Skip to main content
BMJ Open logoLink to BMJ Open
. 2022 Mar 25;12(3):e054369. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054369

Modern contraceptive use among young women aged 15–24 years in selected municipalities of Western Nepal: results from a cross-sectional survey in 2019

Mirak Raj Angdembe 1,, Anil Sigdel 1, Mahesh Paudel 1, Nilaramba Adhikari 1, Kamal Tara Bajracharya 1, Thomas Christopher How 1
PMCID: PMC8961113  PMID: 35338056

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) and its predictors among young women aged 15–24 years.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of Adolescent Youth Project baseline survey.

Setting

29 municipalities within Lumbini Province and Sudurpaschim Province in Western Nepal.

Participants

683 young women aged 15–24 years who were living in the catchment area of the selected 30 private OK network health facilities at the study sites from November to December 2019 and who provided informed consent or assent.

Outcome measure

mCPR among young women aged 15–24 years.

Results

The mean age of the respondents was 19 years, 61.7% never had sex and 63.9% were unmarried. The mCPR was 11.9% (95% CI 9.5 to 14.8). Of those who reported using a modern method of contraception, injectables (37.9%) were the most common, followed by male condom (35.9%) and implants (8.8%). Majority (86.4%) of the respondents reported currently not using any method of contraception. In the binary logistic regression analysis, the odds of contraceptive use were higher among women aged 20–24 years (adjusted OR (AOR)=5.50, 95% CI 2.94 to 10.29) and those of Janajati caste/ethnicity (AOR=2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.71), while the odds were lower among women who faced high level of barriers (individual, family/societal, service provider and health facility barriers) to contraceptive use (AOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.98).

Conclusions

The mCPR among young women aged 15–24 years was low but similar to the national level. Sexual and reproductive health programmes aiming to improve the mCPR in this population of young women should consider the reported level of sexual activity. Reaching young women to improve their knowledge and self-efficacy for contraception is critical to ensure they can access contraception when needed. The focus should be on reaching not just young women but also key influencers and service providers and making health facilities adolescent-friendly to reduce barriers to contraceptive uptake and to realise self-efficacy.

Keywords: public health, epidemiology, primary care, preventive medicine, social medicine


Strengths and limitations of this study.

  • The study focused on young women aged 15–24 years, a population among which subnational studies on contraception use are lacking and is critical for improving modern contraceptive use in Nepal.

  • The study used a cluster random sampling approach, standard data collection tools and analyses to increase the generalisability and comparability of the results with national surveys.

  • During sampling, larger municipalities could have been under-represented due to the size of the primary sampling unit.

  • Since the study sites were mostly periurban areas, relative to the wealth index of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016, the sample did not include the poorer segments of the population and may be biased towards the richer, more educated and empowered women.

  • Owing to the cross-sectional design, associations between variables cannot be interpreted as causal.

Background

Reaching young people especially girls with quality contraceptive information and services that are affordable and accessible is important to improve the uptake of modern contraceptives and address the risks of unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies. Young people’s right to contraceptive information and services is globally recognised, yet they frequently face barriers that lead to high rates of unintended pregnancy.1 Estimates for 2019 show that, among adolescents in low-income and middle-income countries, half of all pregnancies were unintended and the unmet need for modern contraception was much higher among them compared with all women aged 15–49 years (43% vs 24%).2

Use of contraception, particularly among young women, not only reduces pregnancy-related health risks and mortality3 but also cuts the risk of other poor health outcomes, including neonatal and under-5 child mortality.4–6 In developing countries, where birth spacing is less than 2 years, infant mortality is 45% and 60% higher compared with births that are 2–3 years apart and 4 or more years apart.7 Additionally, through contraception use, other severe social and economic consequences to young women, including not reaching their potential for educational achievement and not getting a paid job, can be prevented.6 8 In 2019, it was predicted that meeting the unmet need for modern contraception among women aged 15–19 would globally lead to a decrease of six million unintended pregnancies, two million unplanned births and four million abortions each year.2

Family planning (FP) is a right9 and a priority public health programme of Nepal’s Ministry of Health and Population. Improving modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) is a major target of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 (target 3.7) to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care services including FP.10 Nepal is committed to increasing the number of additional users of FP by an estimated one million by 2020, with a special focus on meeting the needs of adolescents and youth and prioritising equitable access to voluntary FP in its Health Sector Strategy 2015–2020.11 In Nepal, the age-specific fertility rate is higher among younger women, including adolescents, while contraceptive use is low and the unmet need is high.12 13 In 2016, the mCPR was 4% and 17.9% among currently married women aged 15–19 years and 20–24 years, respectively.13 The unmet need for FP was highest among 15–19 years (34.9%), followed by 20–24 years (32.6%), currently married women.13

Despite some types of FP services being available in almost all (98%) health facilities in Nepal,14 adolescents and youth face barriers to accessing them and realising their fundamental SRH rights.15 Several factors including lack of awareness/education, complex cultural norms around SRH, limited availability of services, lack of confidentiality when seeking services and judgement-laden service provision where they were provided services are some of the barriers in Nepal.16 National averages often mask the true situation. To achieve the goals of FP2020 initiative17 and SDG 3 on health and well-being, granular information from subnational studies is required to inform the design and implementation of age-appropriate interventions. However, an assessment of modern contraceptive use among young women at the subnational level is lacking in Nepal.

To achieve further improvements in national mCPR, which has remained stagnant over the past decade,13 it is imperative to meet the needs of young women who, for several reasons, are vulnerable physically as well as socially. The Adolescent Youth Project (AYP) is a 3-year project that aims to improve the mCPR as well as the self-efficacy and self-empowerment for contraception among adolescents and youth aged 15–24 years in selected municipalities of Western Nepal. Using baseline survey data collected as part of the AYP’s evaluation to measure the preliminary status of several outcomes and objectives of the project, this study estimates the mCPR and its predictors among young women aged 15–24 years in selected municipalities of Western Nepal.

Methods

Study design, sites and population

Nepal is administratively divided into 7 provinces, 77 districts and 753 municipalities. Each municipality is further divided into wards. The AYP is being implemented in Nepal by Population Services International (PSI) through two local implementing partners (Non-Governmental Organizations) in 29 municipalities of Lumbini Province and Sudurpaschim Province. This cross-sectional survey was conducted among women aged 15–24 years in all these municipalities (table 1).

Table 1.

Study sites

Province District Municipalities
Lumbini Banke Khajura, Kohalpur, Nepalgunj, Rapti Sonari
Bardiya Bansgadhi, Madhuwan, Rajapur, Thakurbaba
Dang Gadhawa, Ghorahi, Lamahi, Tulsipur
Kapilvastu Banganga, Buddhabhumi, Kapilvastu, Krishnanagar, Maharajgunj
Rupandehi Butwal, Shuddhodhan, Siddharthanagar, Tilottama
Sudurpaschim Kailali Dhangadhi, Godawari, Lamkichuha, Tikapur
Kanchanpur Belauri, Bhimdatta, Laaljhadi, Mahakali

The study population consisted of women aged 15–24 years living in the catchment area of the selected private OK network health facilities at the time of the survey. OK is a brand used by PSI in Nepal to identify its network of private health facilities. At the time of data collection for this study, the private facilities in the selected geographies had just been contracted to work with the AYP. However, most of these facilities (not all) have been part of the OK network through another project for over 3 years. OK network health facilities consist of private clinics, polyclinics and hospitals where trained mid-level health providers18 provide FP and other reproductive health services. The AYP works to strengthen the technical and managerial capacity of these facilities for FP service delivery. In addition to organising mobile FP clinics in the community to provide short-acting contraception (condoms, contraceptive pills and intramuscular injectables), including emergency contraceptive pills, the OK network health facilities are central to the AYP’s strategy for increasing uptake of modern contraceptives among target women. The catchment area of one OK network health facility is typically the ward in which the facility is located. There are 30 OK network health facilities in the AYP, one in each municipality, except in the municipality of Kapilvastu where there are two (wards 1 and 3).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all respondents above 18 years of age. For respondents below 18 years of age, we obtained written assent from the respondents once written consent was obtained from their mother or father. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained at all stages of data collection. All data were coded to remove identifying information and secure confidentiality. Respondents were not compensated for participation in the study.

Sample size and sampling technique

Since previous subnational prevalence was not available for this age group, a conservative sample size calculation was used where the prevalence (p) was 50% to obtain the largest sample size possible. A design effect of 1.6 estimated by the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) was used to account for cluster sampling.13 Using the formula and parameters given below, the initial sample size (n) was calculated to be 676. After adjusting for cluster size, the target sample size for this study was 696. Since non-replacement technique was used during sampling, there was a shortfall of 11 eligible households and a further 2 eligible respondents refused to participate in the study. Thus, the final completed sample size for the study was 683 women aged 15–24 years.

n=DEF(z2×p(1p)÷e2)1+z2×p(1p)e2NNR

where the prevalence (p) of modern contraceptives among women aged 15–24 years was 0.5; the level of confidence measure (z) was 1.96; the margin of error (e) was 0.05; adjustment for 10% expected non-response (NR) was 1.1; the estimated population of women aged 15–24 years in study sites (N) was 282 14819; and the design effect (DEF) was 1.6.13

A cluster random sampling design was used to select the sample. The primary sampling unit (PSU) for the study was the catchment area of the OK network health facility. In Kapilvastu, the catchment areas of the two OK network health facilities were considered as a single PSU due to their proximity. For sampling purpose, each catchment area was divided into four segments based on four directions, north, south, east and west, with the health facility at the centre. Each segment consisted of 24 households. Consequently, each PSU was composed of 96 households and there were 29 PSUs in total. From 24 households in each direction, those with eligible members (women aged 15–24 years) were listed. Thereafter, the sampling interval was calculated by dividing the total number of eligible households by six (required household per direction) and the random start number was identified using lottery method to select the first household. The sampling interval was added to the first random start number to identify the remaining households in each direction. In cases where there were six or less eligible households in each direction, all of them were selected for interview. If the selected household had more than one eligible member, then all eligible members were listed in a Kish grid table,20 and with its help one member was randomly selected for interview (figure 1). Since the sample was not self-weighting, weighting factors were calculated and added to the data file.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Sampling profile. HH, household; PSU, primary sampling unit.

Data collection tools and technique

The questionnaire and the indicators were primarily adapted from the NDHS13 and FP2020 survey instruments.17 The questionnaire was initially developed in English, then translated into Nepali language and pretested together with other survey tools in selected communities of Lalitpur District in Bagmati Province. The data collection took place from November to December 2019. Female enumerators aged between 20 and 25 years administered the semistructured questionnaire in face-to-face interviews. Once consent/assent was obtained, the interviews were carried out in the respondent’s house, only between the interviewer and the respondent, in a private space preferred by the respondent (like a private room) using the CSEntry (Census and Survey Entry) app in mobile Android devices. If eligible respondents were not available during the first visit, two further household visits were made to attempt to hold interviews. The questionnaire collected information on (1) sociodemographic characteristics; (2) contraceptive knowledge, self-efficacy, barriers and practices; and (3) exposure to information about contraception.

Study variables

Outcome variable

The mCPR (current use of modern contraceptive methods) among women aged 15–24 years was defined as per the Demographic and Health Survey definition.13 21 Modern methods include male and female sterilisation, injectables (intramuscular), intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD), contraceptive pills, implants, male condoms, lactational amenorrhoea and emergency contraception.13

mCPR=#ofwomen1524currentlyusingmoderncontraceptivesatthetimeofthesurveyTotal#ofwomen1524×100

Predictor variables

Background characteristics

Background characteristics included age (in completed years), province, marital status, occupation, religion, sexual activity (never/ever had sex), education (where primary refers to completion of grades 1–5, some secondary grades 6–9 and school education examination (SEE) equivalent to grade 10) and caste/ethnicity (where the recoded categories of the caste variable from the NDHS22 were adapted for analysis into the following groups: Brahmin/Chhetri, Janajati, Dalit, Terai Caste, and others; Newar was included in the Janajati group).

Socioeconomic position

The ‘Nepal Equity Tool’ was used to generate this variable.23 The tool has a series of questions about household items, dwelling materials and cooking fuel. Weights derived from the full wealth index found in the 2016 NDHS data set were attached to each answer to create a composite score. Thereafter quintiles were constructed according to the national thresholds.

Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods

Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods was measured using nine questions that prompted respondents’ knowledge on each of the available modern contraceptive methods: female sterilisation, male sterilisation, IUCD, injectables (intramuscular), implants, contraceptive pills, male condoms, emergency contraception and lactational amenorrhoea method. The respondents were further probed to verify their understanding of each method. Affirmative responses were scored 1 (yes) and o (no) otherwise. Responses from the nine questions were tallied to produce a composite score that ranged from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating better knowledge of the methods. The final constructed scale had a Cronbach’s alpha24 reliability coefficient of 0.79. The scores were then divided into three categories: low (0–3), medium (4–6) and high (7–9).

Self-efficacy for contraception

Self-efficacy is defined as the personal belief that one can successfully perform a specific action under specified conditions.25 26 It was measured through four questions relating to women’s ability to access and use contraception: (1) I have easy access to contraceptives; (2) I can discuss contraceptive methods with my husband/partner or anyone if I want; (3) I can seek SRH/FP information if I need them; and (4) I can seek SRH/FP services if I need them. In question 2, discussion ‘with husband/partner’ was asked to those who ever had sex, while discussion ‘with anyone’ was asked to those who never had sex, and these were then combined during the analysis. The responses to these questions were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). Thus, the total composite score ranged from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating better overall self-efficacy. The final constructed scale had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.67. The scores were then divided into three categories: low (4–10), medium (11–15) and high (16–20).

Barriers to contraceptive use

Barriers to contraceptive use were measured using 20 questions in four dimensions or subscales: (1) individual barriers (four items) included embarrassment/shyness, lack of awareness of adolescent-friendly health services, pressure to have child after marriage and fear of infertility due to use of contraceptives; (2) family/societal barriers (five items) included fear of parents, judgemental attitudes, disapproval of community gatekeepers, family pressure to have children/not to use a method and son preference; (3) service provider barriers (four items) included inadequate counselling, reluctance to provide contraceptive services, biasedness and cultural taboos; and (4) health facility location and service barriers (seven items) included poor physical access, cost of services and transport, lack of privacy, long waiting time, inconvenient opening hours, stockout of commodities, and lack of female providers. These barriers were identified through a human-centred design (problem-solving process that begins with understanding the human factors and context surrounding a challenge) workshop that was conducted with women aged 15–24 years from the study sites before the study was implemented.27 Affirmative responses to these questions meant the barrier was present, which was scored 1 and 0 otherwise. Thus, the total composite score ranged from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating the presence of more self-reported barriers. The final constructed scale had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.82. The scores were then divided into three categories: low (0–6), medium (7–13) and high (14–20).

Exposure to contraception messaging

Exposure to contraception messaging in mass media was measured based on whether respondents had seen, heard or read about contraception on the radio, television, newspaper/magazine, mobile phone (voice or text message), brochure or flip chart, poster/hoarding board/billboard, internet, and street drama in the past 3 months.

Exposure to contraception messaging from interpersonal sources was measured based on whether respondents had heard about contraception from mothers’ group (primarily comprising women of reproductive age),28 teachers, government female community health volunteers28 and OK female community health volunteers (PSI volunteers) in the past 3 months.

Data analysis

Univariate analysis was carried out by examining the frequency distribution (n/%) and mean (±SD) of the variables. OR with 95% CI was estimated using penalised logistic regression models to investigate the associations between predictor variables and mCPR. A penalised likelihood approach reduces bias when analysing the risk factor with low prevalence and/or when some of the cells formed by the outcome and categorical predictor variable have few/no observations.29 30 Wald test was used at each step of the analysis to obtain the overall p value for predictors. First, unadjusted bivariate models were developed. Predictors with p value <0.1 in the unadjusted analyses were included in the adjusted multivariable model. However, marital status and occupation, both with similar distribution of outcome, were excluded from the multivariable model because they predicted the mCPR almost completely, had large SE and confounded the relationship between mCPR and age. The final model was adjusted for age, caste/ethnicity, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods and barriers to contraceptive use. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factor.31 32 P<0.05 was considered statistically significant in the final adjusted model. Sampling weights were used to account for the cluster sampling design. Data were analysed using Stata SE V.15.1 using the ‘svy’ command for survey data analysis. It takes survey design characteristics into account and adjusts calculations accordingly.

Participant and public involvement

Participants or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this study.

Results

A total of 2784 households were listed, of which 893 (32.1%) households had 1035 young women aged 15–24 years. Of the 685 young women selected for interview, 2 refused to participate in the study. In total, 683 out of 1035 (65.9%) young women, 1 in each selected household, were interviewed (figure 1).

Background characteristics

The characteristics of the respondents are presented in table 2. The mean age of the respondents was 19 (±2.5) years. Both the mean age at first marriage and the mean age at first sex were 18 (±2.1) years. Respondents were predominantly Hindu (90%), were SEE and above educated (66.4%), were unmarried (63.9%), were students (54.4%), of Brahmin/Chhetri (45.1%) caste/ethnicity, from Lumbini Province (68.3%) and belonged to the highest wealth quintile (58.6%). Majority of the respondents had high level of knowledge of modern contraceptive methods (59.6%) and high level of self-efficacy for contraception (61.6%), while majority faced medium-level barriers to contraceptive use (54.6%). Majority of them never had sex (61.7%). In the past 3 months, 58.1% were exposed to information about contraception from mass media, while 56.6% were exposed to such information from interpersonal sources. Additional descriptive statistics on socioeconomic position, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods, self-efficacy for contraception, barriers to contraceptive use and exposure to information about contraception are provided in online supplemental tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the respondents (N=683)

Characteristics Weighted Unweighted
n % n
Sociodemographic factors
Age (years)
 15–19 343 50.2 352
 20–24 340 49.8 331
 Mean age (±SD) 19.4 (±2.5)
Province
 Lumbini 466 68.3 492
 Sudurpaschim 217 31.7 191
Marital status
 Unmarried 436 63.9 446
 Married 247 36.1 237
 Mean age at first marriage, years (±SD) 18.4 (±2.1)
Caste/ethnicity
 Brahmin/Chhetri 308 45.1 302
 Janajati 201 29.5 201
 Dalit 68 9.9 68
 Terai Caste 61 8.9 66
 Others 45 6.6 46
Religion
 Hindu 615 90.0 612
 Muslim 39 5.7 41
 Others 29 4.3 30
Education
 No education 22 3.2 21
 Primary (1–5) 29 4.2 30
 Some secondary (6–9) 179 26.2 176
 SEE and above 453 66.4 456
Occupation
 Student 372 54.4 378
 Housewife 229 33.6 217
 Others 82 12.0 88
Socioeconomic level
 Lowest 0 0 0
 Second 4 0.5 3
 Middle 43 6.3 45
 Fourth 236 34.6 233
 Highest 400 58.6 402
Contraceptive knowledge, self-efficacy, barriers and practices
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods
 Low (1–2) 77 11.3 86
 Medium (4–6) 199 29.1 196
 High (7–9) 407 59.6 401
Self-efficacy for contraception
 Low (4–10) 29 4.3 33
 Medium (11–15) 233 34.1 235
 High (16–20) 421 61.6 415
Barriers to contraceptive use
 Low (0–6) 161 23.6 151
 Medium (7–13) 373 54.6 375
 High (14–20) 149 21.8 157
Sexual activity
 Never had sex 421 61.7 429
 Ever had sex 262 38.3 254
 Mean age at first sex, years (±SD) 18.4 (±2.1)
Exposure to information about contraception
Mass media
 No 286 41.9 262
 Yes 397 58.1 421
Interpersonal sources
 No 296 43.4 282
 Yes 387 56.6 401

SEE, school education examination.

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2021-054369supp001.pdf (234.7KB, pdf)

Contraceptive use

The prevalence of contraceptive use is presented in table 3. The overall prevalence of contraceptive use was 13.6% (95% CI 11.1 to 16.5). The mCPR was 11.9% (95% CI 9.5 to 14.8). Of those reporting using a modern method of contraception, injectables (37.9%) were the most widely used method, followed by male condom (35.9%) and implants (8.8%). Only 14.6% were using a long-term method (IUCD or implant). None of the respondents reported using sterilisation and lactational amenorrhoea methods. Majority (86.4%) of the respondents were currently not using any method of contraception. Additional descriptive statistics on contraceptive use by fertility preferences among married women are provided in online supplemental tables 6 and 7, respectively.

Table 3.

Prevalence of contraceptive use (N=683)

% (95% CI)
Characteristics
 Any method 13.6 (11.1 to 16.5)
 Any modern method* 11.9 (9.5 to 14.8)
 Any traditional method† 1.7 (0.9 to 2.9)
 Not currently using 86.4 (83.5 to 88.9)
Modern method mix (n=81)
 Injectables 37.9 (27.2 to 49.9)
 Male condom 35.9 (25.6 to 47.7)
 Implants 8.8 (3.8 to 19.2)
 Pill 6.7 (2.6 to 16.2)
 IUCD 5.8 (1.9 to 16.1)
 Emergency contraceptive pill 4.9 (1.8 to 12.5)

*Modern methods reported included injectables (intramuscular), IUCD, contraceptive pill, implants, male condom and emergency contraceptive pill.

†Traditional method reported included withdrawal only.

IUCD, intrauterine contraceptive device.

Predictors of modern contraceptive use

The mCPR by background characteristics and predictors of mCPR among women aged 15–24 years are presented in table 4. In the unadjusted analysis, age, marital status, caste/ethnicity, occupation, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods and barriers to contraceptive use were all significantly associated with use of modern contraceptive methods (p<0.1). The odds of using modern contraception were higher among women of older age group, were married, belonging to Janajati caste/ethnicity, engaged in occupation as housewife and others, and had medium and high level of knowledge of modern contraceptive methods. The odds were lower among women facing high level of barriers to contraceptive use.

Table 4.

Predictors of modern contraceptive use among women aged 15–24 years (N=683)

Characteristics n Prevalence, n (%) Unadjusted Adjusted
OR (95% CI) P value OR (95% CI) P value P value*
Sociodemographic factors
Age (years)
 15–19 343 13 (3.8) 1.0 1.0
 20–24 340 68 (20.1) 6.45 (3.44 to 12.09) <0.001 5.50 (2.94 to 10.29) <0.001 <0.001
Province
 Lumbini 466 50 (10.7) 1.0
 Sudurpaschim 217 31 (14.6) 1.43 (0.84 to 2.44) 0.184
Marital status
 Unmarried 436 5 (1.3) 1.0
 Married 247 76 (30.7) 32.58 (13.66 to 77.71) <0.001
Caste/ethnicity
 Brahmin/Chhetri 308 30 (9.7) 1.0 1.0
 Janajati 201 31 (15.6) 1.72 (0.96 to 3.05) 0.066 2.08 (1.16 to 3.71) 0.013
 Dalit 68 11 (16.7) 1.86 (0.83 to 4.16) 0.133 1.76 (0.80 to 3.89) 0.159
 Terai Caste 61 3 (5.1) 0.49 (0.14 to 1.71) 0.265 0.85 (0.24 to 3.08) 0.809
 Others 45 6 (12.2) 1.29 (0.49 to 3.38) 0.604 2.65 (0.94 to 7.51) 0.066 0.069
Religion
 Hindu 615 74 (12.1) 1.0
 Muslim 39 5 (14) 1.18 (0.47 to 2.97) 0.723
 Others 29 2 (5.6) 0.43 (0.10 to 1.89) 0.267
Education
 No education 22 2 (11) 1.0
 Primary (1–5) 29 8 (27.4) 3.05 (0.69 to 13.55) 0.143
 Some secondary (6–9) 179 24 (13.6) 1.27 (0.34 to 4.82) 0.720
 SEE and above 453 47 (10.3) 0.93 (0.26 to 3.35) 0.909
Occupation
 Student 372 7 (1.8) 1.0
 Housewife 229 67 (29.2) 22.29 (9.69 to 51.30) <0.001
 Others 82 7 (9.2) 5.44 (1.86 to 15.88) 0.002
Socioeconomic level
 Lowest + second + middle 47 7 (15.5) 1.0
 Fourth 236 36 (15.2) 0.98 (0.39 to 2.46) 0.960
 Highest 400 38 (9.6) 0.58 (0.23 to 1.43) 0.234
Contraceptive knowledge, self-efficacy and barriers
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods
 Low (1–2) 77 2 (3.1) 1.0 1.0
 Medium (4–6) 199 18 (8.8) 2.98 (0.84 to 10.56) 0.091 1.73 (0.47 to 6.41) 0.414
 High (7–9) 407 61 (15.1) 5.50 (1.66 to 18.18) 0.005 2.33 (0.65 to 8.29) 0.193 0.318
Self-efficacy for contraception
 Low (4–10) 29 2 (5.2) 1.0
 Medium (11–15) 233 20 (8.8) 1.75 (0.38 to 7.98) 0.470
 High (16–20) 421 59 (14.1) 3.00 (0.69 to 12.96) 0.142
Barriers to contraceptive use
 Low (0–6) 161 19 (11.8) 1.0 1.0
 Medium (7–13) 373 57 (15.2) 1.33 (0.71 to 2.49) 0.366 1.58 (0.86 to 2.91) 0.141
 High (14–20) 149 5 (3.7) 0.29 (0.11 to 0.78) 0.015 0.36 (0.14 to 0.98) 0.046 0.004
Exposure to information about contraception
Mass media
 No 286 30 (10.7) 1.0
 Yes 397 51 (12.8) 1.21 (0.73 to 2.03) 0.458
Interpersonal sources
 No 296 40 (13.5) 1.0
 Yes 387 41 (10.7) 0.77 (0.47 to 1.26) 0.295

*Wald test.

SEE, school education examination.

In the adjusted analysis, the variables age and barriers to contraceptive use were significantly associated (p<0.05) with use of modern contraceptive methods. The odds of using modern contraception were nearly five times higher among women of the 20–24 years age group compared with women of the 15–19 years age group (adjusted OR (AOR)=5.50, 95% CI 2.94 to 10.29). Likewise, women facing high level of barriers to contraceptive use were less likely to use modern contraception than those facing low level of barriers (AOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.98). The variable caste/ethnicity overall was not associated with contraceptive use. However, within the levels of caste/ethnicity, Janajati women were around two times significantly more likely to use modern contraception compared with Brahmin/Chhetri women (AOR=2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.71). Unlike the unadjusted bivariate analysis, knowledge of modern contraceptive methods was not significantly associated with modern contraceptive use in the adjusted multivariable analysis (table 4).

Discussion

Using the AYP evaluation baseline survey data, this paper investigated the mCPR and its predictors among young women aged 15–24 years. The mCPR found in this study (13.6%) was comparable with women of similar reproductive age group (15–24 years) in Nepal (10.4% in 2016) but lower than in women aged 15–49 years (33.2%).13 Compared with the national average, the method mix was also similar, with injectables as the most used method, followed by male condom.13 In low-income and middle-income countries, adolescent (15–19 years) women generally lag behind older women in contraceptive use.33 The results from this subnational study were no different. Among countries in South Asia, Bangladesh however has higher mCPR among married women aged 15–24 years and pills are a popular method of choice.34 In Nepal, to achieve further improvements in mCPR, it is imperative to target young women who, for several reasons, are vulnerable physically as well as socially.

The study sites were mostly periurban areas in the terai (or plains) ecological zone of Nepal. Although it constitutes only 23% of the total land, 50% of the population live in terai and are generally considered to have better geographical accessibility to services compared with mountain and hill areas.35 Most women in the study sample were relatively highly educated or continuing their education and economically better off compared with the rest of the women of the same age in Nepal.36 They had high knowledge, self-efficacy and exposure to information about contraception. As such it can be expected that they will have relatively better awareness of their own health and the factors that can affect their health. Also, with higher education and wealth, modern contraceptive use does not necessarily increase, but the age-specific fertility rate decreases in these age groups.36

A large proportion of women in this study never had sex (61.7%) and were currently not using any form of contraception (86.4%). Among unmarried women, 96.4% never had sex (results not shown). In Nepal, premarital sexual activity remains a taboo. It is largely not reported among unmarried women, particularly adolescents and youth. In 2016, less than 1% of never married women aged 15–24 years reported ever having sex in Nepal.36 Even if young women have not had sex and do not have an immediate need for contraception, it is important they have the knowledge and self-efficacy for modern contraception use and are empowered enough to make their choices when needed. Most of the women in this study had medium to high level of knowledge and self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy was not associated with contraceptive use. Previous studies reported an association between higher self-efficacy and greater contraceptive use among sexually active women,37–39 while the same may not be true for knowledge, as evidenced by national13 as well as subnational studies in Nepal,40 41 where despite higher knowledge contraceptive use was low. Nevertheless, the results are contextual and sociodemographic characteristics and cultural factors should be considered during interpretation.

Women who use modern contraceptives were more likely to be married and of higher (20–24 years) age group. While the latter result is similar to other studies in developing countries, unlike the current results they report contraceptive use to be much higher among unmarried sexually active adolescent girls than among married or in union adolescent girls.42 43 Among married adolescents, contraceptive use is reported to be lower as a result of social norms regarding marriage, fertility expectations and other cultural barriers.44 In our sample, the mean age at first sex and the mean age at first marriage were the same. These results could lead to an assumption that as women become older they marry, and once married both sexual activity and contraception use are more likely to be reported. However, due to social desirability bias, premarital sexual activity could have been under-reported. This could have led to an underestimation of the mCPR in this study.

In Nepal, the median age at first marriage is 17.9 years and at first birth is 20.4 years among women aged 25–49 and nearly 17% of women aged 15–19 would have begun childbearing.13 Most births take place within marriage and those married are traditionally more exposed to the risk of childbearing. In this study, the mCPR among married women aged 15–24 years was 30.7%. Among all women, the use of traditional method was also low (1.7%). Married young women are under pressure to prove fertility and they may be planning for a child and not using contraception.45 Nearly 16% of non-pregnant married women in this study wanted to have children within 2 years (online supplemental table 6). However, 58.1% of married women who wanted to delay the birth of the next child for 2 or more years were not using any modern contraception (online supplemental table 7). These women may have the need for contraception use but may be facing barriers in doing so, an important consideration for adolescent and youth programming.

Additionally, in Nepal, a large proportion of male population are migrants working abroad typically in low-skilled work in Middle Eastern countries and Malaysia.46 Husbands being away followed by side effects/health concerns are the major reasons for discontinuation of contraception among married women of reproductive age (15–49 years) (MWRA) who discontinued any method.13 Postpartum FP counselling is also low (13.3% in MWRA and 12.2% in the 15–24 years age group) among women who have had a live birth.13 Additionally, safe abortion services have been rapidly scaled up since its legalisation in 2002,47 and recent trends show that increasingly higher proportion of women use medical abortion services to terminate pregnancy.48 Male migration, leading to spousal separation, followed by changing marriage pattern, abortion and contraception are the major factors associated with decline in fertility in Nepal.49 Furthermore, the use of traditional methods is increasing among MWRA,13 and evidence suggests that it might even be under-reported in NDHS among women aged 15–39 years.50

Most women in this study belonged to relatively advantaged caste/ethnic groups, including Brahmin/Chhetri and Janajati, when compared with Dalit, Terai Caste and other caste/ethnic groups. Janajati women were significantly more likely to use modern contraception compared with Brahmin/Chhetri women. Migration of male members of the household and the resulting spousal separation are higher among Brahmin/Chhetri, which might be reasons.51 Even at the national level, between 2011 and 2016, increase in the use of modern contraceptives among MWRA was found to be statistically significant only among Janajati, while a decline in use of modern contraceptives was reported among the rich and advantaged caste/ethnic groups, such as the Brahmin/Chhetri and Newar, whose education level is generally high.51

Women facing high level of barriers to contraceptive use were significantly less likely to use modern contraceptives compared with those facing low level of barriers. Providing knowledge, improving self-efficacy and making services available will not matter as long as barriers that prevent women from accessing modern contraceptive services exist. Barriers at the individual, family/society, service provider and health facility level should be addressed to improve use of modern contraceptives. Previous studies have highlighted culturally rooted stigma, embarrassment of discussing SRH issues and fear of getting recognised as key individual barriers to use of service.52 Additionally at the family/societal level, family members and teachers fail to discuss sexual health issues and contraception particularly with unmarried adolescents due to restrictive cultural norms around sexuality and fear of promoting premarital sex.45 Service providers’ judgemental attitude and reluctance to provide services, including perceived discomfort among adolescents, particularly unmarried ones, to ask for services from providers of opposite gender, are important barriers at the provider level.52 53 Likewise, health facility location, service hours and distance are additional barriers at the health facility level.16

This study has several implications. First, since sexual activity and thereby contraceptive use is reported mostly by married women, programmes that target young women (both married and unmarried) to improve modern contraceptive use may not be expected to increase the mCPR as an outcome because marriage among women of the young age group is low.36 However, sexual activity might be under-reported and hence programmes should continue reaching all women, particularly adolescent unmarried women, to improve their contraception knowledge and self-efficacy. As such, improvements in the mCPR among young women in need (married women who want to delay the next birth and unmarried sexually active) and improvements in knowledge and self-efficacy among all women are better indicators or outcomes, which capture both their use and ability to get and/or negotiate contraception when they need to.

Second, despite knowledge and self-efficacy, women may still not be able to access contraception due to the presence of barriers at different levels in their life. Thus, behaviour change activities should be targeted not only at young women but also at key influencers, including family members, community gatekeepers and providers. This, coupled with interventions to make health facilities adolescent-friendly, will help reduce barriers to contraceptive uptake, creating an enabling environment for young women both in the community and health facilities. In Nepal, inequality between adolescents and adult women between 2006 and 2016 for modern contraceptive use has decreased, for which the adolescent-friendly health services launched in 2008 with further scaling up of FP2020 from 2015 are thought to be the reasons.33 Third, it is critical to investigate the reasons for higher contraceptive use among Janajati women, and on the other hand the reasons for low use among young married and sexually active women. The findings could be critical to improve modern contraceptive use among young women in the study sites. Finally, although the sample and the results were among women, the implication outlined above apply to both women and men. Without enhancement in contraception knowledge and self-efficacy among men, including positive behaviour change, enabling environment for contraception use among women cannot be realised.

Strengths and limitations

The study focused on young women aged 15–24 years, a population among which subnational studies on contraception use are lacking and is critical for improving modern contraceptive use in Nepal. The study used a cluster random sampling approach, standard data collection tools and analyses to increase the generalisability and comparability of the results with national surveys. However, there are some limitations which need to be considered while interpreting the results. During sampling, larger municipalities could have been under-represented due to the size of our PSU. Since the study sites were mostly periurban areas, relative to the wealth index of NDHS 2016, the sample did not include the poorer segments of the population and may be biased towards the richer, more educated and empowered women. Owing to the cross-sectional design, the associations between variables cannot be interpreted as causal.

Conclusion

In the selected municipalities of Western Nepal, the mCPR among young women aged 15–24 years was low but similar to the national level. Age, caste/ethnicity and barriers to contraceptive use were the key predictors of the mCPR in this population. The odds of contraceptive use were significantly higher among women aged 20–24 years and of Janajati ethnicity, while the odds were lower among women who faced high level of barriers (individual, family/societal, service provider and health facility barriers) to contraceptive use. SRH programmes aiming to improve the mCPR in this population of young women should consider the reported level of sexual activity. Although self-efficacy did not predict contraceptive use, reaching women to improve their knowledge and self-efficacy for contraception may still be critical to ensure they can access modern contraception when needed. The focus should be on reaching not just young women but also key influencers and service providers and making health facilities adolescent-friendly to reduce the barriers to contraceptive uptake and to realise self-efficacy.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the young women who participated in this study and the study team of Right Direction Nepal, Lalitpur for their dedicated work during data collection.

Footnotes

Contributors: MRA, AS and MP were involved in conception and study design. MRA performed the statistical analysis, drafted and finalised the manuscript and is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. AS helped in analysing the data and drafting the manuscript. MP, NA, KTB and TCH were involved in critical revisions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding: This work was supported by Margaret A Cargill Foundation.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not required.

Ethics approval

This study involves human participants and was approved by the Nepal Health Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal (ERB protocol number 787/2019). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

References

  • 1.United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Center for Reproductive Rights . The right to contraceptive information and services for women and adolescents. New York; United States: UNFPA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sully EA, Biddlecom A, Darroch JE. Adding it up: investing in sexual and reproductive health 2019. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ahmed S, Li Q, Liu L, et al. Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries. Lancet 2012;380:111–25. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60478-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Blackstone SR, Nwaozuru U, Iwelunmor J. Factors influencing contraceptive use in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Int Q Community Health Educ 2017;37:79–91. 10.1177/0272684X16685254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Conde-Agudelo A, Belizán JM, Lammers C. Maternal-perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with adolescent pregnancy in Latin America: cross-sectional study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:342–9. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization (WHO) . The world health organisation guidelines on preventing early pregnancy and poor reproductive outcomes among adolescents in developing countries. Geneva: WHO, 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization (WHO) . Family planning/contraception methods [Factsheet], 2020. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception [Accessed May 2021].
  • 8.Wodon Q, Male C, Nayihouba A. Economic impacts of child marriage: global synthesis report. Washington, DC: The World Bank and International Center for Research on Women, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Government of Nepal . Safe motherhood and reproductive health rights act 2075, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.National Planning Commission [Government of Nepal] . Nepal’s Sustainable Development Goals Status and Roadmap: 2016-2030. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ministry of Health and Population [Government of Nepal] . Nepal health sector strategy 2015-2020. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) . Nepal multiple indicator cluster survey 2019, survey findings report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF Nepal, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ministry of Health Nepal, New ERA, ICF . Nepal demographic and health survey 2016. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health, Nepal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ministry of Health Nepal, New ERA, Nepal Health Sector Support Program (NHSSP), et al . Nepal health facility survey 2015. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health, Nepal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health Organization (WHO) . Adolescent sexual and reproductive health programme to address equity, social determinants, gender and human rights in Nepal, report of the pilot project. New Delhi: World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.UNFPA, CREPHA, UNICEF . The Qualitative Study on Assessing Supply Side Constraints Affecting the Quality of Adolescent Friendly Health Services and the Barriers for Service Utilization in Nepal [Internet, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Family Planning 2020 . Core indicators 2019. Available: http://www.familyplanning2020.org/data-hub#global-data [Accessed Sep 2019].
  • 18.World Health Organization (WHO) . Mid-level health providers a promising resource to achieve the health millennium development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Department of health Services [Government of Nepal] . Health management information system estimates of target population for health programs 2017/18. Kathmandu: Integrated Health Information Management Section, Management Division, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kish L. A procedure for objective Respondent selection within the household. J Am Stat Assoc 1949;44:380–7. 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Data for Impact . Family planning and reproductive health indicator database. contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), 2021. Available: https://www.data4impactproject.org/prh/family-planning/fp/contraceptive-prevalence-rate-cpr/ [Accessed Dec 2021].
  • 22.Bennett L, Dahal D, Caste GP. Ethnic and regional identity in Nepal: further analysis of the 2006 Nepal demographic health survey. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Macro International Inc, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Metrics for Management (Equity Tool) . Nepal equity tool, 2019. Available: https://www.equitytool.org/nepal-2/ [Accessed Sep 2019].
  • 24.Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011;2:53–5. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977;84:191–215. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Population services international Nepal (PSI/Nepal) . Report on consultative workshop for adolescent youth project (AYP) human centered design (HCD. Kathmandu, Nepal: PSI/Nepal, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Family Health Division [Government of Nepal] . National female community health volunteer program strategy. Kathmandu, Nepal: Family Health Division, Department of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Population, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Doerken S, Avalos M, Lagarde E, et al. Penalized logistic regression with low prevalence exposures beyond high dimensional settings. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217057–e57. 10.1371/journal.pone.0217057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Discacciati A, Orsini N, Greenland S. Approximate Bayesian logistic regression via penalized likelihood by data augmentation. Stata J 2015;15:712–36. 10.1177/1536867X1501500306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.NAMR S, TMJA C. Diagnosing Multicollinearity of logistic regression model. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics 2019;5:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Midi H, Sarkar SK, Rana S. Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics 2010;13:253–67. 10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li Z, Patton G, Sabet F, et al. Contraceptive use in adolescent girls and adult women in low- and middle-income countries. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e1921437–e37. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), ICF . Bangladesh demographic and health survey 2017-18. Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NIPORT and ICF, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Central Bureau of Statistics [Government of Nepal] . National population and housing census 2011 (national report) Vol. 1. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kafle RB, Paudel R, Gartoulla P. Youth health in Nepal: levels, trends, and determinants. DHS further analysis reports no 116. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Peyman N, Hidarnia A, Ghofranipour F, et al. Self-Efficacy: does it predict the effectiveness of contraceptive use in Iranian women? East Mediterr Health J 2009;15:1254–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Longmore MA, Manning WD, Giordano PC, et al. Contraceptive self-efficacy: does it influence adolescents' contraceptive use? J Health Soc Behav 2003;44:45–60. 10.2307/1519815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hamidi OP, Deimling T, Lehman E, et al. High self-efficacy is associated with prescription contraceptive use. Womens Health Issues 2018;28:509–13. 10.1016/j.whi.2018.04.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Karkee R, Adhikary S, Thapa D, et al. A cross-sectional survey of contraceptive use and birth spacing among multiparous women in eastern Nepal. Asia Pac J Public Health 2020;32:91–5. 10.1177/1010539520912117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bhattarai D, Panta OB. Knowledge attitude and practice on contraception in village women in Khotang. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2013;11:40–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Khan S, Mishra V. Youth reproductive and sexual health. DHS comparative reports no 19. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Macro International Inc, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Liang M, Simelane S, Fortuny Fillo G, et al. The state of adolescent sexual and reproductive health. J Adolesc Health 2019;65:S3–15. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.de Vargas Nunes Coll C, Ewerling F, Hellwig F, et al. Contraception in adolescence: the influence of parity and marital status on contraceptive use in 73 low-and middle-income countries. Reprod Health 2019;16:21. 10.1186/s12978-019-0686-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Subedi R, Jahan I, Baatsen P. Factors influencing modern contraceptive use among adolescents in Nepal. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2018;16:251–6. 10.33314/jnhrc.v16i3.1258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ministry of Labour Employment and Social Security [Government of Nepal] . Nepal labour migration report 2020. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ministry of Health [Government of Nepal] . National safe abortion policy. Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Department of Health Services [Government of Nepal] . Annual health report 2018/19. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Population, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dev Pant P, Pandey JP, Bietsch K. Unmet need for family planning and fertility in Nepal: levels, trends, and determinants DHS further analysis reports no 119. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Staveteig S, Shrestha N, Gurung S. Barriers to family planning use in eastern Nepal: results from a mixed methods study. DHS qualitative research studies no 21. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ghimire U, Manandhar J, Gautam A. Inequalities in health outcomes and access to services by Caste/Ethnicity, Province, and wealth Quintile in Nepal. DHS further analysis reports no 117. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Regmi PR, van Teijlingen E, Simkhada P, et al. Barriers to sexual health services for young people in Nepal. J Health Popul Nutr 2010;28:619–27. 10.3329/jhpn.v28i6.6611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Regmi P, Simkhada P, Van Teijlingen ER. Sexual and reproductive health status among young peoples in Nepal: opportunities and barriers for sexual health education and services utilization. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2008;6:248–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2021-054369supp001.pdf (234.7KB, pdf)

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Data Availability Statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.


Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES