Family planning desires of older adults (50 years and over) in Botswana

Figures & data

Table 1: Sample size allocation of study sample to health districts

Health district	Population size	Proposed sample size	Achieved sample size in the study
Gaborone	7 408	150	150
Selibe Phikwe	1 983	40	45
Kweneng East	9 676	196	207
Barolong	3 381	68	42
Total	22 448	454	444

Figure 1. Characteristics of sampled older female adults.

Figure 2: Family planning methods used beforehand.

Figure 3: FP methods older adults use now.

Table 2: Access to information on family planning methods

Have full access to information regarding quality family planning services	n	Mean	Sig. (2-tailed)	t	Std. error	Skewness		Kurtosis
						Statistic	Std. error	Statistic	Std. error
Condom	425	2.44	0	11.44	0.04	–0.27	0.12	–0.53	0.24
Intrauterine device (IUD)	414	2.34	0	6.42	0.05	0.22	0.12	–1.20	0.24
Combined oral contraceptives	415	2.29	0	5.46	0.05	0.22	0.12	–1.24	0.24
Progestogen-only pills	411	2.39	0	7.25	0.05	0.14	0.12	–1.27	0.24
Combined injectable contraceptives	408	2.43	0	7.67	0.06	0.13	0.12	–1.36	0.24
Female sterilisation	403	2.22	0	3.64	0.06	0.33	0.12	–1.47	0.24
Breastfeeding	412	2.53	0	11.05	0.05	–0.25	0.12	–0.94	0.24
Barrier methods	403	2.4	0	6.06	0.07	0.10	0.12	–1.74	0.24
Sterilisation	402	2.34	0	5.27	0.07	0.17	0.12	–1.72	0.24
Emergency contraception	396	2.27	0	3.99	0.07	0.28	0.12	–1.76	0.25
Abstinence	404	2.56	0	12.08	0.05	–0.40	0.12	–0.78	0.24
Withdrawal	398	2.32	0	5.24	0.06	0.15	0.12	–1.59	0.24
Observation of safe periods	401	2.34	0	5.47	0.06	0.15	0.12	–1.63	0.24

Table 3: Description of variables for multinomial logistic regression analysis

Dependent variable	Use family planning to prevent pregnancy	1 = No; 2 = Yes; 3 = Don't know
Independent Variables	Age (completed years)	1 = 50–59; 2 = 60–69; 3 = 70–79; 4 = 80–89; 5 = 90 and above
	Marital status	1 = Single/cohabiting; 2 = Married; 3 = Divorced/Separated; 4 = Widowed
	Employment status	1 = Employed 2 = Retired 3 = Unemployed (but not seeking employment) 4 = Unemployed (but seeking employment) 5 = Housewife
	Educational status	1 = No schooling 2 = Primary certificate 3 = Secondary certificate 4 = Diploma and degree

Table 4: Multinomial logistic regression analysis tests

Likelihood ratio tests
Effect	Model fitting criteria	Likelihood ratio tests
	–2 log likelihood of reduced model	Chi-square	df	Sig.
Intercept	295.309	0	0	.
Employment status	316.704	21.394	8	0.006
Age of women	312.388	17.079	8	0.029
Marital status	305.161	9.851	6	0.131
Educational Qualification	304.417	9.108	6	0.168

Table 5: Multinomial logistic regression model

Reference category  = Don't know	Effect	B	df	Sig.	Exp(B)
Yes	Intercept	19.012	1	0.994
	Employed	–1.588	1	0.194	0.204
	Retired	–2.13	1	0.108	0.119
	Unemployed (but not seeking employment)	–1.479	1	0.232	0.228
	Unemployed (but seeking employment)	14.382	1	0.995	1762244
	Housewife (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	50–59	–16.926	1	0.995	4.46
	60–69	–17.738	1	0.995	1.98
	70–79	–1.26	1	1	0.284
	80–89	–1.822	1	0.156	0.162
	90 and above (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	Single/cohabiting	1.538	1	0.056	4.657
	Married	1.351	1	0.073	3.861
	Divorced/separated	1.277	1	0.304	3.586
	Widowed (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	No schooling	0.228	1	0.801	1.256
	Primary certificate	0.853	1	0.38	2.347
	Secondary certificate	–0.09	1	0.916	0.914
	Diploma and degree (reference category)	0	0	.	.
No	Intercept	17.099	1	0.995
	Employed	–0.548	1	0.648	0.578
	Retired	–1.19	1	0.358	0.304
	Unemployed (but not seeking employment)	0.093	1	0.939	1.097
	Unemployed (but seeking employment)	15.28	1	0.994	4326402
	Housewife (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	50–59	–16.067	1	0.995	1.05
	60–69	–16.097	1	0.995	1.02
	70–79	0.036	1	1	1.037
	80–89	0.287	1	1	1.332
	90 and above (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	Single/cohabiting	1.369	1	0.075	3.93
	Married	1.703	1	0.017	5.491
	Divorced/separated	1.784	1	0.135	5.957
	Widowed (reference category)	0	0	.	.
	No schooling	1.235	1	0.158	3.439
	Primary certificate	1.514	1	0.11	4.546
	Secondary certificate	0.689	1	0.395	1.992
	Diploma and degree (reference category)	0	0	.	.