In 2017, just one-fifth of all married women of reproductive age reported using contraception in Kaduna state, Nigeria, while many more experienced unmet need for contraception. These realities drive risky fertility behaviours and compromise reproductive rights. This study explored the determinants of low modern contraceptive uptake and persistent unmet need among women in the state. Nine focus group discussions were conducted with married women who met study criteria for unmet need, and who had different levels of access to contraception. Discussions confirmed that many women in Kaduna do not feel empowered to make contraceptive decisions. Yet there is a growing preference for smaller families and decreased stigmatisation of contracepting women. Barriers at home, in the community and in health facilities impose a ceiling on the extent to which women's fertility desires may be achieved. These include cultural, normative, social and financial factors, such as the need for husband's permission to access services, service providers' insistence on spousal consent, subtle and overt pressures to use folkloric approaches by religious leaders, and high real, or perceived, out-of-pocket costs. These findings suggest that Kaduna is on the cusp of social change and study findings can be translated into programmatic interventions to improve voluntary uptake of contraception.

BackgroundGrowing focus on the need for voluntary, rights-based family planning (VRBFP) has drawn attention to the lack of programs that adhere to the range of rights principles. This paper describes two first-of-their-kind interventions in Kaduna State, Nigeria and in Uganda in 2016–2017, accompanied by implementation research based on a conceptual framework that translates internationally agreed rights into family planning programming.MethodsThis paper describes the interventions, and profiles lessons learned about VRBFP implementation from both countries, as well as measured outcomes of VRBFP programming from Nigeria.ResultsThe intervention components in both projects were similar. Both programs built provider and supervisor capacity in VRBFP using comparable curricula; developed facility-level action plans and supported action plan implementation; aimed to increase clients’ rights literacy at the facility using posters and handouts; and established or strengthened health committee structures to support VRBFP. Through the interventions, rights literacy increased, and providers were able to see the benefits of taking a VRBFP approach to serving clients. The importance of ensuring a client focus and supporting clients to make their own family planning choices was reinforced. Providers recognized the importance of treating all clients, regardless of age or marital status, for example, with dignity. Privacy and confidentiality were enhanced. Recognition of what violations of rights are and the need to report and address them through strong accountability systems grew. Many lessons were shared across the two countries, including the need for rights literacy; attention to health systems issues; strong and supportive supervision; and the importance of working at multiple levels. Additionally, some unique lessons emanated from each country experience.ConclusionThe assessed feasibility and benefits of using VRBFP programming and outcome measures in both countries bode well for adoption of this approach in other geographies.

No abstract

No abstract