CHARM, a gender equity and family planning intervention for men and couples in rural India: protocol for the cluster randomized controlled trial evaluation

Jennifer Yore, Anindita Dasgupta, Mohan Ghule, Madhusadana Battala, Saritha Nair, Jay Silverman, Niranjan Saggurti, Donta Balaiah, Anita Raj, Jennifer Yore, Anindita Dasgupta, Mohan Ghule, Madhusadana Battala, Saritha Nair, Jay Silverman, Niranjan Saggurti, Donta Balaiah, Anita Raj

Abstract

Background: Globally, 41% of all pregnancies are unintended, increasing risk for unsafe abortion, miscarriage and maternal and child morbidities and mortality. One in four pregnancies in India (3.3 million pregnancies, annually) are unintended; 2/3 of these occur in the context of no modern contraceptive use. In addition, no contraceptive use until desired number and sex composition of children is achieved remains a norm in India. Research shows that globally and in India, the youngest and most newly married wives are least likely to use contraception and most likely to report husband's exclusive family planning decision-making control, suggesting that male engagement and family planning support is important for this group. Thus, the Counseling Husbands to Achieve Reproductive Health and Marital Equity (CHARM) intervention was developed in recognition of the need for more male engagement family planning models that include gender equity counseling and focus on spacing contraception use in rural India.

Methods/design: For this study, a multi-session intervention delivered to men but inclusive of their wives was developed and evaluated as a two-armed cluster randomized controlled design study conducted across 50 mapped clusters in rural Maharashtra, India. Eligible rural young husbands and their wives (N = 1081) participated in a three session gender-equity focused family planning program delivered to the men (Sessions 1 and 2) and their wives (Session 3) by village health providers in rural India. Survey assessments were conducted at baseline and 9&18 month follow-ups with eligible men and their wives, and pregnancy tests were obtained from wives at baseline and 18-month follow-up. Additional in-depth understanding of how intervention impact occurred was assessed via in-depth interviews at 18 month follow-up with VHPs and a subsample of couples (n = 50, 2 couples per intervention cluster). Process evaluation was conducted to collect feedback from husbands, wives, and VHPs on program quality and to ascertain whether program elements were implemented according to curriculum protocols. Fidelity to intervention protocol was assessed via review of clinical records.

Discussion: All study procedures were completed in February 2015. Findings from this work offer important contributions to the growing field of male engagement in family planning, globally.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01593943.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Model of CHARM intervention impact on contraceptive use and pregnancy
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Outcome evaluation study design
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Consort flowchart
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Power to detect the effect of intervention on use of marital spacing
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Power to detect the effect of intervention on pregnancy

References

    1. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India: Volume I. Mumbai, IIPS: International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International; 2007.
    1. Bradley SEK, Croft TN, Rutstein SO. The impact of contraceptive failure on unintended births and induced abortions: estimates and strategies for reduction: DHS analytical studies 22. Calverton, Maryland: USA United States Agency for International Development (USAID); 2011.
    1. Singh A, Chalasani S, Koenig MA, Mahapatra B. The consequences of unintended births for maternal and child health in India. Popul Stud (Camb) 2012;66(3):223–239. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2012.697568.
    1. Singh A, Mahapatra B. The consequences of unintended pregnancy for maternal and child health in rural India: evidence from prospective data. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(3):493–500. doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1023-x.
    1. Tsui AO, McDonald-Mosley R, Burke AE. Family planning and the burden of unintended pregnancies. Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32(1):152–174. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxq012.
    1. Paul VK, Sachdev HS, Mavalankar D, et al. Reproductive health, and child health and nutrition in India: meeting the challenge. Lancet. 2011;377(9762):332–349. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61492-4.
    1. Jejeebhoy SJ, Santhya KG, Zavier AJ. Demand for contraception to delay first pregnancy among young married women in India. Studies in family planning. 2014;45(2):183–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00384.x.
    1. Srinivasan K. Population policies and programmes since independence: a saga of great expectations and poor performance. Demography India. 1998;27:1–22.
    1. Bhat, PNM. India's changing dates with replacement fertility: a review of recent fertility trends and future prospects. Population Bulletin of the United Nations: Completing the Fertility Transition. 2002;Special Issue 48/49:347-358.
    1. de Oliveira IT, Dias JG, Padmadas SS. Dominance of sterilization and alternative choices of contraception in India: an appraisal of the socioeconomic impact. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86654. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086654.
    1. Singh A, Pallikadavath S, Ram F, Ogollah R. Inequalities in advice provided by public health workers to women during antenatal sessions in rural India. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044931.
    1. Sebastian MP, Khan ME, Kumari K, Idnani R. Increasing postpartum contraception in rural India: evaluation of a community-based behavior change communication intervention. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;38(2):68–77. doi: 10.1363/3806812.
    1. Koenig MA, Foo GH, Joshi K. Quality of care within the Indian family welfare programme: a review of recent evidence. Stud Fam Plann. 2000;31(1):1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2000.00001.x.
    1. Stephenson R, Tsui AO. Contextual influences on reproductive health service use in Uttar Pradesh. India. Stud Fam Plann. Dec. 2002;33(4):309–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2002.00309.x.
    1. Pirincci AF, Oguzoncul E. Knowledge and attitude of married Turkish men regarding family planning. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(1):97–102. doi: 10.1080/13625180701622829.
    1. Ijadunola MY, Abiona TC, Ijadunola KT, Afolabi OT, Esimai OA, OlaOlorun FM. Male involvement in family planning decision making in Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2010;14(4 Spec no):43–50.
    1. Lundgren R, Cachan J, Jennings V. Engaging men in family planning services delivery: experiences introducing the Standard Days Method(R) in four countries. World Health Popul. 2012;14(1):44–51. doi: 10.12927/whp.2013.23097.
    1. Porche DJ. Men: the missing client in family planning. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6(6):441. doi: 10.1177/1557988312459340.
    1. Shattuck D, Kerner B, Gilles K, Hartmann M, Ng'ombe T, Guest G. Encouraging contraceptive uptake by motivating men to communicate about family planning: the Malawi Male Motivator project. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1089–1095. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300091.
    1. Varkey LC, Mishra A, Das A, et al. Involving Men in Maternity Care in India: Frontiers in Reproductive Health Program. New Delhi, India: Population Council; 2004.
    1. MacDonald L, Jones L, Thomas P, Thu LT, FitzGerald S, Efroymson D. Promoting male involvement in family planning in Vietnam and India: HealthBridge experience. Gender & Development. 2013;21(1):31–45. doi: 10.1080/13552074.2013.767498.
    1. Khan ME, Sebastian MP, Sharma U, et al. Promoting Healthy Timing and Spacing of Births in India through a Community-based Approach. New Delhi, India: Population Council; 2008.
    1. Miller E, Jordan B, Levenson R, Silverman JG. Reproductive coercion: connecting the dots between partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(6):457–459. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.023.
    1. Hathaway JE, Mucci LA, Silverman JG, Brooks DR, Mathews R, Pavlos CA. Health status and health care use of Massachusetts women reporting partner abuse. American journal of preventive medicine. 2000;19(4):302–307. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00236-1.
    1. Miller E, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, Anderson H, Silverman JG. Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception. 2014;89(2):122–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.011.
    1. Miller E, Silverman JG. Reproductive coercion and partner violence: implications for clinical assessment of unintended pregnancy. Expert review of obstetrics & gynecology. 2010;5(5):511–515. doi: 10.1586/eog.10.44.
    1. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception. 2011;83(3):274–280. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.07.013.
    1. Ghule M, Raj A, Dasgupta A, Nair S, Saggurti N, Donta B. Barriers to use Contraceptive Methods among Rural Young Married Couples in Maharashtra, India: Qualitative Findings. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. 2015;5(6):18–33. doi: 10.5958/2249-7315.2015.00132.X.
    1. Strauss A, Corbin JM. Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
    1. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Weitzman E, Miles M. Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis: A Software Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.
    1. Planning F. Information, Education and Counseling (IEC) Materials. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2015.
    1. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action : a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
    1. Connell RW. Gender and power: society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1987.
    1. Lopez LM, Hilgenberg D, Chen M, Denison J, Stuart G. Behavioral interventions for improving contraceptive use among women living with HIV. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD010243.
    1. WHO . Putting Women First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on Domestic Violence Against Women. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Pulerwitz JGB. Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities. 2008;10:322–338. doi: 10.1177/1097184X06298778.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir