TABLE 5.
Effects of free access to a broad contraceptive method mix among key sub-groups
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All women | Current contraceptive users | ||
| Modern Contraceptive Use | LARC Use | Decision-Making | |
| Panel A: Heterogeneity by marital status | |||
| Treat × Marstat1 (married, cohabiting, & divorced) | 0.028 [−0.002,0.059] |
−0.016 [−0.059,0.028] |
0.034 [−0.011,0.080] |
| Treat × Marstat0 (never married & widow) | 0.055* [0.001,0.108] |
−0.112 [−0.235,0.011] |
−0.016 [−0.091,0.059] |
| p-value | 0.428 | 0.120 | 0.247 |
| Panel B: Heterogeneity by age | |||
| Treat × Older (age > 19.5) | 0.066*** [0.038,0.094] |
−0.025 [−0.068,0.019] |
0.025 [−0.017,0.067] |
| Treat × Younger (age < 19.5) | −0.183*** [−0.238,−0.128] |
−0.079 [−0.169,0.011] |
−0.004 [−0.069,0.062] |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.195 | 0.275 |
| Panel C: Heterogeneity by knowledge | |||
| Treat × High (knowledge score > −1.14) | 0.042*** [0.020,0.065] |
−0.025 [−0.070,0.020] |
0.019 [−0.028,0.066] |
| Treat × Low (knowledge score < −1.14) | −0.043 [−0.118,0.033] |
−0.022 [−0.133,0.088] |
0.019 [−0.045,0.082] |
| p-value | 0.029 | 0.967 | 0.997 |
| Panel D: Heterogeneity by education | |||
| Treat × Edu1 (at least some schooling) | 0.043*** [0.021,0.065] |
−0.026 [−0.073,0.021] |
0.022 [−0.027,0.072] |
| Treat × Edu0 (no schooling) | −0.047 [−0.109,0.015] |
−0.048 [−0.140,0.044] |
0.009 [−0.057,0.075] |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.371 | 0.670 |
| Panel E: Heterogeneity by wealth | |||
| Treat × Wealth1 (above lowest quintile) | 0.029* [0.005,0.054] |
−0.022 [−0.067,0.023] |
0.027 [−0.021,0.075] |
| Treat × Wealth0 (lowest quintile) | 0.003 [−0.064,0.071] |
−0.099* [−0.194,−0.003] |
−0.038 [−0.099,0.023] |
| p-value | 0.061 | 0.115 | 0.171 |
| Number of observations | 14917 | 4229 | 4229 |
95% confidence intervals in brackets
LARC: long-acting reversible contraceptives, including implants and intrauterine devices. Decision-making: whether respondent participated in the decision on contraceptive method. This table reports the average marginal effects of the treatment (free access to a broad contraceptive method mix) on subgroups of women indicated in each panel. The subgroups were identified by a recursive partitioning machine learning analysis. A random half of the full data were used to identify the source of heterogeneity and the other half were used to estimate treatment effects reported in this table. Logistic regression models included individual covariates and country fixed effects. Propensity weights generated from generalized boosted models were used to adjust for observed differences by treatment status. The p-value rows report the two-sided p-value from an F-test of equality of the treatment effects for the two sub-groups indicated in each panel.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001