Contraceptive Usage
Conditions
Brief summary
This study seeks to develop and evaluate a multi-level intervention to satisfy couples' unmet need for family planning in rural Uganda. The study will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the intervention at increasing contraceptive uptake and continuation and improving intermediate outcomes of knowledge, attitudes, perceived community norms, partner communication and equity among couples in rural Uganda.
Detailed description
In 2018, 32.6% of women of reproductive age had an unmet need for family planning in Uganda, meaning they wanted to avoid pregnancy but were not using a modern contraceptive method. Filling the unmet need for family planning has important public health implications, including reductions in pregnancy-related health risks and deaths, and infant mortality. While Uganda is scaling up efforts to reduce supply-side barriers in rural areas, such as community distribution of contraceptives, couples are still faced with multi-level demand-side barriers to contraceptive use. In addition to misinformation and fear of contraceptive side-effects, relationship dynamics, peer and family influence, and broader community norms promoting large family size and traditional gender roles influence family planning. This study will pilot test a multi-level, community-based intervention, which employs transformative community dialogues to alter individual attitudes and the perception of community norms that discourage family planning. Community dialogues are delivered to groups of couples enhanced to simultaneously address individual and interpersonal-level determinants of family planning and link couples to family planning services. The aims of this project are to conduct a pilot quasi-experimental controlled trial to: 1) assess acceptability and feasibility of the trial procedures and intervention content; 2) the intervention's potential efficacy on contraceptive uptake and continuation and intermediate outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, perceived community norms, partner communication and equity) through 6-month follow up. One village will be randomized to the multi-level intervention and one village to the control condition (attention-matched control intervention). Participation in the full study will last 6 months. Participants will first complete a questionnaire after enrollment, and female participants will take a pregnancy test at baseline. Participants in both study arms will participate in interviewer administered questionnaires at 3 months and 6 months follow-up, pregnancy testing at 6-months follow-up for women, and will permit the research team to access their medical records to extract information about their contraceptive use and use of family planning services. Participants in the intervention arm will participate in a series of group sessions with other couples from the community. Group sessions will last approximately 90 minutes, including community dialogues to reconstruct group norms that discourage contraceptive use enhanced with activities to improve knowledge, motivation, couple dynamics, and link couples to services.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALMultilevel Family Planning Intervention
The intervention is comprised of community dialogues, or facilitated discussions, aimed to reshape community norms around gender roles, equity, and family size, and critically analyze the social and community influences of family-wealth and poverty with the overall goal of reconstructing individual attitudes and group norms on paths to/definitions of a successful family inclusive of family planning. Dialogues are enhanced to address knowledge, motivation, self-efficacy, and relationship dynamics, tailored to men and women. Sessions include both gender segregated and integrated groups with couples in the community.
BEHAVIORALTime and attention matched control
This intervention serves as the attention-matched control. The format and delivery will mirror that of the Family Health = Family Wealth intervention (i.e., number, timing, and duration of sessions). The focus of the intervention is on community sanitation and at-home hygiene (hand-washing, food preparation) following an intervention manual that was developed for community groups in Uganda.
Sponsors
Makerere University
San Diego State University
Yale University
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
The University of Texas at San Antonio
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Being in a relationship and both partners providing written informed consent; women: age 18-40 (or emancipated minor); men: age 18-50; not currently using modern contraceptives and having never used a non-reversible method; one or both partners wanting to prevent pregnancy for at least the next year; living within the selected villages; Luganda speaking.
Exclusion criteria
* Pregnant; Breastfeeding; Using a modern contraceptive method
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 7-months and 10-months follow-up | Uptake of any high efficacy contraceptive method. High efficacy contraceptive methods are defined based on efficacy for typical use of methods (rather than perfect use), inclusive of pills, injection, intrauterine device, implant, tubal ligation, vasectomy; measured through women's self-report and validated through clinic records and men's self-report |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy | 10-months follow-up | Biological measure; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) rapid pregnancy tests taken by women at 10-months follow-up. |
| Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Scale from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) aimed to assess knowledge of modern contraceptive methods; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Possible range 0-1, greater scores indicate more knowledge |
| Change in Family Planning Attitudes | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Family planning attitudes scale developed for use in Uganda to assess how participants would feel about using contraceptive methods; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range from 0-4 with greater scores indicating more positive attitudes towards family planning. |
| Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Scale adapted from the Family Planning Approval Index to assess the perceived acceptance of family planning and contraceptive use among partner, family, peers, and broader community; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range from 0-1 with greater scores indicating more positive perceived attitudes towards family planning among others |
| Change in Family Planning Intentions | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Family planning intentions scale developed for use in Uganda to assess participants' plans to use contraceptives and family planning services in the future; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range between 0-4 with higher scores indicating greater intentions to use family planning services in the future |
| Number of Couples That Discontinued Use of a High Efficacy Contraceptive Method at 10-months Follow-up Among Those That Started Using a Method at 7-months Follow-up | 7 and 10 months follow-up | Number of couples that discontinued use of a high efficacy contraceptive method at 10-months follow-up among those that started using a method at 7-months follow-up. High efficacy contraceptive methods are defined based on efficacy for typical use of methods (rather than perfect use), inclusive of pills, injection, intrauterine device, implant, tubal ligation, vasectomy; measured through women's self-report and validated through clinic records and men's self-report |
| Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | An item from the Uganda DHS on the participants' desired number of children, How many more children do you want to have? was used to calculate the couple variable fertility discordance by subtracting men and women's responses within couples. This was dichotomized for analysis; for couples where the product was zero, they were classified as having no discordance (0) and for couples where the produce was anything other than zero, they were classified as having discordance (1). |
| Change in Joint Household Decision-making | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Joint household decision-making was measured with four items from the Uganda DHS that ask respondents who primarily decides on: 1) how the money they earn is used; 2) how their spouses' earnings are used; 3) decisions about healthcare for yourself; and 4) decisions about major household purchases. Response options were recoded as self and partner jointly (1) vs. all other (0). A mean score was calculated for each time point with greater scores indicating more joint decision-making (range 0-1). |
| Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | The mean of two items on the frequency of communication with one's partner about family planning found predictive of family planning in Uganda in prior research. Participants were asked, in the last 12 months, How often have you discussed the number of children you want with your partner? and How often have you discussed the spacing or timing of your/your partner's pregnancies with your partner. The four-point response options ranged from Never to Regularly. At the two follow-up time points, the same questions were asked with the timeframe, since the last interview. Higher scores indicate more communication. Possible scores range from 0.00-3.00. |
| Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | The mean of the 24-item Gender Equitable Men scale measured endorsement of traditional gender norms and attitudes on gender inequity, validated in Tanzania and Ghana, with good reliability in African settings. Domains include violence, sexual relationships, reproductive health and disease prevention, and domestic chores and daily life items. Higher scores indicate more inequitable gender attitudes. Possible score range = 0=3 |
| Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up | Item from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) on the participants' fertility desires (i.e., desired number of additional children); collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. This is a count variable that could range from zero upward (no limit). |
Countries
Uganda
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Recruitment occurred in May 2021 in 2 communities after they were selected and randomly allocated to either the intervention or comparator arm. Only 2 villages were selected as this was a pilot quasi-experimental controlled trial. Within these two clusters, participants were recruited within couple clusters (units). Recruitment was achieved through household mobilization with support from community health workers who were masked to study purpose and eligibility criteria.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention FH=FW is a multi-level, community-based intervention delivered in groups of couples to increase contraceptive uptake, reduce discontinuation, and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy, and improve intermediate outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, norms, communication, equity).
FH=FW Intervention: The intervention is comprised of health system strengthening elements paired with community dialogues, or facilitated discussions, aimed to reshape community norms around gender roles, equity, and family size, and critically analyze the social and community influences of family-wealth and poverty with the overall goal of reconstructing individual attitudes and group norms on paths to/definitions of a successful family inclusive of family planning. Dialogues are enhanced to address knowledge, motivation, self-efficacy, and relationship dynamics, tailored to men and women. Sessions include both gender segregated and integrated groups with couples in the community. | 70 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention FH=FW is a multi-level, community-based intervention delivered in groups of couples to increase contraceptive uptake, reduce discontinuation, and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy, and improve intermediate outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, norms, communication, equity).
FH=FW Intervention: The intervention is comprised of health system strengthening elements paired with community dialogues, or facilitated discussions, aimed to reshape community norms around gender roles, equity, and family size, and critically analyze the social and community influences of family-wealth and poverty with the overall goal of reconstructing individual attitudes and group norms on paths to/definitions of a successful family inclusive of family planning. Dialogues are enhanced to address knowledge, motivation, self-efficacy, and relationship dynamics, tailored to men and women. Sessions include both gender segregated and integrated groups with couples in the community. | 35 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) A Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) intervention delivered in groups of couples to increase at-home and community hygiene practices.
Time and attention matched control: This intervention serves as the attention-matched comparator intervention. The format and delivery will mirror that of the Family Health = Family Wealth intervention (i.e., number, timing, and duration of sessions). The focus of the intervention is on community sanitation and at-home hygiene (hand-washing, food preparation) following an intervention manual that was developed for community groups in Uganda. | 70 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) A Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) intervention delivered in groups of couples to increase at-home and community hygiene practices.
Time and attention matched control: This intervention serves as the attention-matched comparator intervention. The format and delivery will mirror that of the Family Health = Family Wealth intervention (i.e., number, timing, and duration of sessions). The focus of the intervention is on community sanitation and at-home hygiene (hand-washing, food preparation) following an intervention manual that was developed for community groups in Uganda. | 35 |
| Total | 210 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Investigator withdrawal due to non-attendance of session 1 (at least 1 person in couple) | 14 | 6 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 1 | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 29.01 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.79 | 30.77 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.27 | 29.89 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.59 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 70 Participants | 70 Participants | 140 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Religion Catholic, Protestant, and Other | 36 Participants | 22 Participants | 58 Participants |
| Religion Muslim | 34 Participants | 48 Participants | 82 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 35 Participants | 35 Participants | 70 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 35 Participants | 35 Participants | 70 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 84 | 0 / 76 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 84 | 0 / 76 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 84 | 0 / 76 |
Outcome results
Primary
Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method
Uptake of any high efficacy contraceptive method. High efficacy contraceptive methods are defined based on efficacy for typical use of methods (rather than perfect use), inclusive of pills, injection, intrauterine device, implant, tubal ligation, vasectomy; measured through women's self-report and validated through clinic records and men's self-report
Time frame: 7-months and 10-months follow-up
Population: Couple is the unit of analysis; one outcome per couple
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 7-months | Yes, using method | 20 Couple |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 7-months | No, not using method | 15 Couple |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 10-months | Yes, using method | 20 Couple |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 10-months | No, not using method | 15 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 10-months | No, not using method | 29 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 7-months | No, not using method | 26 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 7-months | Yes, using method | 9 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With Uptake of Any High Efficacy Contraceptive Method | 10-months | Yes, using method | 6 Couple |
p-value: 0.295% CI: [0.77, 3.64]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires)
Item from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) on the participants' fertility desires (i.e., desired number of additional children); collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. This is a count variable that could range from zero upward (no limit).
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | Baseline | 2.90 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 1.49 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | 7-months | 2.38 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 1.24 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | 10-months | 1.83 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | 7-months | 2.47 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | Baseline | 2.76 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 2.59 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Desired Number of Children (Fertility Desires) | 10-months | 2.36 desired additional children | Standard Deviation 1.38 |
p-value: 0.07Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.007Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.6Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Family Planning Attitudes
Family planning attitudes scale developed for use in Uganda to assess how participants would feel about using contraceptive methods; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range from 0-4 with greater scores indicating more positive attitudes towards family planning.
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | Baseline | 2.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.51 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | 7-months | 3.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.39 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | 10-months | 3.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.32 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | Baseline | 2.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.55 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | 7-months | 2.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Attitudes | 10-months | 2.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.57 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Family Planning Intentions
Family planning intentions scale developed for use in Uganda to assess participants' plans to use contraceptives and family planning services in the future; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range between 0-4 with higher scores indicating greater intentions to use family planning services in the future
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Intentions | Baseline | 3.14 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.43 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Intentions | 7-montha | 3.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.42 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Family Planning Intentions | 10 months | 3.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.36 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Intentions | Baseline | 2.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.59 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Intentions | 7-montha | 2.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.97 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Family Planning Intentions | 10 months | 2.12 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.63 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Cox
p-value: 0.04Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners
An item from the Uganda DHS on the participants' desired number of children, How many more children do you want to have? was used to calculate the couple variable fertility discordance by subtracting men and women's responses within couples. This was dichotomized for analysis; for couples where the product was zero, they were classified as having no discordance (0) and for couples where the produce was anything other than zero, they were classified as having discordance (1).
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | Baseline | 15 Couples |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | 7-months | 19 Couples |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | 10-months | 3 Couples |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | Baseline | 18 Couples |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | 7-months | 12 Couples |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Fertility Discordance Between Partners | 10-months | 27 Couples |
p-value: 0.005Regression, Logistic
p-value: 0.0595% CI: [0.99, 1.85]Regression, Logistic
p-value: 0.7195% CI: [0.75, 1.22]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes
The mean of the 24-item Gender Equitable Men scale measured endorsement of traditional gender norms and attitudes on gender inequity, validated in Tanzania and Ghana, with good reliability in African settings. Domains include violence, sexual relationships, reproductive health and disease prevention, and domestic chores and daily life items. Higher scores indicate more inequitable gender attitudes. Possible score range = 0=3
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | Baseline | 1.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.24 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | 7-months | 1.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.18 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | 10-months | 1.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.12 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | Baseline | 1.70 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.2 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | 7-months | 1.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.12 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Gender Inequitable Attitudes | 10-months | 1.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.09 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.008Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Joint Household Decision-making
Joint household decision-making was measured with four items from the Uganda DHS that ask respondents who primarily decides on: 1) how the money they earn is used; 2) how their spouses' earnings are used; 3) decisions about healthcare for yourself; and 4) decisions about major household purchases. Response options were recoded as self and partner jointly (1) vs. all other (0). A mean score was calculated for each time point with greater scores indicating more joint decision-making (range 0-1).
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | Baseline | 0.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.29 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | 7-months | 0.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.17 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | 10-months | 1.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | Baseline | 0.84 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.26 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | 7-months | 0.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.23 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Joint Household Decision-making | 10-months | 0.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.19 |
p-value: 0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.07Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives
Scale from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) aimed to assess knowledge of modern contraceptive methods; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Possible range 0-1, greater scores indicate more knowledge
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | Baseline | 0.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.32 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | 7-months | 0.99 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.26 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | 10-months | 1.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | Baseline | 0.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.22 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | 7-months | 0.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.15 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Knowledge of Contraceptives | 10-months | 0.59 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.16 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning
The mean of two items on the frequency of communication with one's partner about family planning found predictive of family planning in Uganda in prior research. Participants were asked, in the last 12 months, How often have you discussed the number of children you want with your partner? and How often have you discussed the spacing or timing of your/your partner's pregnancies with your partner. The four-point response options ranged from Never to Regularly. At the two follow-up time points, the same questions were asked with the timeframe, since the last interview. Higher scores indicate more communication. Possible scores range from 0.00-3.00.
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | Baseline | 1.89 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | 7-months | 2.84 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.34 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | 10-months | 2.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.48 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | Baseline | 1.82 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | 7-months | 1.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Partner Communication About Family Planning | 10-months | 0.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.7 |
p-value: 0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: 0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms
Scale adapted from the Family Planning Approval Index to assess the perceived acceptance of family planning and contraceptive use among partner, family, peers, and broader community; collected through interviewer-administered questionnaire. Scores range from 0-1 with greater scores indicating more positive perceived attitudes towards family planning among others
Time frame: Baseline, 7 and 10 months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | 7-months | 0.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.12 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | Baseline | 0.86 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.21 |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | 10-months | 0.95 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.13 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | Baseline | 0.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.21 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | 7-months | 0.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.36 |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Change in Perceived Family Planning Norms | 10-months | 0.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Number of Couples That Discontinued Use of a High Efficacy Contraceptive Method at 10-months Follow-up Among Those That Started Using a Method at 7-months Follow-up
Number of couples that discontinued use of a high efficacy contraceptive method at 10-months follow-up among those that started using a method at 7-months follow-up. High efficacy contraceptive methods are defined based on efficacy for typical use of methods (rather than perfect use), inclusive of pills, injection, intrauterine device, implant, tubal ligation, vasectomy; measured through women's self-report and validated through clinic records and men's self-report
Time frame: 7 and 10 months follow-up
Population: Number analyzes includes participants that began using a high efficacy contraceptive method at 7-months follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples That Discontinued Use of a High Efficacy Contraceptive Method at 10-months Follow-up Among Those That Started Using a Method at 7-months Follow-up | 2 Couples |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples That Discontinued Use of a High Efficacy Contraceptive Method at 10-months Follow-up Among Those That Started Using a Method at 7-months Follow-up | 3 Couples |
Secondary
Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy
Biological measure; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) rapid pregnancy tests taken by women at 10-months follow-up.
Time frame: 10-months follow-up
Population: Couple is the unit of analysis (one outcome per couple)
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy | Yes, unintended pregnancy | 1 Couple |
| Family Health = Family Wealth (FH=FW), Multilevel Family Planning Intervention | Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy | No unintended pregnancy | 34 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy | Yes, unintended pregnancy | 1 Couple |
| Time and Attention-matched Comparator Intervention (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) | Number of Couples With an Unintended Pregnancy | No unintended pregnancy | 34 Couple |