Spousal discordance on reports of contraceptive communication, contraceptive use, and ideal family size in rural India: a cross-sectional study

Holly B Shakya, Anindita Dasgupta, Mohan Ghule, Madhusudana Battala, Niranjan Saggurti, Balaiah Donta, Saritha Nair, Jay Silverman, Anita Raj, Holly B Shakya, Anindita Dasgupta, Mohan Ghule, Madhusudana Battala, Niranjan Saggurti, Balaiah Donta, Saritha Nair, Jay Silverman, Anita Raj

Abstract

Background: Persistent low rates of spacing contraceptive use among young wives in rural India have been implicated in ongoing negative maternal, infant and child health outcomes throughout the country. Gender inequity has been found to consistently predict low rates of contraception. An issue around contraceptive reporting however is that when reporting on contraceptive use, spouses in rural India often provide discordant reports. While discordant reports of contraceptive use potentially impede promotion of contraceptive use, little research has investigated the predictors of discordant reporting.

Methods: Using data we collected from 867 couples in rural Maharashtra India as part of a men-focused family planning randomized controlled trial. We categorized couples on discordance of men's and women's reports of current contraceptive use, communication with their spouse regarding contraception, and ideal family size, and assessed the levels of discordance for each category. We then ran multinomial regression analyses to determine predictors of discordance categories with a focus on women's empowerment (household and fertility decision-making, women's education, and women's knowledge of contraception).

Results: When individuals reported communicating about contraception and their spouses did not, those individuals were also more likely to report using contraception when their spouses did not. Women's empowerment was higher in couples in which both couples reported contraception communication or use or in couples in which only wives reported contraception communication or use. There were couple-level characteristics that predicted husbands reporting either contraception use or contraception communication when their wives did not: husband's education, husband's familiarity with contraception, and number of children.

Conclusions: Overall there were clear patterns to differential reporting. Associations with women's empowerment and contraceptive communication and use suggest a strategy of women's empowerment to improve reproductive health. Discordant women-only reports suggest that even when programs interact with empowered women, the inclusion of husbands is essential. Husband-only discordant reports highlight the characteristics of men who may be more receptive to family planning messages than are their wives. Family planning programs may be most effective when working with couples rather than just with women, and should focus on improving communication between couples, and supporting them in achieving concordance in their reproductive preferences.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials Number: NCT01593943 , registered May 4, 2012 at clinicaltrials.gov.

Keywords: Contraceptive use; Fertility preferences; Gender inequality; Gender norms; India; Spousal concordance.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All research study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of California San Diego and the National Institute of Research in Reproductive Health, Indian Council of Medical Research, Mumbai, India. Due to low literacy rates in the population, consent forms were read to participants in full, and then participants were asked to sign their consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The left panel shows the mean education level reported by women across all four contraceptive communication categories. The right panel shows the mean value of the women’s autonomy scale across all four contraceptive communication categories. In both examples, when both couples report communication or women only report communication, the mean values are higher than for couples in which neither report communication suggesting a positive relationship between women’s empowerment and their communication regarding contraception use. Note also that in couples with more educated women, men are also more likely to report discussing contraception when their wives do not
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
shows the relationship between women’s empowerment and contraceptive use reporting across four different empowerment variables. While women’s education, contraceptive familiarity, and perception of fertility equality is associated with contraceptive use across all three reporting categories, women’s autonomy is associated with concordant and Wife+ discordant reporting
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
illustrates the distribution of contraceptive communication and family size preferences across contraception use categories. On the left, we see that discrepancies in reporting of contraception communication and contraception use are consistent. Colored bars represent what proportion of each contraception use category is comprised of each contraception communication category. For instance, Wife + discordance in contraception use reporting is most strongly associated with Wife + discordance in contraceptive communication (the largest yellow bar). On the right we see that over 20% of the Wife+ discordant on contraceptive use couples are those in which women prefer more children than their husbands, the largest proportion across all four categories

References

    1. International Institute for Population. Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India: Volume II. Mumbai: IIPS; 2007.
    1. Chacko E. Women’s use of contraception in rural India: a village-level study. Health Place. 2001;7(3):197–208. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(01)00009-0.
    1. Chaurasia AR. Contraceptive use in India: a data mining approach. Int J Popul Res. 2014;2014:1–11. 10.1155/2014/821436.
    1. Kishor S, Gupta K. Gender equality and womens empowerment in India. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) India 2005-06. 2009.
    1. Casterline JB, Lazarus R. Addressing the Neglected MDG: World Bank Review of Population and High Fertility, World Bank publications. 2010. Determinants and consequences of high fertility: a synopsis of the evidence.
    1. Ghule M, Raj A, Palaye P, Dasgupta A, Nair S, Saggurti N, Battala M, Balaiah D. Barriers to contraceptive methods among rural young married couples in Maharashtra, India: Qualitative findings. Asian J Res Soc Sci Humanit. 2015; in press
    1. Raj A, McDougal L, Rusch ML. Effects of young maternal age and short interpregnancy interval on infant mortality in South Asia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124(1):86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.07.027.
    1. Patrikar S, Basannar D, Sharma MS. Women empowerment and use of contraception. Med J Armed Forces India. 2014;70(3):253–256. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2013.12.014.
    1. Saleem S, Bobak M. Women’s autonomy, education and contraception use in Pakistan: a national study. Reprod Health. 2005;2(8):1–8.
    1. Koffi AK, Adjiwanou VD, Becker S, Olaolorun F, Tsui AO. Correlates of and couples’ concordance in reports of recent sexual behavior and contraceptive use. Stud Fam Plan. 2012;43(1):33–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00300.x.
    1. Becker S, Costenbader E. Husbands’ and wives’ reports of contraceptive use. Stud Fam Plan. 2001;32(2):111–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00111.x.
    1. Koenig MA, Simmons GB, Misra B. Husband—wife inconsistencies in contraceptive use responses. Popul Stud. 1984;38(2):281–298.
    1. Wilson-Williams L, Stephenson R, Juvekar S, Andes K. Domestic violence and contraceptive use in a rural Indian village. Violence Against Women. 2008;14(10):1181–1198. doi: 10.1177/1077801208323793.
    1. Tilahun T, Coene G, Temmerman M, Degomme O. Spousal discordance on fertility preference and its effect on contraceptive practice among married couples in Jimma zone, Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):27. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-27.
    1. Virk A, Kalia M, Gupta B, Singh J, Singh H. Role of men in fertility and family planning in a peri-urban community in Punjab, India. Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2013;2(3):613–617. doi: 10.5455/ijmsph.2013.200420131.
    1. Tumlinson K, Speizer IS, Davis JT, Fotso JC, Kuria P, Archer LH. Partner communication, discordant fertility goals, and contraceptive use in urban Kenya. Afr J Reprod Health. 2013;17(3):79–90.
    1. Mason KO, Smith HL. Husbands’ versus wives’ fertility goals and use of contraception: the influence of gender context in five Asian countries. Demography. 2000;37(3):299–311. doi: 10.2307/2648043.
    1. Gipson JD, Hindin MJ. The effect of husbands’ and wives’ fertility preferences on the likelihood of a subsequent pregnancy, Bangladesh 1998–2003. Popul Stud. 2009;63(2):135–146. doi: 10.1080/00324720902859372.
    1. Dodoo FN-A. Men matter: additive and interactive gendered preferences and reproductive behavior in Kenya. Demography. 1998;35(2):229–242. doi: 10.2307/3004054.
    1. Diro CW, Afework MF. Agreement and concordance between married couples regarding family planning utilization and fertility intention in Dukem, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):903. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-903.
    1. Allendorf K. Couples’ reports of women’s autonomy and health-care use in Nepal. Stud Fam Plan. 2007;38(1):35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2007.00114.x.
    1. Becker S, Fonseca-Becker F, Schenck-Yglesias C. Husbands’ and wives’ reports of women’s decision-making power in western Guatemala and their effects on preventive health behaviors. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(9):2313–2326. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.006.
    1. Yore J, Dasgupta A, Ghule M, Battala M, Nair S, Silverman J, Saggurti N, Balaiah D, Raj A. CHARM, a gender equity and family planning intervention for men and couples in rural India: protocol for the cluster randomized controlled trial evaluation. Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0122-3.
    1. Kulczycki A. Husband-wife agreement, power relations and contraceptive use in Turkey. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34:127–37.
    1. Agarwal S, Sethi V, Gupta P, Jha M, Agnihotri A, Nord M. Experiential household food insecurity in an urban underserved slum of North India. Food Sec. 2009;1(3):239–250. doi: 10.1007/s12571-009-0034-y.
    1. Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India*. Demography. 2001;38(1):115–132.
    1. Iyer S. Religion and the decision to use contraception in India. J Sci Study Relig. 2002;41(4):711–722. doi: 10.1111/1468-5906.00156.
    1. Hall MAK, Stephenson RB, Juvekar S. Social and logistical barriers to the use of reversible contraception among women in a rural Indian village. J Health Popul Nutr. 2008;26(2):241.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977:159–74.
    1. Raj A, Ghule M, Battala M, Dasgupta A, Ritter J, Nair S, Saggurti N, Silverman JG, Balaiah D. Brief report: parent–adolescent child concordance in social norms related to gender equity in marriage–findings from rural India. J Adolesc. 2014;37(7):1181–1184. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.08.006.
    1. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim C, Neter J. Applied linear regression models. New York: Mcraw-Hill/Irwin; 2004.
    1. Barker G, Ricardo C, Nascimento M, Olukoya A, Santos C. Questioning gender norms with men to improve health outcomes: evidence of impact. Glob Public Health. 2010;5(5):539–553. doi: 10.1080/17441690902942464.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner