30.07.2015 Views

Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

TableTable1Source of modern method over timeSourcePill IUD Injecti<strong>on</strong> C<strong>on</strong>domFemalesterilizati<strong>on</strong>All modernmethods1991 2007 1991 2007 1991 2007 1991 2007 1991 2007 1991 2007Government 34.9 46.1 81.1 52.4 53.0 51.2 11.7 16.9 85.1 72.4 55.7 48.2Private 56.2 39.6 15.8 47.6 42.0 44.6 47.6 58.0 13.7 25.8 30.0 41.4Medical 49.7 31.2 11.3 41.0 42.0 41.7 33.2 27.3 13.7 25.8 25.5 30.1O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r shop 6.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 13.1 30.5 na na 4.4 10.3Tra<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed birthattendant0.0 1.2 4.5 6.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.2 na na 1.0 1.0O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 5.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.3 11.5 0.8 na na 4.3 0.9Note: na = not applicable.surveyed wanted no more children; this figure <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>creased to52 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2007. Regi<strong>on</strong>al differences <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> desire tolimit childbear<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g have been decreas<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g steadily over times<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce more <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> more rural women want to have no morechildren. These trends <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>dicate that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>creas<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>gdem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> for family plann<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g am<strong>on</strong>g Pakistani women,particularly <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> rural areas. However, although more than50 per cent of women wish to limit childbear<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> about20 per cent wish to space <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir next birth, <strong>on</strong>ly 30 per centare us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> (Nati<strong>on</strong>al Institute of Populati<strong>on</strong>Studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Macro <str<strong>on</strong>g>Internati<strong>on</strong>al</str<strong>on</strong>g> Inc., 2008), support<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g ahigh rate of unmet need for Pakistani women.Unmet need – <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> percentage of currently married womenwho are fecund <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> do not want to be pregnant yet arenot us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> – <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>creased from 33 per cent(Nati<strong>on</strong>al Institute of Populati<strong>on</strong> Studies, 2001) to 37per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2006/07 DHS. Unmet need <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> rural areas,which was <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>itially lower, now exceeds urban unmet need,suggest<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> availability <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> affordability of familyplann<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g services is an obstacle <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> limitati<strong>on</strong> to fertilitychange, a situati<strong>on</strong> which applies more so <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> rural Pakistan.In l<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se f<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>d<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>gs is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> trend <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> unplannedchildbear<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> comb<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong> of unwanted births <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>mistimed births): <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proporti<strong>on</strong> of recent births thatare unplanned rose from 21 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1990/91 to 24per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2006/07. Unmet need for c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proporti<strong>on</strong> of births that are unplanned <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> highrate of aborti<strong>on</strong> suggest that a large fracti<strong>on</strong> of currentlymarried women <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> Pakistan are at risk of an unwantedpregnancy <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> potentially an unsafe aborti<strong>on</strong>.Vulnerable group – poor womenFertility rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> Pakistan vary by women’s educati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>household wealth status. These <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>equalities can also beseen <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> unmet need for family plann<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g. However,unlike total fertility, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>ship of unmet need with<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se background characteristics has changed over time. In1991, women from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> poorest households had <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> lowestunmet need; over time unmet need am<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se womenrose substantially, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y now have <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> highest unmetneed (World Bank, 2009). The change <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>shipbetween unmet need <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> wealth can be understoodby look<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> changes <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>ship betweenpreferences <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> wealth (see Figure 7).The <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>dividual graphs <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> Figure 7 show that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> dem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>for family plann<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g, as represented by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> percentage ofwomen want<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g no more children, rose more dramaticallyfor women from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> poorest qu<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>tile. In fact, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> figure thatshows <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proporti<strong>on</strong> want<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g to limit childbear<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g hasalmost c<strong>on</strong>verged at a level of about 50 per cent or morefor all wealth qu<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>tiles unlike <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> earlier period where itshowed a sharp positive associati<strong>on</strong> with wealth. This is<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> stark c<strong>on</strong>trast to differentials <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>traceptive use thatappear to be almost as sharp across rich <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> poor womenas <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y were <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> earlier period. Current use differentials(<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolute terms) between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> poorest <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> richest womenwere 34 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> earlier period <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 32 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>2007, <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>dicat<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g a negligible levell<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g of c<strong>on</strong>traceptive use,unlike <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> dramatic levell<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g seen <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> fertility preferences.Ultimately, this expla<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sharp <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>crease <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> unmet need,a comb<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed outcome of preferences <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> use, experiencedby poor women who <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>creased <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir dem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to limitchildbear<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g without much change <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> use.This is <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trast to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sharp fall <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> unmet need of <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rich women who <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>creased <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir c<strong>on</strong>traceptive use <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir dem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> for it. The situati<strong>on</strong> ofrelatively richer <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> poorer women has changed <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>selast two decades: <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> differential of unmet need by wealthis significant – practically n<strong>on</strong>-existent for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> rich <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>over 30 per cent for poor women (World Bank, 2009).209

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!