Does the Belief That Contraceptive Use Causes Infertility Actually Affect Use? Findings from a Social Network Study in Kenya

Abstract

The belief that contraceptive use causes infertility has been documented across sub-Saharan Africa, but its quantitative association with actual contraceptive use has not been examined. We collected and analyzed sociocentric network data covering  percent of the population in two villages in rural Kenya. We asked respondents to nominate people from their village (their network), and then we matched their network (alters) to the individual participant (ego) to understand how their beliefs and behaviors differ. We asked about contraceptive use and level of agreement with a statement about contraceptive use causing infertility. We calculated the average nominated network contraceptive use score and the average nominated network belief score. Holding the individual belief that contraceptive use causes infertility was associated with lower odds of using contraceptive (AOR = ., p = < .); however, when one's own nominated network connections held this belief, the odds of using contraceptive were even lower (AOR = ., p <.). Our findings show that this belief is associated with lower odds of contraceptive use and highlights the role that other people in one's network play in reinforcing it. Sexual and reproductive health programs should address this misperception at the individual and social network level.

Perceptions of peer contraceptive use and its influence on contraceptive method use and choice among young women and men in Kenya: a quantitative cross-sectional study

“…Existing evidence among young people supports that peers influence contraceptive use [33,35] and specifically condom use [42][43][44][45], but given that Kenya's contraceptive method mix among young people includes a range of methods, including implants, injectables and condoms, it is important to better understand if social influences are associated with method use and choice, including commonly used hormonal methods. Access to hormonal methods for young people is beneficial in that hormonal methods can provide longer term protection from pregnancy, are more reliable, may be more cost effective, and are more convenient as compared to coitally-dependent methods such as condoms or emergency contraception; however, barriers to use of hormonal methods are common, including the belief that contraceptives cause infertility as well as fear of real side effects [46]. In this context of high teenage pregnancy and substantial evidence on the role of social influences on contraceptive use among women of reproductive age, it is important to understand the role of social influences on contraceptive method choice among both young women and men.…”

Communication as the crucial link: Toward a multilevel approach to normative social influence

“…Mollborn, Domingue, and Boardman (2014a) determined the U. S. high schools' norm against teen pregnancy based on survey data of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found schools' norms to differ significantly. Sedlander et al (2021) created a more proximal collective norm of contraception use by aggregating participant's chosen social network (up to five people with whom they spend the most time). Such differences in collective norms across schools, communities, or countries reflect important collective-specific attributes that need to be considered in normative influences.…”

Is Health Misinformation Harmful? A Systematic Review of the Psychological and Behavioral Impact of Beliefs in and Exposure to Health Misinformation

“…Most of them (18 out of 26, 69.2%) found a negative relationship. Specifically, beliefs in health misinformation were associated with less contraceptive use (DeClerque et al, 1986;James-Hawkins & Broaddus, 2016;Sedlander et al, 2021), less condom use (Kalichman & Simbayi, 2004), and less COVID-19 preventive behaviors (e.g., wash hands, maintain social distance, wear masks) (Allington et al, 2021, study 1, 2 and 3; Barua et al, 2020;Bridgman et al, 2020;Hornik et al, 2021;Romer & Jamieson, 2020;Roozenbeek et al, 2020, study 2, 3 and 5;Sternisko et al, 2021, study 3;Teovanović et al, 2021;X. Wang et al, 2020).…”