Determinants of Change in Fertility among Women in Rural Areas of Uganda

Abstract

Fertility among rural women in Uganda continues to decline. Studies on fertility in Uganda have focused on the overall fertility in the country. In this study, we focus on determinants of change in fertility among rural women in Uganda using a multivariate Poisson decomposition technique to quantify the contribution of changes in the socioeconomic and demographic composition of women which we also refer to as the characteristic effects and changes in their fertility behavior (the coefficients’ effects or risk of childbearing) to the overall reduction in fertility among women in rural areas during the 2006–2016 period. The “characteristics effects” are used to mean the effect of changing composition of women by the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics between 2006 and 2016. On the other hand, fertility behavior also presented as coefficients’ effects mean changes in the risk or likelihood of giving birth to children by the rural women between the two survey years. Our findings indicate that the mean number of children ever born (MCEB) reduced from 4.5 to 3.9 in 2006 and this reduction was associated with both the changes in composition of women and fertility behavior. The composition of women contributed to 42% while the fertility behavior contributed to 58% of the observed reduction. The education level attained and the age at first sex showed significant contributions on both components of the decomposition. The observed decline in fertility is largely associated with the variation in the risk of childbearing among the rural women. The variation in the risk of childbearing by education and age at first sex of the rural women showed to be the biggest contribution to the observed change in fertility. Continued improvements in access, attendance, and completion of secondary schools by women in rural areas will be the key drivers to Uganda’s overall transition to low fertility. Furthermore, with improved access to mass media in the rural areas, there can be changes in attitudes and large family size preferences which can create a conducive environment for the utilization of family planning services in the rural communities. Efforts should therefore focus on applying appropriate methods to deliver packaged family planning messages to these communities.

Sex differences and factors associated with disability among Ghana’s workforce: a nationally stratified cross-sectional study

“…18 Previous use of this method exist and has been applied in health research in Ghana 19 and elsewhere. [20][21][22] Stata V.16.1 was used to perform all analysis, and p value ≤0.05 was deemed significant.…”

Women’s experiences following emergency Peripartum hysterectomy at St. Francis hospital Nsambya. A qualitative study

“…The fear for the safety of their marriage of their marriage was so palpable. This is because in most Ugandan societies marriage equals to children, the current fertility rate as of 2019 was 5.4 children per woman [25] so not being able to have more children contributes significantly to the future of the marriage. Because of their inability to have more children these women reported being subjected to all forms of gender based violence such physical abuse, emotional abuse, deprivation of resources and sexual violence.…”

Reducing the unmet needs of family planning among women of reproductive age in Northern Region of Ghana

“…Inaccessibility of modern contraceptives to women is one of the barriers to the use and subsequently high level of fertility in Ghana (Ariho & Nzabona, 2019). In the region, both public and private sectors are strategically used in the distribution of FP product.…”

“…This yielded increase in contraceptive demand from 25% to 40% (Aryeetey et al, 2010;Thummalachetty et al, 2017). In Uganda used community based volunteers in outreach programmes to improve awareness of FP through the given of information; and this resulted in an increased use contraceptive and reduced pregnancy rates (Ariho & Nzabona, 2019). Generally community outreach is more cost effective compared to other means of interventions (Yusuf, 2014).…”