Table 1 List of variables, descriptions and measurements for the trends of modern contraceptive utilization and decomposition analysis, 2019.
Variables | Descriptions/definition | Measurements |
|---|---|---|
Modern contraceptive utilization | The modern contraceptive utilization among reproductive-age women at the survey time helps calculate the proportion of women of reproductive age who were using a modern contraceptive method | A woman who was using any one of the modern contraceptive methods during the survey time was coded as “1”, and who was not used as “0” |
Age | Age of women in complete years at the interview time | Categorized for analysis into 15–19, 20–34, and 35–49 years |
Educational status | The highest level of education a woman has attained | Categorized into four groups: “No education”, “Primary”, “secondary”, and “More than secondary” |
Residence | Urban or rural residence of the women | Coded as (1) Urban (2) Rural |
Marital status | Marital status of women at the interview time | It is categorized into “Never married”, “Married or in union/relationship” and “Divorced/widowed” |
Number of times given live birth | The total number of live children a woman has given birth to in her life time | 0, 1, 2–3, 4–5, 6+ |
Number of living children at first FP use | The total number of children a woman had when she started utilizing her first contraceptive method | 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5+ |
Visited by the health worker | A woman was visited by HEW who talked about FP in the past 12 months | A woman who was visited by a health extension worker and talked about FP in the past 12 months was coded as yes “1” and no as “0” |
Staff spoke about FP methods at the facility visit | A woman was asked to know at her health facility visit if health workers (staff) spoke to her about family planning | A woman who visited a health facility and spoke about FP methods was coded as yes “1” and no as “0” |
Wealth quintiles | Household assets, home, land, and livestock ownership were assessed, and the wealth index was computed by using principal component analysis (PCA) | The wealth status was categorized into five groups: “Lowest quantile”, “Lower quantile”, “Middle quantile”, “Higher quantile”, and “Highest quantile” |
Region | The women were asked which Ethiopian region they belonged to during the interview | The women were categorized in to “Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromiya, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, South nation nationalities and peoples (SNNP), Gambella, Harari, Addis, and Diredawa” |
Community lifestyle | Based on the community’s lifestyle, the Ethiopian regions were categorized as pastoralist and agrarian | Accordingly, the pastoralist community way of life includes women from Afar and Somali coded as “0” and Agrarian communities include Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, Harari, Diredawa, Addis, Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz coded as “1”) |
