The Barriers to Fertility Regulation and Family Planning in Africa
Keywords:
Barriers, Fertility Regulation, Family PlanningAbstract
Background: Family planning is fundamental to social and economic development, as well as optimal reproductive health worldwide. Yet the contraceptive prevalence rate is extremely poor in least developed or developing countries.
Objective: To highlight the main barriers to contraceptive use in countries of Africa and the associated factors. In addition, it also sought to bring to the fore any linkage between low contraceptive prevalence rate and socio-economic development.
Methodology: Publications that x-rayed barriers to fertility regulation and contraceptive use in countries across Africa particularly review articles, institutional and community research from 1983 to 2016 were accessed electronically and manually. Publications with access to the full articles were deplored for the review, while publications that had access to the full articles denied were excluded.
Results: Array of barriers to contraceptive use or fertility regulations were identified and these appear to be on the increase. Religious, cultural and traditional barriers to contraception appear to be the leading factors responsible. Literacy on the other hand seem to promote the use of contraceptive methods through the self-recognition of the rights to access and use the methods of contraception for fertility regulation.
Conclusion: Countries across Africa have very low contraceptive prevalence rates, and a huge array of barriers to family planning and fertility regulations account for this. The lower the contraceptive prevalence rate, the higher the number of existing barriers to family planning methods. Social and economic development, as well as optimal reproductive health cannot be guaranteed without adequately addressing the barriers to Family Planning. In the developed world, most of these barriers have been overcome primarily by better awareness, the promotion of rights issues and the empowerment of potential users, particularly women.
Downloads
References
Why women who don't want to get pregnant don't use contraception. Popul Briefs 1995;1(2): 5.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/ 102539/1/9789241506748_eng.pdf ?ua=1
Kaiso G. Faith to Action Network, Rights in Sexual and Reproductive Health from an Anglican Perspective. Interview Series; 2: June 2014. National Population Commission (NPC) and ICF International 2014; Nigeria Demographic Health Survey 2013, Abuja Nigeria and Rockville Maryland, NPC and ICF Inte rnational, 2013. Fortier L. Cultural Barriers to FamilyPlan ning.
Gender Equity Health. November 14, 2013. TumlinsonaK,SpeizeraIS,ArchercLH,BehetsaF. Simulated clients reveal factors that may limit contraceptive use in Kisumu, Kenya. Global Health Sci Pract 2013; 1(3): 407-416.
WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank, 2010; WHO 2009, Guttmacher Inst itute 2010.
BongaartsJ.PopulationandDevelopmentReview, 1984; World Contraceptive Use 20 11, UN Population Division, 2011.
Darroch JE, Sedgh G, Ball H. Contraceptive Technologies: Responding to women's needs. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 20 11.
Carolyn Curtis C. Family Planning Programs and Services: Models, Modalities, and High Impact Practices for Meeting FP Need. FIGO Pre- Congress Workshop on Unmet Need for Family Planning. Rome, Italy, October 5, 2012.
Impact Practices for Meeting FP Need. FIGO Pre- Congress Workshop on Unmet Need for Family Planning. Rome, Italy, October 5, 2012.
World Health Organization (WHO) Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC), 2015 edition.
Www.nafdac.gov.ng/
Sebikali B. How Health Workers Influence Attitudes and Decisions about Family Planning http://www.intrahealth.org /blog/bonifacese bikali Intrah International. Posted on Februa ry 17, 2011.
Stidham KH, Moreau C, and Trussell J. "Dete rminants of and Disparities in Reproductive He alth Service Use among Adolescent and Young Adult Women in the United States, 2002-2008." Americ J Public Health 2012; 102(2): 359-367.
Wawan Gunawan Abdul Wahid. Muhamm adiyah and Family Planning. International Family planning Conference on Family Planning, Population Action International Health Families HealthyPlanet.InterviewSeriesNov.2015.
Ahmed Ragaa Abdel Hameed Ragab. Faith to Action Network. Islam and Family Planning Interview Series Issue 1 Feb 2014.
Nafis C. Islam and Family Planning. Intern ational
Family Planning Conference on Family Planning, Population Action International Healthy Families Healthy Planet. Interview Series Issue 1 Feb 2014.
Omideyi AK, Omoyeni ST. Gender-based violence and family planning practice in Nig eria: an exploration of the linkages between intimate partner violence and contraceptive use among ever married women. Uaps20 11.princeton.edu. Accessed 10th October 20 16.
Barriers to Fertility Regulation and Family Planning
bility and use in five developing Countries. Stud
Fam Plann 1983; 14(12 Pt 1): 302-317.
Bruce J. Fundamental elements of the quality of care: a simple framework. Stud Fam Plann 19 90;
(2): 61-91.
Shelton JD, Angle MA, Jacobstein RA. Medical
barriers to access family planning. Lancet. 1992 ;
(8831): 1334-1335.
Stanback J, Nutley T, Gitonga J. Qureshi Z. Men
struation requirements as a barrier to Contraceptive access in Kenya. East Afri Med J 1999; 76(3): 124-126.
Sullivan TM1, Bertrand JT, Rice J, Shelton JD. Skewed contraceptive method mix: why it happens, why it matters. J Biosoc Sci. 2006 Jul;38(4):501-21.
Batia P, Bird CE. Policy barriers to best practices: the impact of restrictive state regulation on access to long-acting reversible contraceptives. Commentary (Women's Health Issues). November 6th 2015, accessed 16th October 2016.
Policy Brief. Resource Requirements for Fam ily Planning in Ghana; September 2012; access ed 17th October 2016.
Rosenthal E. Nigeria Tested by Rapid Rise in Population, The New York Times. April 14, 20 12; accessed 16th October 2016
Nigeria Population Policy 1989.
Ross J, Stover J. Use of modern contracepti on
increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982-2009. Evidence on Contraceptive method mix in Developing Countries: South/South-East Asia; 2013.
Pariani S, Peer DM, Van Arsdol MD. Does choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from East Java. Stud Fam Plann1991; 22(6): 384- 390.
Pathfinder International. “Overcoming Socio- cultural Barriers, Myths and Misconceptions to Scale Up Family Planning Services. ”International Conference on Family Planning, Presentation at an interactive session, Addis Ababa 2013.
Agyei WK, Migadde M. Demographic and socio- cultural factors influencing contra ceptive use in Uganda. J Biosoc Sci 1995; 27(1): 47-60.
Mutihir JT, Guful F, Bicham R, Shikgak'ah CM, Pam VC, Daru PH, Nyango DD. Spousal Contribution to discontinuation of Implants in Jos. Proceedings of 47th Annual General & Scientific Conference, Lagos; 2013. Jos. Pro- ceedings of 47th Annual General & Scientific Conference, Lagos; 2013.
Bankole A. Desired fertility and fertility behavior among the Yoruba of Nigeria: A study of couple preferences and subsequent fertility, Population Studies 1995; 49(2): 317-328.
Casterline J, Perez AE, and Biddlecom AE. Factors underlying unmet need for family plan ning in the Philipines. Stud in Fam Plann. 1997; 28(3): 173- 191
Www.dictionary.com
Bertrand JT, Hardee K, Magnani RJ, Angle MA.
Access, quality of Care and Medical Barri ers in Family Planning Programs. Intern Fam Plann Pers; 1995; 21: 64-69 & 74.
Cornelius RM, Novac JA. Contraceptive availa
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The data collected from registered and non-registered users of this journal falls within the scope of the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. It includes information that makes communication possible for the editorial process; it is used to informs readers about the authorship and editing of content; it enables collecting aggregated data on readership behaviors, as well as tracking geopolitical and social elements of scholarly communication.
This journal’s editorial team uses this data to guide its work in publishing and improving this journal. Data that will assist in developing this publishing platform may be shared with its developer Public Knowledge Project in an anonymized and aggregated form, with appropriate exceptions such as article metrics. The data will not be sold by this journal or PKP nor will it be used for purposes other than those stated here. The authors published in this journal are responsible for the human subject data that figures in the research reported here.
Those involved in editing this journal seek to be compliant with industry standards for data privacy, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provision for “data subject rights” that include (a) breach notification; (b) right of access; (c) the right to be forgotten; (d) data portability; and (e) privacy by design. The GDPR also allows for the recognition of “the public interest in the availability of the data,” which has a particular saliency for those involved in maintaining, with the greatest integrity possible, the public record of scholarly publishing.
