Skip to main content

Table 3 Association between men’s FP network characteristics and couples’ use of contraception using generalized linear model with Poisson regression and robust standard errors

From: The association between men’s family planning networks and contraceptive use among their female partners: an egocentric network study in Madagascar

  Dependent variable: Couple currently using modern contraception
  RR RR RR RR
Independent variables (1) (2) (3) (4)
Has a FP network 1.92c    
  (0.16)    
Composition of FP network
 No FP network (Reference group)    
 Social-only FP network   2.10c   
   (0.26)   
 Provider-only FP network   1.80c   
   (0.14)   
 Mixed FP network   2.35c   
   (0.21)   
Size of FP network
 No FP network (Reference group)    
 One alter in network    1.98c  
    (0.17)  
 Two or more alters in network    1.58a  
    (0.29)  
Knows someone using modern contraceptive method     1.41a
     (0.21)
Age (years) 0.99 0.99 0.99a 1.00
  (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00)
Household size 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
  (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Currently married 1.05 1.06 1.04 0.99
  (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.07)
Completed primary school education 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.96
  (0.08) (0.09) (0.08) (0.07)
Monthly household earnings (USD) 1.00b 1.00b 1.00b 1.00b
  (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Sub-district 1 (reference group)
Sub-district 2 0.00c 0.00c 0.00c 0.00c
  (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Sub-district 3 0.00c 0.00c 0.00c 0.00c
  (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Sub-district 4 1.01 1.04 1.03 0.98
  (0.03) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04)
Sub-district 5 0.94a 0.91a 0.99 0.94
  (0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.05)
Sub-district 6 0.71c 0.73c 0.70c 0.74c
  (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.04)
Sub-district 7 0.96 0.93 0.98 0.92
  (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Sub-district 8 0.60c 0.60c 0.63c 0.51c
  (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.01)
Sub-district 9 0.73c 0.69c 0.76c 0.69c
  (0.02) (0.04) (0.03) (0.01)
Sub-district 10 0.72c 0.71c 0.75c 0.68c
  (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02)
Observations 164 164 164 159
Mean of dependent variable 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64
  1. a significant at 0.05; b significant at 0.01; c significant at 0.001
  2. Note: Each column presents the findings of a separate regression model. Covariates included in each of these 4 regression models were age, household size, marital status, primary school completion, and household earnings. We also included sub-district fixed effects. We used cluster robust standard errors at the sub-district level. Social-only FP network included social ties such as partner, friend, and other family members. Provider-only FP network included provider ties such as CHWs, health educators, nurses, mid-wives, and doctors. A mixed FP network included both social ties and providers ties. RR = Relative risk ratio