15 items adapted from the literature

238 and emphasizing knowledge of specific contraceptive methods

240 obtained by summing all items. The score range from

240 obtained by summing all items. The score ranges from

245 whether they were told about FP during their visit to health facility, to Health Extension Worker

246 (HEW) or others Health care Workers (HCWs) who visited their home

245 whether they were told about FP during their visit to a health facility, or by a Health Extension Worker

246 (HEW) or other Health care Workers (HCWs) who visited their home

251 Wealth index was computed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) using items

252 assessed household facilities and possessions.

251 Wealth index was computed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) based on items

252 assessing household facilities and possessions.

254 each component. The score of the first component or factor which comprised of several heavily

255 loaded variables and accounted for the largest variation in the data was categorized into quintiles

256 where each individual fall into

254 each component. The score of the first component or factor comprising several heavily

255 loaded variables and accounting for the largest variation in the data was categorized into quintiles

256 where each individual falls into

257 Additionally, socio-demographic characteristics including current age, age of marriage

258 educational status, residence of living (rural and urban), alive and ideal number of children were

259 included in the analysis.

257 Additionally, socio-demographic characteristics included in the analysis are current age, age at marriage,

258 educational status, place of residence (rural and urban), alive and ideal number of children

272 to the multicollinearity

272 to multicollinearity

275 models. The AIC values were compared in successive models, and the lowest value was considered

276 the best-fit model. The value of AIC showed subsequent reduction throughout the model building

277 which indicates each model improvement over the previous, illustrating the goodness of fit of the

278 final regression model (Table 2).

275 models. The model with the lowest AIC value is model 2b, including parity and excluding age.

(Table 2).

NOTE. They are non-nested models. It is not the subsequent reduction: it is one or the other.

296 Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal car;

296 Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal care

300 24.6%). Among the study participants, 369 (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-15.5%) were currently using

300 24.6%). Among the study participants, 369 (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-15.5%) were currently using a

306 currently using contraceptive methods (p-value <0.001). More than two-third

306 currently using contraceptive methods (p-value <0.001). More than two-thirds

308 Fig 1. This is current contraceptive utilization

308 Fig 1. Current contraceptive utilization;

315 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odd of contraceptive utilization was

315 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odds of contraceptive utilization were

318 (AOR=9.68; 95% CI: 4.47-20.90), and attended secondary education

318 (AOR=9.68; 95% CI: 4.47-20.90), and who attended secondary education

332 associated young women contraceptive utilization. Moreover, the more young women belief in in

333 contraceptive myths was negatively associated with their contraceptive utilization.

332 associated young women contraceptive utilization. Moreover, the more young women believe in

333 contraceptive myths was negatively associated with their contraceptive utilization.

338 DHS reports in Ethiopia [49, 50]. Moreover, our finding is far below 40.7% of Oromia; the region

339 where this study conducted but higher than3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of utilization

338 DHS reports in Ethiopia [49, 50]. Moreover, our finding is far below 40.7% of Oromia, the region

339 where this study conducted, but higher than3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of utilization

341 close cultural and religious similarities with the Somali region’s population, the region where the

342 contraceptive prevalence among the lowest in Ethiopia.

341 close cultural and religious similarities with the Somali region’s population, a region with a

342 contraceptive prevalence among the lowest in Ethiopia.

346 income countries [35, 51]. For instance, only 2% of contraceptive users were ever-mother 346 income countries [35, 51]. For instance, only 2% of contraceptive users were not-mothers (I ASSUME THIS IS AN ERROR)

347 likelihood of contraceptive

347 likelihood of contraception

351 marriage to delay the age of marriage

351 marriage to delay the age at marriage

366 mainly from husbands and mother in-law. Furthermore, evidence also showed that young women’s

366 mainly from husbands and mother in-law. Furthermore, evidence also showed young women’s

368 low contraceptive use in our study could be due to many of them comply with the social

368 low contraceptive use in our study could be due to many of them complying with the social

369 expectation which encourages childbearing and disapprove of contraception among young women.

369 expectation encouraging childbearing and disapproving of contraception among young women.

378 finding suggested that women can learn or receive support from friendships regarding

378 finding suggested that women can learn or receive support from friends regarding

388 myths showed the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use

388 myths showed the lower likelihood of reporting contraceptive use

389 previous evidence that identified the negative effect contraceptive related misconceptions on

389 previous evidence that identified a negative effect of contraceptive related misconceptions on

413 approval of desired behavior (i.e., perceived social approval), beliefs of what would happen if fail

413 approval of desired behavior (i.e., perceived social approval), beliefs of what would happen if failing

417 of the social norm, understand the relations between the various constellations, and design tailored

417 of the social norm, understanding the relations between the various constellations, and designing tailored

426 myths and misconceptions about the modern contraceptive method.

426 myths and misconceptions regarding modern contraceptive methods

CHECK REFERENCES. Some include obvious errors:

446 2. CSA and ICF, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Sruvey 2016. 2017, Ethiopiam Central

447 Statistical Agency and ICF International: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

455 6. Guttmacher, I. Adding it up:Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health for

456 Adolescents in Ethiopia, 2018, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2017,

457 https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adding-it-up-contraception-mnh-2017. 2018.

477 14. Yadav, D. and P. Dhillon, Assessing the impact of family planning advice on unmet need

478 and contraceptive use among currently married women in Uttar Pradesh, India. PloS one,

479 2015. 10(3): p. e0118584-e0118584.

477 14. Yadav, D. and P. Dhillon, Assessing the impact of family planning advice on unmet need

478 and contraceptive use among currently married women in Uttar Pradesh, India. PLOS ONE,

479 2015. 10(3): p. e0118584-e0118584.

506 24. UNICEF, What are Social Norms? How are They Measured? UNICEF

507 / UCSD Center on Global Justice

508 Project Cooperation Agreement, WORKING PAPER, M. Gerry and M. Francesca,

509 Editors. 2014 Sandiago, USA

(No dates???)

510 25. UKaid, Social norms, gender norms and adolescent girls: a brief guide. 2015.

513 27. Mardi, A., et al., Factors influencing the use of contraceptives through the lens of teenage

514 women: a qualitative study in Iran. 2018. 18(1): p. 202

JOURNAL, PP?

515 28. Kate, P. and J. Nicola Social norms stop Ethiopian girls from making safe choices about

516 pregnancy(unpublished). 2020.

LINK

517 F.N. and A.R. Veloso. Factors that influence the use of birth control by

518 Brazilian adolescents. in BBR Conference. 2012. Paulo – SP – Brazil.

534 35. Mutumba, M., E. Wekesa, and R. Stephenson, Community influences on modern

535 contraceptive use among young women in low and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional

536 multi-country analysis. BMC Public Health, 2018. 18(1): p. 430.

PAGES

587 56. Beyeza-Kashesya, J., et al., "Not a Boy, Not a Child": A Qualitative Study on Young

588 People's Views on Childbearing in Uganda. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La

589 Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive, 2010. 14(1): p. 71-81.

594 S1 Table. Item used for

594 S1 Table. Items used for

598 S1 Minimal data set

598 S3 Minimal data set

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 18 2021 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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.

Decision Letter 6

José Antonio Ortega

28 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-05351R6

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

There are still problems of readability. In addition, you should have given a point by point response to the comments. Otherwise it makes revision very difficult. There are still many sentences that are incomplete or with no agreement in number among nouns and verbs, or missing (or with superfluous) pronouns. After a reread I include some, but this is still a problem. These are some of the issues remaining but you are encouraged to copy-edit your article further.

Despite the increasingly wider availability of contraception and the level of needs

33 in rural Ethiopia,

I asume you mean “Despite the increasingly wider availability of contraceptives and the high levels of potential demand [or unmet need] for family planning in rural Ethiopia, …”

Substantial proportion of young married women in low and middle-income countries are at risk of

73 unintended pregnancy due to low contraceptive utilization than their adult counterparts. Young

74 women in the region also often used short-term methods that related to high failure and

75 discontinuation (8, 9).

The sentence is not grammatically or factually correct: what does the “than” mean, what is the comparison? As I said in the previous revision, what matters here is unmet need, and the levels are not highest among young married women. Also, women over 18 are adults. As it was discussed it is not true that levels of unmet need are highest. The second sentence is also missing a verb (I guess are related to higher ..).

Change proposed to old line 89-93 only partially adopted (missing the second part), and it now reads funny.

New line 102: studies have shown, not “studies have been shown”

New line 203: higher score indicates high believe in the myths or had 204 misconception about contraceptive methods.

Should be “a higher score indicates strong belief in the myths or  misconceptions regarding contraceptive methods.”

216 or sure they were they could use contraceptive and

216 or sure they were they could use contraceptives and

221 … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The items responses

221 … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The item responses

224 by the number of item (

224 by the number of items (

231 The item response option

The item response options

252 Exposure to FP information in last 12 months

252 Exposure to FP information in the last 12 months

323 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odd of contraceptive utilization

323 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odds of contraceptive utilization

In several places, including table 1 and mention of variables: replace “Number of alive children” with “Number of children alive”

Also in this context “Had no children” replace with “Has no children” or, even better “No children alive”.

Also in this context, replace “Three and above children” with “Three and more children”

348 where this study conducted, but higher than 3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of

349 utilization among reproductive-age women(2).

348 where this study was conducted, but higher than 3.4% in the neighboring Somali region (2).

396 with current contraceptive utilization. The more young women belief in contraceptive related

397 myths showed the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use.

396 with current contraceptive utilization. The more young women believe in contraceptive related

397 myths, the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use.

398 previous evidence that identified a negative effect contraceptive related

398 previous evidence that identified a negative effect of contraceptive related

434 myths and misconceptions regarding the modern contraceptive methods

434 myths and misconceptions regarding modern contraceptive methods

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2021 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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.

Decision Letter 7

José Antonio Ortega

5 Feb 2021

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-05351R7

Dear Dr. Dingeta,

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.

There is one small change that still needs to be incorporated: In line 92 "or believing that most people in their network contraceptive behavior" is missing a verb. It should be "are using contraceptives" or "are practicing contraception".

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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

José Antonio Ortega

11 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-05351R7

Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Dingeta:

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. José Antonio Ortega

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Frequency of each item used for measuring perceived social approval and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Frequency of each item used to assess knowledge of contraceptive methods among young married women in Kersa HDSS, Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Minimal data set.

    (DTA)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-05351.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES