METHODS: A multi-country, cross-sectional study based on data from 10 672 women aged 18-49 years who participated in the International Sexual Health And REproductive Health (I-SHARE) study, which organised an international online survey between July 2020 and February 2021. Factors associated with changes in fertility intentions were explored using multinomial probit regression models. Cluster-robust standard errors were used to calculate model parameters.
RESULTS: Of 10 672 included reproductive-aged women, 14.4% reported changing their fertility intentions due to the pandemic, with 10.2% postponement and 4.2% acceleration. Women who had ever been isolated/quarantined were more likely to postpone their fertility intentions (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.41; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69) compared with those who had not; women who lived with a steady partner were more likely to want children sooner (AOR=1.57; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.23) compared with those who did not; and those who reported a higher frequency of getting angry, feeling frustrated, or worrying about their finances were more likely to postpone their fertility intentions. The main findings were robust in the sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Most women who changed fertility intentions because of the pandemic have postponed intentions to expand their families. The pandemic-induced exposures were associated with these postponements.
METHODS: This scoping review is guided by the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley's and Prisma-ScR checklist. PubMed, EBSCO and OVID were searched for empirical studies between 2000 and February 2022 using the search terms "family planning", "contraceptive" and "diabetes mellitus". Data were summarized according to the study characteristics and levels of factors influencing family planning behaviours.
RESULTS: Thirty-five articles that met the eligibility criteria included 33 quantitative studies, one qualitative study and one mixed-methods study. The prevalence of family planning methods used by women with diabetes mellitus varied ranging from 4.8 to 89.8% among the studied population. Women with diabetes mellitus were reported to be less likely to utilise any family planning methods compared to women without diabetes mellitus.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the evidence to date on family planning behaviours among women with diabetes mellitus focuses on the role of individual level sociodemographic factors. Few studies focused on exploring determinants at multiple levels. In this review we found that there is limited evidence on disease control and pregnancy intention in relation to their family planning practices. Future studies with more clinical and contextual factors are needed to guide the strengthening of family planning services for high-risk group women specifically for women with diabetes mellitus.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out among public secondary school teachers, aged 18 - 60 years, in Enugu East Senatorial District, using probability proportional to size sampling and systematic random sampling to select 1000 participants. Binary and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine association. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed to determine the level of significance.
RESULTS: The current practice level of family planning is 26.5%. Respondents with bachelor in education were 2 times more likely to be a current user of family planning (AOR=2.39; 95% CI: 1.25-4.55). However, respondents in age group 38 years and above were less likely to be a current user of family planning (AOR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.95), likewise female respondents (AOR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.44-0.98). Additionally, respondents who mentioned radio (AOR=0.64; 95%CI: 0.44-0.93), social media (AOR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-0.99) and healthcare (AOR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.43-0.88) as source of information were less likely to be current user of family planning. Whereas, partner who encouraged the use of family planning (AOR=2.54; 95% CI: 1.71-3.78) span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-weight:bold">, partner who allow each other to decide on family planning methods (AOR=4.47; 95% CI: 2.67-7.48) and those who had good knowledge of family planning (AOR=1.96; 95% CI: 1.40-2.67) were more likely to be current user of family planning.
CONCLUSION: The level of current practice of family planning is low and a significant number of factors predict the current practice of family planning. A family planning educational workshop among teachers is needed to improve teacher's knowledge on family planning to address the issue of adolescent sexual reproduction as teachers are vessels of knowledge impartation to students.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the differentials and determinants of the utilization of private providers for family planning services.
METHOD: This study used the 2014 Malaysian Population and Family Survey data. Cross-tabulations and logistic regression were performed on 1,817 current users of modern methods.
RESULTS: Overall, 26% of modern method users obtained their supplies from private clinics/pharmacies and 15.2% from other sources, such as drug stores and sundry shops. The odds of utilizing the private sector for family planning services differ significantly across regions and socio-economic groups. The odds of obtaining supply from the private clinics/pharmacies were higher among the Chinese and urban women (AOR > 1), and it was lower among those from the eastern region (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73). Non-Bumiputera, urban, higher educated, and working women, and those whose husbands decided on family planning had higher odds of obtaining the supply from the other sources (AOR > 1).
CONCLUSION: The private sector complements and supplements the public sector in providing family planning services to the public.
METHODS: This qualitative study used individual in-depth interviews to capture the views and experiences of non-pregnant diabetic women of reproductive age in four public health clinics in a southwestern state of peninsular Malaysia from May 2016 to February 2017. The participants were purposively sampled according to ethnicity and were interviewed using a semi-structured topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: From the 33 interviews that were analysed, four important factors influencing participants' decisions regarding pregnancy planning were identified. Participants' perception of poor pregnancy outcomes due to advanced age and medical condition was found to have an impact. However, despite these fears and negative relationships with doctors, personal, family and cultural influences supported by religious 'up to God' beliefs took centre stage in the pregnancy intention of some participants. Participants demonstrated a variety of understandings of pregnancy planning. They outlined some activities for pregnancy preparation, although many also reported limited engagement with pre-pregnancy care.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasised the known dilemma experienced by diabetic women considering their desire for an ideal family structure against their perceived pregnancy risks, heterogeneous religious beliefs and the impact of cultural demands on pregnancy intention. This study urges healthcare providers to increase their engagement with the women in pregnancy planning in a more personalised approach.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 452 antenatal mothers attending health clinics in Klang in April 2018. Probability sampling was used and data was collected by using a validated self-administered questionnaire. The dependent variable of the study was short IPI and the independent variables were sociodemographic, obstetric history and planning of pregnancy. Analysis of data collected in the study was performed by using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 24.
RESULTS: The prevalence of short IPI found in this study was 48%. Seven identified predictors of short IPI were: age less than 25 years old (Adjusted Odd Ratios; AOR 12.16, 95%CI: 4.72, 31.30), age of 26 to 30 years old (AOR 5.20, 95%CI: 2.62, 10.32), age of 31 to 35 years old (AOR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.50, 5.64), higher education (AOR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.34, 3.34), parity more than three (AOR 3.12, 95% CI: 1.42, 6.84), irregular menstruation (AOR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.40, 3.37) and unintended pregnancy (AOR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.88, 4.40).
CONCLUSION: Innovative programmes, for example by making IPI information available through online resources, could effectively target young mothers as the younger generation prefers quick, easily-accessible and reliable information.
METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in the private medical institution in Malaysia. The same questionnaire was used to administer twice, before and after the posting. Moreover, a qualitative question on the issues related to family planning and contraception utilizations in Malaysia was added to the after posting survey. The quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 20) and qualitative data by RQDA software.
RESULTS: A total of 146 participants were recruited in this study. Knowledge on contraception method before posting was 5.11 (standard deviation [SD] ±1.36) and after posting was 6.35 (SD ± 1.38) (P < 0.001). Thematic analysis of the students' answer revealed four salient themes, which were as follows: (1) cultural barrier, (2) misconception, (3) inadequate knowledge, and (4) improvement for the health-care services.
CONCLUSIONS: The teaching-learning process at the MCH posting has an influence on their perception and upgraded their knowledge. It also reflects the role of primary health-care clinics on medical students' clinical exposure and training on family planning services during their postings.
METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team.
RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care.
CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist in the availability of information currently collected to support the implementation of the WHO Essential Interventions. The development of this suite of indicators can be used to support the implementation of eRegistries and other data platforms, to ensure that data are utilised to support evidence-based practice, facilitate measurement and accountability, and improve maternal and child health outcomes.