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

Table 5 Association between network characteristics and couples’ use of contraception adjusting for couples’ pregnancy desires and contraceptive decision-making as a couple

	Dependent variable: Couple currently using modern contraception
	(1)	(2)	(3) Excludes partners from network variables
Independent variables
Composition of FP network
No FP network (Reference group)	–	–	–
Social-only FP network	2.33^c	1.55^b	1.27^b
	(0.43)	(0.24)	(0.10)
Provider-only FP network	1.91^c	1.58^a	1.17
	(0.27)	(0.34)	(0.11)
Mixed FP network	2.54^c	1.74^a	1.46^c
	(0.40)	(0.44)	(0.14)
Couples’ pregnancy desires
Wants to become pregnant (Reference group)	–
Does not want to become pregnant	1.57e+ 06^c
	(1.68e+ 06)
Is not certain	8.38e+ 05^c
	(8.70e+ 05)
Decision-making about contraceptive use with partner
Man decides (Reference group)		–
		1.56
His partner decides		(0.63)
		1.22
Couple decides together		(0.47)
Observations	145	132	164
Mean of dependent variable	0.68	0.76	0.65

^a significant at 0.05; ^b significant at 0.01; ^c significant at 0.001
Note: We used generalized linear model with Poisson regression and robust standard errors. We reported relative risk ratios. 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

ISSN: 1471-2458