Open Access

Reproductive health services for refugees by refugees in Guinea I: family planning

  • Natasha Howard1Email author,
  • Sarah Kollie2,
  • Yaya Souare2,
  • Anna von Roenne3,
  • David Blankhart3,
  • Claire Newey1,
  • Mark I Chen1 and
  • Matthias Borchert1
Conflict and Health20082:12

DOI: 10.1186/1752-1505-2-12

Received: 28 July 2008

Accepted: 16 October 2008

Published: 16 October 2008

Abstract

Background

Comprehensive studies of family planning (FP) in refugee camps are relatively uncommon. This paper examines gender and age differences in family planning knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Sierra Leonean and Liberian refugees living in Guinea.

Methods

In 1999, a cross-sectional survey was conducted of 889 reproductive-age men and women refugees from 48 camps served by the refugee-organised Reproductive Health Group (RHG). Sampling was multi-stage with data collected for socio-demographics, family planning, sexual health, and antenatal care. Statistics were calculated for selected indicators.

Results

Women knew more about FP, although men's education reduced this difference. RHG facilitators were the primary source of reproductive health information for all respondents. However, more men then women obtained information from non-health sources, such as friends and media. Approval of FP was high, significantly higher in women than in men (90% vs. 70%). However, more than 40% reported not having discussed FP with their partner. Perceived service quality was an important determinant in choosing where to get contraceptives. Contraceptive use in the camps served by RHG was much higher than typical for either refugees' country of origin or the host country (17% vs. 3.9 and 4.1% respectively), but the risk of unwanted pregnancy remained considerable (69%).

Conclusion

This refugee self-help model appeared largely effective and could be considered for reproductive health needs in similar settings. Having any formal education appeared a major determinant of FP knowledge for men, while this was less noticeable for women. Thus, FP communication strategies for refugees should consider gender-specific messages and channels.

Background

Reproductive health programming is never easy, but provision of effective care to populations affected by conflict and complex emergencies poses special challenges [1, 2]. The International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) and the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995) marked a policy shift for both reproductive health and refugee health. The definition of reproductive health became more comprehensive, emphasising the reproductive health needs and rights of the underserved, particularly refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) [35]. However, despite strengthened international interest and policy frameworks, implementation remains difficult and quality research is minimal [24, 611]. Published studies have concentrated on refugees in more developed countries or stable camp settings.

Globally, refugees and IDPs number over 32.9 million [6], and "reproductive health needs do not disappear upon displacement" [4]. Relief efforts have traditionally focused on acute-phase survival, including HIV prevention and basic emergency obstetric care [7]. However, reproductive health spans relief and development and is essential for long-term survival [7, 8]. This is particularly true of contraceptive services, whose functioning requires sufficient staff training, counselling skills and supplies, and client trust that service quality is good and supplies will continue. In many camp settings, fertility rates and gender-based violence increase, and maternal and neonatal mortality can be high [7, 9]. For example, a World Health Organisation (WHO) study estimated 25–50% of maternal mortality among refugees as due to unsafe abortion, indicating considerable unmet need for contraception [10]. Implementing agencies now recognise the need to provide contraceptive services. However, despite moves to improve provision, barriers to access and acceptability remain [1114].

Setting

From 1989 to 2004, conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone displaced over 500,000 people into the Forest Region of neighbouring Guinea [15]. While many Liberians returned home following elections in 1997, civil war in Sierra Leone lasted until 2002. Two major refugee influxes in 1991 and 1997–98 challenged the already weakened Guinean health services, still recovering from disastrous economic and political conditions under Sekou Touré. Following the 1986 Bamako Initiative, Guinea's new government initiated major health sector reforms, encouraging non-governmental agencies to support health service development. Guinea's Ministry of Health responded to refugee health needs through the "Programme d'assistance aux réfugiés Libériens et Sierra Léonais" (PARLS), which soon became an integral part of the health system. Refugees received free treatment from Guinean health services, reimbursed by UNHCR on a fee-for-service basis. However, refugees sometimes perceived government reproductive and sexual health services as deficient. For example, Liberian and Sierra Leonean women had access to family planning (FP) in their home countries, but in Guinean health centres such services were only introduced in 1992.

In 1995, a group of refugee midwives and interested women organised the 'Reproductive Health Group' (RHG) to improve on the local services available to their fellow refugees in Guéckédou and Kissidougou prefectures. RHG was supported by GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) for refugee health by refugees. It was based on the innovative concept of rallying expertise within refugee communities to address their own sexual and reproductive health needs. RHG mobilised refugee expertise by recruiting and seconding refugee nurses and midwives to local Guinean health facilities, and training refugee lay women to provide reproductive health education, referrals, and contraceptives for the refugee community. RHG used drama groups to reach those less likely to access facilities or RHG facilitators, particularly young people and men. RHG achieved good coverage in Guéckédou and Kissidougou camps (e.g. antenatal services covered 56% of reproductive-age women). Table 1 summarises the RHG programme, while details are published elsewhere [14, 16].
Table 1

RHG model summary

Staff

Management: 1 coordinator, 1 deputy coordinator, 1 youth coordinator.

Support: 4 supervisors, 1 data officer, 1 finance officer, 1 part-time expatriate advisor (GTZ).

Frontline: 36 nurse/midwives, 75 RHG facilitators, 14 youth/drama groups.

Staff training

Safe motherhood, FP, syndromic STI management, HIV prevention.

Organisational development

RHG management team was coached by GTZ in NGO internal governance issues, human resource management, project management, monitoring and evaluation, health information systems, survey design, implementation and evaluation.

Supplies

Contraceptives: oral, injectible, IUD, condoms, and spermicide supplied through health facilities.

STI drugs: antibiotics for refugees from UNHCR, supplied through health facilities.

Other: transport (2 pickups, 2 motorbikes), office and audio/visual equipment from GTZ.

Funding

Approximately USD 164,000 annually (1999).

Partners

GTZ (core funding, organisational development, technical assistance), ARC (training, funding some facilitators), UNHCR (refugee services coordination, reimbursement of Guinean health services for refugees), Guinean MoH (health facilities).

Activities

Health service based: Female refugee nurses and midwives, seconded to 28 Guinean health facilities used by refugees, provided services to refugees and Guineans.

Community based: RHG facilitators provided information, contraceptives (condoms, spermicide) and referral. Theatre groups and youth clubs provided information and entertainment.

Goal

RH professionals and motivated community volunteers enabled to plan, provide and evaluate sexual and reproductive health services for their fellow refugees.

Impact

Improved RH service provision in Forest Region, increased contraceptive usage and STI prevention and treatment, and became an important actor in the health sector (RHG represented 'best practice' and 'worthy of study' – WHO consultant [16]).

Source: von Roenne et al [14].

Objectives

RHG health education and services appeared to reach women effectively. However, workers were concerned about their effectiveness in reaching men and adolescents, which has been found to be problematic elsewhere [12, 1727]. In 1999, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in the refugee population to gather population-level data on reproductive health knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) for use in strengthening RHG's implementation. The survey collected data on demographics, family planning, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV, antenatal and obstetric care. Study objectives included the assessment of gender or age differences in reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices, which might warrant different approaches for these target groups. This paper addresses gender and age differences in family planning, while STIs are addressed in the companion paper [28].

Methods

Study design

The study this paper is drawn from was a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based interview survey on sexual and reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The target population was reproductive-age male and female refugees (15 to 49) from an estimated population of 250,000 living in 48 camps across the Forest Region of Guinea, covered by RHG activities for four years. Two planned follow-up surveys were abandoned due to political changes and camp closures.

Sampling was multi-stage. First, 45 clusters of households were randomly selected from the 48 camps, with probability of selection proportional to camp size. Second, a stratified sample of ten men and ten women per cluster (i.e. one eligible man or woman from each of twenty households) was randomly selected from household lists. Sample size was calculated to detect a difference of 10% versus 20% between strata of equal size with 80% power and 95% confidence interval, accounting for clustering. Participation was voluntary, with no payments other than reimbursement of travel costs made. The study received ethical clearance from the Ministry of Public Health in Guinea and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK.

Data collection

The questionnaire was designed from instruments used in similar settings and piloted in a camp not included in the study. Several sections covered socio-demographic information, family planning, sexual health, and antenatal care (only for female interviewees). The questionnaire was intended for use in English, and if respondents were not sufficiently fluent, the interviewer translated directly into local language. Questions were read verbatim to ensure reliability, and only rephrased if a respondent did not understand. Interviewers were recruited from the refugee community, and were always the same sex as respondents. A four-day training course and instruction manual were given to all interviewers, covering aspects such as privacy, prompting and translations. Data collection and entry were conducted over four weeks in 1999. Three contact attempts were made before classification as absent and replacement with another household or individual. Data collection and entry were completed within the study period. Data was double-entered in Epi-Info™ 6, with range and consistency checks to reduce transposition error.

Data analysis

Analysis was conducted using Stata® 10.0. Family planning outcomes were explored for associations with gender and age, using chi-squared tests and Mantel Haenszel odds ratios as appropriate. Potential confounders were determined based on independent association with exposure and outcome variables (i.e. significant at p < 0.05). Confounders that changed odds ratios by at least 10% were incorporated into logistic regression models, which accounted for clustering using robust standard errors. Effect modifiers were reported individually if they changed the effect of exposure on outcome significantly between strata, as determined by Wald test.

Results

Demographics

The response rate exceeded 95% and the final sample analysed was 889 (445 men and 444 women). Household lists indicated the sexes were represented equally in the study population, and weighting was deemed unnecessary despite stratified sampling by sex. About 60% of respondents were under age 30, with women significantly younger than men. Most refugees (97%) were from Sierra Leone, and at the time of interview, more than half had arrived in camp within the past three years (i.e. after 1996). Sixty percent of men, but only 29% of women had received some formal schooling. Almost all (91%) were sexually experienced. Women were more likely to be married, and 32% reported their husband as having more than one wife. Women were significantly younger than men at marriage (mean age 16 years versus 24 years for men) and at first intercourse (mean 17 years versus 19 for men). See Table 2 for more.
Table 2

Demographic characteristics stratified by gender

Variable

Category

Male (%)

Female (%)

X2p-value

All respondents:

445 (100)

444 (100)

 

Age

15–19

103 (23)

104 (23)

 

20–29

141 (32)

189 (43)

 

30–39

140 (31)

118 (27)

 

40–49

61 (14)

33 (7)

0.001

Country of origin

Sierra Leone

436 (98)

432 (97)

 

Liberia

7 (2)

12 (3)

 

Other

2 (0)

0 (0)

0.19

Arrival in camp

Before 1996

202 (45)

188 (42)

 

1996 or later

243 (55)

256 (58)

0.36

Education

No formal education

181 (41)

316 (71)

 

Some formal education

264 (59)

128 (29)

<0.001

Religion

Catholic

82 (18)

88 (20)

 

Protestant

173 (39)

184 (41)

 

Muslim

190 (43)

172 (39)

0.49

Age at first penetrative sex

15 years or less

113 (25)

228 (51)

 

16 years or older

269 (61)

185 (42)

 

Unknown

10 (2)

5 (1)

 

Never

53 (12)

26 (6)

<0.001

Marital status

Never married

170 (38)

69 (16)

 

Currently married

251 (56)

320 (72)

<0.001

Widowed/Separated

24 (6)

55 (12)

 

Risk of unplanned pregnancy*

No

141 (32)

132 (30)

 

Yes

304 (68)

312 (70)

0.53

Ever married respondents

n = 275 (100)

n = 375 (100)

 

Polygyny

Respondent or husband has other wife/wives

58 (21)

120 (32)

0.002

Residence of partner

Living together in camp

237 (86)

275 (73)

<0.001

Age at marriage+[29]

10 or under

0 (0)

12 (3)

 

11–17

16 (6)

265 (71)

 

18–29

220 (80)

96 (26)

 

30+

39 (14)

1 (0)

<0.001

Female respondents

--

n = 444 (100)

 

Parity

Nulliparous

--

84 (19)

 

Parous

--

360 (81)

--

Parous female respondents

n = 360 (100)

 

Living children (women)

None

--

36 (10)

 

1–3 children living in household

--

258 (72)

 

4–8 children living in household

--

66 (18)

--

* Those considered at risk for unplanned pregnancy were all those who were between 15–45, had a partner living in camp, reported no contraceptive use, and were not trying to have a child. +Based on WHO definition of adolescence (10–18).

Family planning

Table 3 shows family planning knowledge, attitude and practice variables stratified by gender. Family planning as a concept could be explained by most study participants (male 66%, female 88%, p < 0.001), but about one-third could not identify a contraceptive method (Table 3a). The mean number of modern methods known by women and men were 1.9 and 1.2 respectively, with condoms and pills most recognised. Except for condoms, which more men identified (61% versus 43%), a significantly higher proportion of women identified each contraceptive method (p < 0.001).
Table 3

Family planning knowledge, attitudes and reported practices, by gender

Variables

Category

Male (%)

Female (%)

X2p-value

a) Knowledge

All respondents:

n = 445 (100)

n = 444 (100)

 

Can explain FP

Yes

294 (66)

389 (88)

 

Not sure

151 (34)

55 (12)

<0.001

No. of FP methods known (excluding traditional methods)

None

144 (32)

132 (30)

 

1–2 methods

241 (54)

159 (36)

 

3–5 methods

60 (14)

153 (34)

<0.001

Methods identified w/o probing (multiple answers possible)

Condom

269 (60)

192 (43)

<0.001

Pill

168 (38)

272 (61)

<0.001

Injection

68 (15)

206 (46)

<0.001

Spermicide

13 (3)

85 (19)

<0.001

IUD

19 (4)

77 (17)

<0.001

Other (i.e. traditional methods)

49 (11)

77 (17)

0.23

Methods identified with probing (multiple answers possible)

Condom

407 (91)

404 (91)

0.8

Pill

321 (72)

406 (91)

<0.001

Injection

250 (56)

373 (84)

<0.001

Spermicide

100 (22)

211 (48)

<0.001

IUD

110 (25)

228 (51)

<0.001

Respondents who explained FP

n = 294 (100)

n = 389 (100)

 

Key FP information source

RHG facilitators

197 (67)

262 (67)

 

Health workers

55 (19)

95 (24)

 

Friends and family

17 (6)

20 (5)

 

Drama groups

14 (5)

11 (3)

 

Radio

6 (2)

0 (0)

 

Other/Unknown

5 (2)

1 (0)

0.006

b) Attitude

Category

Male

Female

X 2 p-value

All respondents

n = 445 (100)

n = 444 (100)

 

Attitude to couples using FP

Approve

326 (73)

396 (89)

 

Disapprove

95 (21)

40 (9)

 

Don't know

24 (5)

8 (2)

<0.001

Attitude to RHG facilitators providing FP info

Approve

334 (75)

405 (91)

 

Disapprove

91 (20)

33 (7)

 

Don't know

20 (5)

6 (2)

<0.001

Attitude to FP teaching (to boys)

Before age 15

59 (13)

84 (19)

 

Around age 15

155 (35)

200 (45)

 

Later than age 15

120 (27)

102 (23)

 

Disapprove/Don't know

111 (25)

58 (13)

<0.001

Attitude to FP teaching (to girls)

Before age 15

158 (36)

223 (50)

 

Around age 15

111 (25)

117 (26)

 

Later than age 15

66 (15)

50 (11)

 

Disapprove/Don't know

110 (25)

54 (12)

<0.001

Respondents currently with partner

n = 251 (100)

n = 320 (100)

 

Partner's attitude to couples using FP

Partner approves

163 (65)

190 (59)

 

Partner disapproves

60 (24)

54 (17)

 

Don't know partner's attitude

28 (11)

76 (24)

<0.001

c) Practice

Category

Male

Female

X 2 p-value

All respondents

n = 445 (100)

n = 444 (100)

 

Reported use of contraception

Never

260 (58)

251 (57)

 

Past

78 (18)

77 (17)

 

Current

107 (24)

116 (26)

0.77

Use by respondent/partner (multiple answers possible)

Ever used condoms

164 (37)

41 (9)

<0.001

Ever used pills

71 (16)

116 (26)

<0.001

Ever used injections

25 (6)

70 (16)

<0.001

Ever used spermicides

12 (3)

17 (4)

<0.001

Ever used IUDs

1 (0)

5 (1)

<0.001

Contraceptives currently used (multiple answers possible)

Condoms

85 (19)

14 (3)

<0.001

Pills

32 (7)

59 (13)

<0.001

Injections

12 (3)

43 (10)

<0.001

Spermicide

0 (0)

2 (0)

--

IUD

0 (0)

0 (0)

--

Respondents currently with partner

n = 251 (100)

n = 320 (100)

 

Discussion of FP with partner

Never

108 (43)

143 (45)

 

1–2 times in last 12 months

68 (27)

98 (30)

 

More than twice in last 12 months

75 (30)

79 (25)

0.35

Current users

n= 107 (100)

n= 116 (100)

 

Where current users access FP

Health post/Clinic

68 (64)

106 (92)

 

RHG facilitators

30 (28)

5 (4)

 

Any other locations

9 (8)

5 (4)

<0.001

Why FP source was chosen (multiple answers)

Quality-more privacy

84 (80)

106 (91)

 

Quality-competent staff

86 (82)

97 (84)

 

Quality-friendly staff

82 (78)

94 (81)

 

Cost-cheaper

75 (71)

99 (85)

 

Convenience-closer to home

73 (70)

71 (61)

 

Quality-better product

65 (62)

75 (65)

 

Convenience-shorter wait

66 (63)

71 (61)

 

Quality-cleaner facility

57 (54)

67 (58)

 

Convenience-use other services

44 (42)

80 (69)

 

Quality-only available there

41 (38)

52 (45)

 

Convenience-opening hours

40 (38)

46 (40)

 

Convenience-closer to work/market

28 (27)

28 (24)

--

Current non-users

n = 338 (100)

n = 328 (100)

 

Main reason for non-use of modern contraception

Fertility related*

213 (63)

261 (80)

 

Opposed to use

82 (24)

27 (8)

 

Method related

22 (6)

32 (10)

 

Provider related

12 (4)

7 (2)

 

Lack of knowledge

9 (3)

1 (0)

<0.001

Expected future contraceptive use

Never

83 (25)

45 (14)

 

Later/Don't know

206 (61)

240 (73)

 

Within next 12 months

49 (14)

43 (13)

0.001

Current non-users, opposed to FP use

 

n = 82 (100)

n = 27 (100)

 

Religion opposed (all)

45 (55)

7 (26)

 

(Muslim)

41(-)

7(-)

 

Respondent opposed

22 (27)

8 (30)

 

Partner opposed

12 (14)

11 (41)

 

Family opposed

3 (4)

1 (4)

0.02

*abstaining, pregnant, lactating, unable or trying to conceive

Female respondents were almost five times more likely to know about family planning concepts and methods than were male respondents (OR 4.8, robust 95% confidence interval 2.9–7.9, adjusted for age, ever married and education). Among those with formal education women had three times higher odds of knowing what family planning was (OR 3.0, robust 95% confidence interval 1.4–6.3, adjusted for age and ever married). Among those with no formal schooling, this difference rose to over six times greater odds (OR 6.4, 3.6–11.1, adjusted for age and ever married). Although the association was only weakly significant (Wald test p-value = 0.07), this suggests that formal education increased the likelihood that men would know about family planning concepts, reducing the knowledge gap between the genders.

RHG facilitators were cited as the main family planning information source for respondents who knew about family planning (67%), though men and women appeared to access health information differently (p < 0.01). While 91% of women and 86% of men got their health information from RHG staff or health facilities, men were more likely than women to get information from friends, radio, and RHG dramas (15% versus 8%).

More than 70% of men and about 90% of women approved of couples using family planning and of RHG facilitators providing information (Table 3b). However, over 40% of respondents reported never having discussed family planning with their partners. Forty-three percent of respondents considered that girls should receive family planning information before age 15, while only 16% felt this to be appropriate for boys. Women responded significantly more positively to attitude questions than did men (p < 0.001), but almost a quarter of women reported not knowing their partner's attitude to family planning. Among respondents who knew what family planning was, women were more than eight times more likely than men were to approve of couples using contraception (OR 8.7, 3.8–20.0, adjusted for education and partner approval of family planning).

More than half of respondents reported never having used modern contraception, and only a quarter identified themselves as current users (Table 3c). Condoms, oral contraceptives, and injections were the most popular. Over 75% of users obtained contraceptives from health facilities. The three main reasons users chose a particular contraceptive source were related to service quality (i.e. privacy, staff competence, staff friendliness). Both women (80%) and men (63%) reported main reasons for not using contraceptives as 'fertility related' (e.g. abstaining, pregnant, lactating, unable or trying to conceive). Opposition to contraceptive use was reported by 24% of men versus 8% of women (p < 0.001). Of those opposed to using contraception, 55% of men and 26% of women, predominantly Muslims, reported this as due to religion (p = 0.02). Among current non-users, odds of expected future contraceptive use were approximately twice as high for women as men (OR 2.19, 1.4–3.5, adjusted for age, education, and ever married).

Over 90% of respondents knew where to access contraceptives, with women slightly more knowledgeable about were to get the pill. Women and men identified at least one correct source for an average of 3.6 and 2.5 contraceptive methods respectively (i.e. condom, pill, injection, IUD, spermicide).

Knowledge of family planning as a concept and approval of couples using family planning did not differ significantly between respondents who were younger or older than 20 years, though knowledge was slightly better among older respondents (OR 1.7, 0.8–3.7, adjusted for parity and ever having married) [29]. Contraceptive use was more frequent in the older age group (OR = 1.5, 1.3–1.8, adjusted for parity and presence of partner in camp).

Those who reported RHG facilitators as their primary information source had non-significantly higher odds of approving of couples using family planning (OR = 1.8, 0.7–4.2, adjusted for parity) and to be current users of contraception (OR = 1.3, 0.7–2.6, adjusted for parity, education, and partner approval of FP). These respondents also had significantly higher odds of discussing family planning with their partners (OR = 2.2, 1.2–3.8, adjusted for parity and education).

Discussion

Implications

Comprehensive studies of reproductive health issues among refugees are still relatively rare. This study enabled insight into the influence of gender on family planning knowledge, attitudes and practices in a camp setting. It supports previous findings that men's education helps to increase family planning awareness and attitudes in the way women's life experience (or parity) appears to do [3032]. Additional research is necessary on effective ways of targeting men, and improving their reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices in refugee settings.

Findings indicate that RHG clients knew more about family planning, and were more likely to approve of and use contraceptives. The consistency of positive associations between RHG activities and knowledge, attitude and practices for family planning and sexually transmitted disease indicators [28] suggests that RHG's model (i.e. involving refugee women as active members in a refugee self-help organisation that trained and supported them to provide education and contraceptives to their community) was effective and could possibly be replicated in similar conflict-affected settings [1, 11, 14].

Limitations

Cross-sectional studies, while enabling exploration of multiple outcomes and exposures, are limited by potential reverse causality as explanatory and outcome variables are measured at the same point in time (e.g. better family planning knowledge may result from attending RHG activities, or RHG attendance might result from better knowledge). Possible reporting and observer bias was minimised through surveyor training and questionnaire piloting. Residual confounding is possible, due to lack of data on certain variables (e.g. socio-economic status, desired family size, gender-based violence), which could influence family planning choices. Chance was reduced using robust standard errors.

Gender and age differences

Education appears a major determinant of men's family planning knowledge, but not of women's knowledge or attitudes. Women were younger and less well educated, yet knew more about family planning and contraceptives. Women are often seen as primarily responsible for family planning, and targeted by reproductive health programming [17]. Possibly, the skills men develop through education enable them to seek knowledge and develop informed opinions on topics to which they might not be exposed otherwise. Additional education may change men's attitude towards gender relations. They may want women as partners who are "more than mothers" [14]. Thus, women's greater ability to contribute to household income could be a reason why men expressed support of family planning and girls' education. Men prioritised non-healthcare information sources, such as radio and dramas, supporting suggestions that men tend to access family planning information in non-health settings [2426]. It appeared that women respondents learned about family planning through life experience, as knowledge was not significantly influenced by education or exposure to RHG activities (using "time in camp" as proxy). Parity could be a catalyst, as parous women appeared significantly more knowledgeable about family planning than nulliparous women did (p < 0.001). Parity also meant exposure to RHG information during antenatal services.

High reported approval of family planning (80% of respondents) did not correspond with current usage (25%). Main reasons reported for non-use were fertility related (71%). However, usage was much higher than typical for West Africa. UN estimated use of current modern contraceptives for 16 West African countries was 7.9%, with Sierra Leone and Guinea at 3.9% and 4.1% respectively, while RHG's contraceptive coverage was 17% [14, 27]. It is difficult to assess whether use was higher in this population because of greater need or better access, but this relatively high coverage supports the value of RHG's work. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that there was still considerable unmet need for contraception and risk of unplanned pregnancy (69%). Interestingly, only 3.5% of non-users reported the barrier of 'partner opposition' noted in the literature [19, 21, 33]. It is worth noting that respondents rated quality issues higher than cost or distance when choosing contraceptive services.

Findings indicate that adolescents knew somewhat less about family planning, and sexually active young people were somewhat less likely to use contraception, than adults [29]. However, while results suggest additional attention should be given to adolescent reproductive health, fewer age than gender related disparities were found.

Analysis indicates disparities in family planning knowledge and approval between men and women refugees. Given that refugee men know significantly less about family planning and accessed information through peer networks and mass media as well as healthcare providers, communication strategies on family planning in refugee settings could have greater reach with gender-specific messages and communication channels [17, 18, 26]. The international community should support operational research, involving knowledgeable members of the refugee community, on the best methods of supporting men's utilisation of reproductive health and family planning services within their communities [20, 22, 23].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the cooperation and kindness of interviewees, without whom this research would not have been possible. Thanks to local staff and workers, particularly data manager and field supervisors. We wish to acknowledge local authorities, GTZ Guinea and UNHCR for their support, and GTZ for providing funding. Special thanks to John Cleland (LSHTM) for reviewing an earlier version of this paper and to Simon Cousens (LSHTM) for assistance with regression analysis.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)
(2)
Reproductive Health Group (RHG)
(3)
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

References

  1. McGinn T, Purdin S: Editorial: Reproductive health and conflict: looking back and moving ahead. Disasters. 2004, 28: 235-238. 10.1111/j.0361-3666.2004.00255.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. McGinn T: Reproductive health of war-affected populations: what do we know?. International Family Planning Perspectives. 2000, 26: 174-180. 10.2307/2648255.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns K, Male S, Pierotti D: The Reproductive Health of Refugees. International Family Planning Perspectives. 2000, 26: 161-10.2307/2648252.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Schreck L: Turning point: A special report on the refugee reproductive health field. International Family Planning Perspectives. 2000, 26: 162-166. 10.2307/2648253.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Alcala M: Action for the 21st Century: Reproductive Health and Rights for All. ICPD. 1994Google Scholar
  6. UNHCR: 2006 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons. 2006, Geneva: Division of Operational Services, Field Information and Coordination Support SectionGoogle Scholar
  7. Ogata S: Refugee women: the forgotten half. Our Planet. 1995, 7: 19-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kollie S, von Roenne F, Blankhart D: Readers' Forum: Humanitarian assistance should include aspects of sexuality. Bulletin of the WHO. 1999, 77: 1020.Google Scholar
  9. Bartlett LA, Jamieson DJ, Kahn T, Sultana M, Wilson HG, Duerr A: Maternal mortality among Afghan refugees in Pakistan, 1999–2000. Lancet. 2002, 359: 643-649. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07808-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen S: The reproductive health needs of refugees: emerging consensus attracts predictable controversy. Guttmacher Rep Public Policy. 1998, 1: 10-12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. IAWG: Inter-agency global evaluation of reproductive health services for refugees and internally displaced persons. 2004, Geneva: UNHCRGoogle Scholar
  12. Degni F, Koivusilta L, Ojanlatva A: Attitudes towards and perceptions about contraceptive use among married refugee women of Somali descent living in Finland. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2006, 11: 190-196. 10.1080/13625180600557605.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Whelan A, Blogg J: 'Halfway people': Refugee views of reproductive health services. Global Public Health. 2007, 2: 373-394. 10.1080/17441690701267048.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. von Roenne A, Von Roenne F, Kollie S, Swaray Y, Sondorp E, Borchert M: Reproductive Health Services for Refugees by Refugees: An example from Guinea. Disasters.
  15. Van Damme W, De Brouwere V, Boelaert M, Van Lerberghe W: Effects of a refugee-assistance programme on host population in Guinea as measured by obstetric interventions. Lancet. 1998, 351: 1609-1613. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10348-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Msuya D: Report on Assessment of Reproductive Health Services for Adolescent Refugees in Guinea's Forest Region. WHO. 1999Google Scholar
  17. Collumbien M, Hawkes S: Missing messages: does the reproductive health approach respond to men's sexual health needs?. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2000, 2: 135-150. 10.1080/136910500300769.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Chikamata D: Male needs and responsibilities in family planning and reproductive health. Plan Parent Chall. 1996, 2: 8-10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Donati S, Hamam R, Medda E: Family planning KAP survey in Gaza. Soc Sci Med. 2000, 50: 841-849. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00339-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hossain MB, Phillips JF, Mozumder AB: The effect of husbands' fertility preferences on couples' reproductive behaviour in rural bangladesh. J Biosoc Sci. 2007, 39: 745-757. 10.1017/S0021932006001696.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaggwa EB, Diop N, Storey JD: The role of individual and community normative factors: a multilevel analysis of contraceptive use among women in union in Mali. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008, 34: 79-88. 10.1363/3407908.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mullany BC, Becker S, Hindin MJ: The impact of including husbands in antenatal health education services on maternal health practices in urban Nepal: results from a randomized controlled trial. Health Educ Res. 2007, 22: 166-176. 10.1093/her/cyl060.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mumtaz Z, Salway SM: Gender, pregnancy and the uptake of antenatal care services in Pakistan. Sociol Health Illn. 2007, 29: 1-26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Odu OO, Ijadunola KT, Komolafe JO, Adebimpe WT: Men's knowledge of and attitude with respect to family planning in a suburban Nigerian community. Niger J Med. 2006, 15: 260-265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadeghipour Roudsari HR, Sherafat-Kazemzadeh R, Rezaeie M, Derakhshan M: Reproductive health knowledge, attitudes and practices of Iranian and Afghan men in Tehran Province. East Mediterr Health J. 2006, 12: 862-872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sternberg P, Hubley J: Evaluating men's involvement as a strategy in sexual and reproductive health promotion. Health Promotion International. 2004, 19: 389-396. 10.1093/heapro/dah312.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. UN Population Division: World Contraceptive Use 2003. 2004, United Nations Department of Economic and Social AffairsGoogle Scholar
  28. Chen M, von Roenne A, Souare Y, von Roenne F, Ekirapa A, Howard N, Borchert M: Reproductive health services for refugees by refugees in Guinea II: sexually transmitted infections. Conflict & Health in press.
  29. UNICEF: Innocenti Digest No 7. Early Marriage: Child Spouses. Edited by: Hawke A. 2001, Geneva: Innocenti Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  30. Chen J, Smith KB, Morrow S, Glasier A, Cheng L: The acceptability of combined oral hormonal contraceptives in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Contraception. 2003, 67: 281-285. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00487-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Radecki SE, Beckman LJ: Contraceptive risk-taking in a medically-underserved, low-income population. Women Health. 1994, 21: 1-15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wall EM: Valued outcomes in the selection of a contraceptive method. West J Med. 1984, 141: 335-338.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. van Damme W, De Boelaert M, De Brouwere V, van Lerberghe W: Effects of refugee-assistance programmes on host population in Guinea as measured by obstetric interventions. Lancet. 1998, 351: 1609-1603. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10348-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Howard et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement