Table 1 below represents the respondent's socio-demographic. The table shows that more than half of the respondents were between age 25-29 years (60%) with an average age of 26 years. Respondent's level of education shows that the majority (85.9%) attended secondary (42.1%) and post-secondary (43.8%). More than half of the respondents practice Christianity (66.4%) as religion. The table also revealed that majority of the respondents (90.7%) were employed, almost all were living with their husband/partner (80.5%), 81.2% of the husband of respondents married just one wife and more than half had 1-2 children before the study with average children ever born of 2.2 children.
Table 1: Respondent’s Socio-demographics characteristics
Variable
|
Frequency N=420
|
Percent
|
Age
|
|
|
Below 20
|
19
|
4.5
|
20-24
|
99
|
23.6
|
25-29
|
252
|
60.0
|
30+
|
50
|
11.9
|
Mean age: 26 years, SD: 3.4
|
|
|
Highest level of education
|
|
|
No formal education
|
15
|
3.7
|
Primary
|
44
|
10.4
|
Secondary
|
177
|
42.1
|
Post-secondary
|
184
|
43.8
|
Religion
|
|
|
Christianity
|
279
|
66.4
|
Islam
|
141
|
33.6
|
Occupation status
|
|
|
Unemployed
|
39
|
9.3
|
Employed
|
381
|
90.7
|
Living arrangement
|
|
|
Living with you
|
338
|
80.5
|
Living elsewhere
|
82
|
19.5
|
Family type
|
|
|
Monogamous
|
341
|
81.2
|
Polygamous
|
79
|
18.8
|
Children ever born
|
|
|
1-2
|
255
|
60.7
|
3+
|
165
|
39.3
|
Mean CEB: 2.2, SD: 1.0
|
|
|
Fig 1 below represents family planning usage and consent from the husband. The figure shows that 8 out of every ten respondents were currently using a method of family planning, and 7 out of every 10 seek permission from their husband before using family planning.
Fig 2 represent spousal communication on the number of children, family planning usage after delivery, reducing workload during pregnancy and after birth, healthy pregnancy, proper nutrition during pregnancy, and after delivery and money matters. The figure shows that at least 7 out of 10 respondents have excellent communication with their husbands/partners.
Table 2 below shows the logistic regression of communication on joint decisions concerning family planning. The table shows that respondents that had excellent communication concerning money matters, number of children, use of family planning after delivery, healthy pregnancy, and reduction of workload during and after childbirth were more likely to agree to use a method of family planning jointly. This analysis was only statically significant for the respondent that had excellent communication concerning the number of children, the use of family planning, and reducing workload during pregnancy.
Table 2 Logistic regression of spousal communication on the joint decision of family planning
Variable
|
Odd ratio
|
P-value
|
Confidence interval
|
Communication on money matters: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
2.15
|
0.394
|
0.3687 – 12.5766
|
Communication on the number of children: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
2.56
|
0.017*
|
1.1845 – 5.5167
|
Communication on the use of family planning: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
7.26
|
0.000*
|
3.2752 – 16.0783
|
Communication on healthy pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
1.26
|
0.775
|
0.2626 – 6.0085
|
Communication on proper nutrition during pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
1.04
|
0.959
|
0.1996 – 5.4687
|
Communication on reducing workload during pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
2.65
|
0.049*
|
1.0060 – 6.9964
|
Constant
|
0.08
|
0.000
|
0.0345 – 0.1984
|
Table 3 below shows the logistic regression of respondent's socio-demographic against family planning usage. This is to identify respondent's socio-demographic that influence family planning usage. The table revealed that respondents across all the age groups were more likely to use family planning, and this was significant for the age group 25-29 years and 30 years and above. Level of education shows that respondent with the primary school was more likely to use any method of family planning and respondents with secondary and post-secondary were less likely to use family planning but the analysis only significant for respondents with primary education in this study.
Respondents' employment status was statistically significant in that respondents who were employed were more likely to use a method of family planning.
Concerning the respondent's husband socio-demographic, the table shows that respondents whose husbands were employed were more likely to use a method of family planning, and this statistically significant in this study. A respondent with a husband that had secondary and post-secondary was more likely to use a method of family planning but only statistically significant with post-secondary. Respondents whose husband age were between the ages group 30-34 years and 35-39 years were more likely to family planning, and respondents whose husband age was above 39 years were less likely to seek permission, and this was statistically significant for respondents whose husband age were 30-34 years and 40 years and above.
Table 3: Logistic regression of respondent socio-demographic on use of family planning
Variable
|
Odd ratio
|
P-value
|
Confidence interval
|
Respondent age: RC= Below 20
|
20-24
|
4.01
|
0.113
|
0.7215 – 22.2680
|
25-29
|
7.34
|
0.019*
|
1.3790 – 39.0923
|
30+
|
31.36
|
0.003*
|
3.2935 – 298.5587
|
Respondent level of education: RC= No formal education
|
Primary
|
70.33
|
0.012*
|
2.5279 – 1956.873
|
Secondary
|
0.60
|
0.622
|
0.0789 – 4.5690
|
Post-secondary
|
0.32
|
0.314
|
0.0358 – 2.9172
|
Respondent religion: RC= Christianity
|
Islam
|
1.42
|
0.623
|
0.3507 – 5.7487
|
Respondent employment status: RC = Unemployed
|
Employed
|
6.83
|
0.005*
|
1.8030 – 25.8600
|
Living arrangement: RC= Living with you
|
Living elsewhere
|
0.12
|
0.000*
|
0.0393 – 0.3606
|
Family type: RC=Monogamous
|
Polygamous
|
0.46
|
0.152
|
0.1605 – 1.3293
|
Number of children: RC=1-2
|
3+
|
0.43
|
0.144
|
0.1385 – 1.3337
|
Husband religion: RC= Christianity
|
Islam
|
0.66
|
0.528
|
0.1804 – 2.4076
|
Husband employment status: RC=Unemployed
|
Employed
|
28.63
|
0.000*
|
6.2717 – 130.7041
|
Husband level of education: RC=Primary
|
Secondary
|
1.30
|
0.795
|
0.1767 – 9.6069
|
Post-secondary
|
8.59
|
0.043*
|
1.0741 – 68.7154
|
Husband age: RC= 25-29
|
30-34
|
3.80
|
0.044*
|
1.0354 – 13.9732
|
35-39
|
1.82
|
0.365
|
0.4999 – 6.5912
|
40+
|
0.11
|
0.004*
|
0.0263 – 0.4893
|
Constant
|
0.01
|
0.004
|
0.0002 – 0.2070
|
Table 4 below shows the logistic regression of communication on husband consent concerning family planning. The table shows that respondents that had an excellent conversation concerning money matters, number of children, use of family planning after delivery, healthy pregnancy, and reduction of workload during and after childbirth were more likely to seek permission. Respondents with excellent communication concerning proper nutrition during pregnancy and after delivery were less likely to seek consent. This analysis was statically significant for the respondent that had excellent communication concerning the number of children, use of family planning, and the reduction of workload during pregnancy and after delivery.
Table 4: Logistic regression of respondent spousal communication on husband consent
Variable
|
Odd ratio
|
P-value
|
Confidence interval
|
Communication on money matters: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
1.85
|
0.497
|
0.3142 – 10.8556
|
Communication on the number of children: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
2.55
|
0.022*
|
1.1413 – 5.6782
|
Communication on the use of family planning: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
6.28
|
0.000*
|
2.7768 – 14.1899
|
Communication on healthy pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
1.47
|
0.626
|
0.3123 – 6.9293
|
Communication on proper nutrition during pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
0.81
|
0.807
|
0.1505 – 4.3660
|
Communication on reducing workload during pregnancy: RC=Poor
|
Good
|
2.94
|
0.028*
|
1.1227 – 7.7010
|
Constant
|
0.13
|
0.000
|
0.0633 – 0.2827
|
Table 5 below shows the logistic regression of respondent's socio-demographic on joint decisions of family planning. This is to identify the respondent's socio-demographic that influence joint decisions around the use of family planning. The table revealed that respondents across all the age groups were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse/partner concerning the use of family planning, and this was significant for the age group 25-29 years. Level of education shows that respondents with primary education were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse/partner concerning use a method of family planning, and respondents with secondary and post-secondary were less likely to use family planning, but the analysis only significant for respondents with primary education.
Respondents' employment status was statistically significant in that respondents who were employed were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse/partner concerning using a method of family planning. Living arrangements show that respondents living elsewhere were less likely to mutually agree with their spouse/partner concerning use a method of family planning, and this was statistically significant.
Concerning the respondent's husband socio-demographic, the table shows that respondents who husband were employed were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse concerning using a method of family planning and this statistically significant in this study. Respondents with a husband that had secondary and post-secondary were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse concerning use a method of family planning, and this was statistically significant secondary and post-secondary. Respondent whose husband age were between the age group 30-34 years and 35-39 years were more likely to jointly agree with their spouse and respondent whose husband age were above 39 years were less likely to mutually agree with their spouse concerning the use of family planning and this was statistically significant for respondent whose husband age was 40 years and above.
Table 5 Logistic regression of respondent socio-demographic on the joint decision of family planning.
Variable
|
Odd ratio
|
P-value
|
Confidence interval
|
Respondent age: RC= Below 20
|
20-24
|
3.91
|
0.143
|
0.6313 – 24.2368
|
25-29
|
9.1
|
0.013*
|
1.5830 – 53.3062
|
30+
|
2.6
|
0.365
|
0.3182 – 22.5040
|
Respondent level of education: RC= No formal education
|
Primary
|
263.46
|
0.013*
|
3.1948 – 21726.89
|
Secondary
|
0.15
|
0.096
|
0.0158 – 1.4009
|
Post-secondary
|
0.12
|
0.077
|
0.0111 – 1.2567
|
Respondent religion: RC= Christianity
|
Islam
|
0.53
|
0.320
|
0.1520 – 1.8515
|
Respondent employment status: RC = Unemployed
|
Employed
|
29.67
|
0.000*
|
6.3348 – 138.9927
|
Living arrangement: RC= Living with you
|
Living elsewhere
|
0.04
|
0.000*
|
0.0115 – 0.1110
|
Family type: RC=Monogamous
|
Polygamous
|
0.39
|
0.087
|
0.1335 – 1.1457
|
Number of children: RC=1-2
|
3+
|
1.22
|
0.723
|
0.4011 – 3.7300
|
Husband religion: RC= Christianity
|
Islam
|
0.84
|
0.771
|
0.2616 – 2.7025
|
Husband employment status: RC=Unemployed
|
Employed
|
105.04
|
0.000*
|
12.6570 – 871.675
|
Husband level of education: RC=Primary
|
Secondary
|
16.62
|
0.021*
|
1.5252 – 181.1394
|
Post-secondary
|
145.31
|
0.000*
|
9.7949 – 2155.648
|
Husband age: RC= 25-29
|
30-34
|
3.05
|
0.107
|
0.7862 – 11.805
|
35-39
|
1.02
|
0.979
|
0.2717 – 3.8160
|
40+
|
0.05
|
0.001*
|
0.0090 – 0.2734
|
Constant
|
0.00
|
0.000
|
0.0000 – 0.0079
|
Table 6 below shows the association between joint decision, communication on the use of family planning after delivery, and family planning use. The table shows that there is an association between mutual decision, communication on the use of family planning after birth, and the use of family planning.
Table 6: Association between joint decision, communication on the use of FP after delivery and family planning use.
Variable
|
Currently using a method of FP
|
Joint decision
|
No
|
Yes
|
Total
|
No
|
77 (72.6)
|
29 (27.4)
|
106
|
Yes
|
0 (0.0)
|
314 (100.0)
|
314
|
Chi-square, P-value
|
Chi2: 279.29 P-value: 0.000*
|
Communication on the use of FP after delivery
|
Poor
|
54 (58.7)
|
38 (41.3)
|
92
|
Good
|
23 (7.0)
|
305 (93.0)
|
328
|
Chi-square, P-value
|
Chi2: 128.18 P-value: 0.000*
|