Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
      • Local Voices Webinar
      • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Alerts
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • RSS
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Open Access

Trends in the Contraceptive Method Mix in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Analysis Using a New “Average Deviation” Measure

John Ross, Jill Keesbury and Karen Hardee
Global Health: Science and Practice March 2015, 3(1):34-55; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00199
John Ross
aFutures Group, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rosshome8{at}frontiernet.net
Jill Keesbury
bPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen Hardee
bPopulation Council, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Number of Countries With Method Mix Skew According to the 50% Rule,a by Dominant Method (N = 35 Countries)

    Abbreviation: IUD, intrauterine device.

    a Each method comprises over 50% of total contraceptive use in the country. Missing regions in the bars had no country with over 50% use of that method among contraceptive users; male sterilization, the implant, and the condom had no countries at all with over 50% use of those methods among contraceptive users.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Method Mix Among Contraceptive Users Based on Latest Surveys for 123 Countries

    Abbreviation: CPR, contraceptive prevalence rate; IUD, intrauterine device.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Method Mix Among Contraceptive Users by Age

    Abbreviation: IUD, intrauterine device.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Declining Trends in Method Mix Skew Based on Average Deviation Values in 15 Selected Countries

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Changes in the Method Mix Over Time, 4 Illustrative Countries

    Abbreviation: CPR, contraceptive prevalence rate; IUD, intrauterine device.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Percentage of Countries (Latest Surveys) and of All Surveys With Method Mix Skew According to the Cutoff Levela
    No. (%)
    Cutoff LevelCountries (Latest Surveys)All Surveys
    30%115 (94.3)609 (91.4)
    40%68 (55.7)393 (59.0)
    50%35 (27.9)225 (33.8)
    60%22 (18.0)137 (20.6)
    70%10 (8.2)62 (9.3)
    • ↵a The “50% rule” is the most commonly used cutoff level, indicating that a single contraceptive method accounts for more than half of all contraceptive use in a given country. Changing the cutoff level changes the severity of the rule.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Contraceptive Prevalence Among Married/In-Union Women and Method Mix Among Contraceptive Users, Based on Latest Surveys in 123 Countries
    Any MethodAny Modern MethodSterilization, FemaleSterilization, MalePillsInjectablesIUDMale CondomImplantsTraditional Methods
    Prevalence Among Married/In-Union Women
    All Regions45.136.97.40.79.76.66.65.60.48.2
    sub-Saharan Africa27.221.32.00.16.47.30.93.20.76.1
    North Africa & West Asia52.636.53.50.114.21.612.14.50.116.2
    Latin America65.057.918.90.913.68.06.99.40.37.1
    Central Asia52.546.11.10.03.61.236.63.20.06.4
    Asia & Pacific52.344.89.92.09.58.98.25.30.47.5
    Method Mix Among Contraceptive Users
    All Regions12.81.322.316.712.910.71.322.1
    sub-Saharan Africa5.20.924.124.14.410.42.628.4
    North Africa & West Asia6.80.227.83.822.48.30.130.6
    Latin America27.91.221.313.010.314.50.511.3
    Central Asia2.00.07.32.270.16.40.011.9
    Asia & Pacific19.33.218.519.613.09.90.715.8
    • All data are presented as percentages.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Average Deviation (AD) Values for Method Mix Skew in Initial and Latest Surveys, 15 Countries
    Country, Initial & Latest Survey YearAD Value in Initial SurveyAD Value in Latest SurveyDecline
    sub-Saharan Africa
    Benin, 1981/82 & 200619.213.35.9
    Mali, 1987 & 200617.112.94.2
    Rwanda, 1983 & 2010/1119.810.59.3
    Uganda, 1988/89 & 201112.68.93.7
    North Africa & West Asia
    Egypt, 1974/75 & 200816.913.73.2
    Iran, 1976/77 & 200213.49.34.1
    Turkey, 1963 & 200817.710.67.1
    Asia
    Mongolia, 1994 & 200815.28.86.4
    Viet Nam, 1988 & 2010/1116.510.65.9
    Latin America
    Colombia, 1969 & 201013.87.95.9
    Guyana, 1975 & 200912.58.04.5
    Haiti, 1977 & 2005/0615.99.76.2
    Honduras, 1981 & 2005/0612.68.73.9
    Paraguay, 1977 & 200811.26.44.8
    Peru, 1969/70 & 201012.98.44.5
    Means15.29.85.3
    • View popup
    Table 4. Shifts in Contraceptive Method Mix by Country and Region for 15 Countries
    Region/CountryTrends in the Method Mix
    sub-Saharan Africa
    BeninThe injectable and pill have risen, while sterilization, the IUD, the condom, and especially traditional methods have fallen.
    MaliThe injectable has risen substantially with declines in the pill and traditional methods.
    RwandaSince the disruptions of the mid-1990s, the injectable has risen to over half of all use, while traditional methods have declined correspondingly. The implant gained in the latest survey.
    UgandaThe injectable has risen at the expense of traditional methods, with a recent increase by the implant.
    North Africa & West Asia
    EgyptThe IUD rose quite remarkably to a high level, with a corresponding decline for the pill. Recently, the injectable has shown some increase.
    IranSterilization has risen steadily; in the last survey, it lost ground to a resurgence in the pill, while traditional methods lost ground.
    TurkeyThe extensive use of traditional methods gave way to a rise in the IUD and condom, as well as female sterilization.
    Asia
    MongoliaThe pill, injectable, and condom have risen while the IUD and traditional methods have fallen.
    Viet NamThe historic dominance of the IUD has weakened as shares of the pill and condom have gained.
    Latin America
    ColombiaSterilization rose very sharply over the years, along with a small rise for condoms. Shares for the pill, IUD, and traditional methods declined.
    GuyanaThe pill and traditional methods have lost ground, while the other methods show irregular trends that balance out to reduce skew.
    HaitiThe picture changed sharply from 1994/95 onward. Sterilization declined while the injectable rose, with irregularities for other methods.
    HondurasThe injectable share increased sharply with declines in the pill and in traditional methods.
    ParaguayShares of the injectable and condom are up while shares of the IUD and traditional methods have fallen.
    PeruThe IUD is down, as is sterilization slightly, while the injectable and especially the condom have risen.
    • View popup
    APPENDIX 1. 123 Countries Included in the “Average Deviation” Method Mix Analysis, by Region
    CountryLatest Survey Year
    sub-Saharan Africa
    Angola2001
    Benin2006
    Burkina Faso2010/11
    Burundi2010/11
    Cameroon2011
    Cape Verde2005
    Central African Republic2006
    Chad2004
    Comoros2000
    Congo2011/12
    Congo, Democratic Republic of2010
    Côte d'Ivoire2006
    Djibouti2006
    Equatorial Guinea2000
    Eritrea2002
    Ethiopia2010/11
    Gabon2000
    Gambia2001
    Ghana2008
    Guinea2005
    Guinea-Bissau2006
    Kenya2008/09
    Lesotho2009/10
    Liberia2007
    Madagascar2008/09
    Malawi2010
    Mali2006
    Mauritania2007
    Mauritius2002
    Mozambique2011
    Namibia2006/07
    Niger2006
    Nigeria2011
    Rwanda2010/11
    Sao Tome and Principe2008/09
    Senegal2010/11
    Sierra Leone2008
    Somalia2006
    South Africa2003/04
    South Sudan2006
    Sudan2010
    Swaziland2010
    Tanzania2009/10
    Togo2006
    Uganda2011
    Zambia2007
    Zimbabwe2010/11
    North Africa & West Asia
    Algeria2006
    Armenia2010
    Azerbaijan2006
    Bahrain1995
    Egypt2008
    Georgia2005
    Iran2002
    Iraq2011
    Jordan2009
    Kuwait1999
    Lebanon1996
    Libya1995
    Morocco2003/04
    Oman2000
    Qatar1998
    Saudi Arabia1996
    Syria2006
    Tunisia2006
    Turkey2008
    United Arab Emirates1995
    Yemen2006
    Latin America
    Argentina2004/05
    Belize2006
    Bolivia2008
    Brazil2006
    Chile2006
    Colombia2010
    Costa Rica2010
    Cuba2006
    Dominican Republic2007
    Ecuador2004
    El Salvador2008
    Guatemala2002
    Guyana2009
    Haiti2005/06
    Honduras2005/06
    Jamaica2002/03
    Mexico2006
    Nicaragua2006/07
    Panama2009
    Paraguay2008
    Peru2010
    Puerto Rico2002
    Suriname2006
    Trinidad and Tobago2006
    Uruguay2004
    Venezuela1998
    Central Asia1998
    Kazakhstan2006
    Kyrgyzstan2005/06
    Tajikistan2007
    Turkmenistan2000
    Uzbekistan2006
    Asia & Pacific
    Afghanistan2010
    Bangladesh2011/12
    Bhutan2010
    Cambodia2010/11
    China2006
    Hong Kong2007
    India2007/08
    Indonesia2007
    Korea, Republic of2009
    Lao People's Democratic Republic2005
    Malaysia2004
    Maldives2009
    Mongolia2008
    Myanmar2009/10
    Nepal2011
    Pakistan2012/13
    Papua New Guinea1996
    Philippines2011
    Singapore1997
    Solomon Islands2006/07
    Sri Lanka2006/07
    Thailand2009
    Timor-Leste2009/10
    Viet Nam2010/11
    • View popup
    APPENDIX 2. Method Mix Among Contraceptive Users: Improvements in 15 Countries
    CountrySurvey YearSterilization, FemaleSterilization, MalePillsInjectablesIUDCondomImplantsTraditional MethodsAverage Deviation Value
    sub-Saharan Africa
    Benin1981/82-1.54.5-1.53.0-89.419.2
    Benin19962.5-6.14.33.14.3-79.816.8
    Benin20011.6-9.811.44.37.11.664.112.9
    Benin20061.8-8.910.73.66.53.065.713.3
    Mali19872.2-19.62.22.2--73.917.1
    Mali1995/964.6-47.73.14.66.2-33.814.1
    Mali20013.7-34.625.92.53.71.228.412.8
    Mali20063.7-35.430.51.24.91.223.212.9
    Rwanda1983--1.83.62.7--91.819.8
    Rwanda19923.3-14.239.80.90.91.439.314.0
    Rwanda1996--17.429.72.21.41.447.814.4
    Rwanda20006.0-7.514.32.33.0-66.914.1
    Rwanda20052.9-13.927.21.75.2-49.113.2
    Rwanda2007/081.90.317.641.80.55.24.428.312.5
    Rwanda2010/111.6-13.851.11.05.612.214.810.5
    Uganda1988/8916.3-22.48.24.1--49.012.6
    Uganda19959.5-17.717.02.75.4-47.611.2
    Uganda2000/018.8-14.028.10.98.31.338.610.8
    Uganda2004/058.7-15.349.51.05.11.518.911.5
    Uganda200610.20.412.343.20.87.21.324.610.7
    Uganda20119.60.39.646.81.79.09.014.08.9
    North Africa & West Asia
    Egypt1974/75--80.2-10.1--9.716.9
    Egypt19802.30.370.00.317.14.2-5.815.5
    Egypt19845.1-55.71.028.44.4-5.414.8
    Egypt19884.0-40.90.342.06.4-6.414.5
    Egypt19912.8-33.71.151.14.4-7.014.9
    Egypt19922.4-27.61.159.74.3-4.915.6
    Egypt19952.3-21.85.062.92.9-5.014.9
    Egypt1997/982.6-18.87.263.72.80.24.814.4
    Egypt19982.5-16.97.666.52.1-4.514.6
    Egypt20002.5-17.010.963.51.80.43.913.9
    Egypt20031.5-15.513.261.21.51.55.713.1
    Egypt20052.2-16.711.861.71.71.44.613.3
    Egypt20081.7-19.712.359.91.20.84.513.7
    Iran1976/775.7-49.7-4.011.5-29.013.4
    Iran19898.0-36.3-7.411.4-36.912.0
    Iran199211.81.435.0-11.09.9-31.010.2
    Iran199313.71.536.5-10.710.0-27.710.1
    Iran199416.31.832.30.711.59.7-27.89.7
    Iran199519.31.832.11.810.08.0-27.010.2
    Iran199620.62.230.03.411.47.7-24.79.5
    Iran199721.42.628.94.011.57.50.723.49.1
    Iran200023.23.725.03.811.58.00.724.28.7
    Iran200220.83.134.33.110.48.20.519.59.3
    Turkey19630.4-3.8--16.3-79.517.7
    Turkey19680.3-5.8-4.211.5-78.216.4
    Turkey19730.3-12.6-7.912.4-66.813.6
    Turkey19781.20.416.20.88.08.2-65.214.1
    Turkey19832.3-15.40.415.18.3-58.512.9
    Turkey19882.80.210.10.222.711.7-52.412.5
    Turkey19934.7-8.00.230.610.7-45.812.8
    Turkey19986.6-7.00.831.313.0-41.312.0
    Turkey20038.10.16.70.628.715.3-40.511.8
    Turkey200811.40.17.31.223.219.6-37.110.6
    Latin America
    Colombia1969--23.4-13.27.3-56.113.8
    Colombia197610.00.533.21.021.24.2-29.911.7
    Colombia197817.2-39.52.317.73.2-20.011.1
    Colombia198022.50.436.64.217.13.2-16.010.6
    Colombia198629.30.626.23.817.62.7-19.710.7
    Colombia199032.50.821.93.419.34.5-17.710.3
    Colombia199536.31.018.23.515.76.11.018.29.6
    Colombia200035.51.315.55.216.38.00.318.08.8
    Colombia2004/0540.22.312.57.514.49.10.413.67.7
    Colombia201044.24.39.611.69.58.93.98.07.9
    Guyana197527.9-29.5-18.4--24.312.5
    Guyana1991/9217.3-35.15.224.114.8-3.610.3
    Guyana200012.20.330.410.017.123.82.73.58.4
    Guyana20058.8-36.011.222.418.00.33.29.7
    Guyana20065.1-38.110.716.417.38.04.58.6
    Guyana200912.5-21.711.317.230.40.56.48.0
    Haiti19771.11.117.41.12.65.8-71.115.9
    Haiti198310.11.431.92.92.97.2-43.512.6
    Haiti198718.8-33.311.65.82.9-27.510.6
    Haiti198924.8-40.615.85.95.0-7.910.9
    Haiti1994/9517.1-17.114.93.314.46.626.56.9
    Haiti20009.9-8.241.82.110.37.120.69.4
    Haiti2005/066.5-10.234.11.916.45.026.09.7
    Honduras198130.50.844.71.19.21.1-12.612.6
    Honduras198435.00.636.70.911.02.6-13.311.9
    Honduras198731.30.533.30.710.74.5-18.911.5
    Honduras1991/9233.60.421.81.111.06.3-25.910.9
    Honduras199636.30.219.82.217.06.4-18.010.3
    Honduras200129.10.316.815.515.55.2-17.58.0
    Honduras2005/0632.50.517.321.210.14.4-14.08.7
    Paraguay19797.7-34.55.015.44.8-32.611.2
    Paraguay198710.0-30.18.011.45.1-35.310.1
    Paraguay199015.5-28.510.911.95.5-27.78.5
    Paraguay1995/9613.4-24.111.113.611.6-26.36.8
    Paraguay199813.1-21.412.218.111.9-23.36.5
    Paraguay200415.80.120.614.315.816.4-16.96.2
    Paraguay200812.50.322.720.815.516.6-11.76.4
    Peru1969/708.0-12.0-4.012.0-64.012.9
    Peru1977/789.2-13.73.34.23.6-66.013.7
    Peru198110.0-12.55.010.02.5-60.011.9
    Peru198613.6-14.52.916.51.6-50.911.4
    Peru1991/9213.60.29.83.323.14.8-45.211.1
    Peru199615.00.39.812.618.96.90.536.18.1
    Peru200018.00.79.821.713.38.20.328.07.7
    Peru2004/0614.60.610.120.77.911.9-34.38.0
    Peru2007/0813.60.410.622.85.613.8-33.28.4
    Peru200912.90.610.524.95.213.8-32.18.4
    Peru201012.50.511.223.64.415.10.132.68.4
    Asia
    Mongolia19941.6-4.41.957.75.90.528.015.2
    Mongolia19984.0-7.05.253.85.80.323.913.2
    Mongolia20001.90.312.48.750.26.40.419.511.2
    Mongolia20034.4-16.08.447.67.80.415.410.4
    Mongolia20053.70.217.616.944.18.11.28.210.3
    Mongolia20084.7-17.714.440.612.20.410.08.8
    Viet Nam19885.10.60.80.462.12.3-28.916.5
    Viet Nam19946.00.33.20.351.36.2-32.714.7
    Viet Nam19978.40.75.70.351.27.8-25.913.0
    Viet Nam20008.20.87.30.549.98.2-25.012.5
    Viet Nam20007.90.69.50.757.48.0-16.012.1
    Viet Nam20017.70.510.00.755.87.9-17.312.0
    Viet Nam20027.50.68.00.548.07.4-27.912.7
    Viet Nam20027.20.510.40.956.68.5-15.911.9
    Viet Nam20036.90.511.40.957.07.4-15.711.9
    Viet Nam20046.60.411.91.156.09.3-14.711.4
    Viet Nam20056.30.412.51.255.59.7-14.511.3
    Viet Nam20065.50.210.61.554.911.0-16.311.6
    Viet Nam20067.70.711.91.647.610.10.120.310.7
    Viet Nam20075.60.413.21.155.410.50.113.711.2
    Viet Nam2010/115.00.113.02.240.016.40.323.010.6
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 3 (1)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 3, No. 1
March 01, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Trends in the Contraceptive Method Mix in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Analysis Using a New “Average Deviation” Measure
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Trends in the Contraceptive Method Mix in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Analysis Using a New “Average Deviation” Measure
John Ross, Jill Keesbury, Karen Hardee
Global Health: Science and Practice Mar 2015, 3 (1) 34-55; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00199

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Trends in the Contraceptive Method Mix in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Analysis Using a New “Average Deviation” Measure
John Ross, Jill Keesbury, Karen Hardee
Global Health: Science and Practice Mar 2015, 3 (1) 34-55; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00199
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • PREVIOUS MEASURES OF METHOD MIX SKEW
    • DATA AND METHODS
    • FINDINGS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Womens empowerment and life stage: assessing intersectional differences in contraceptive method mix in sub-Saharan Africa
  • Inequities in Family Planning in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
  • Contraceptive Method Mix: Updates and Implications
  • Safety of Tubal Occlusion by Minilaparotomy Provided by Trained Clinical Officers Versus Assistant Medical Officers in Tanzania: A Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial
  • Increasing Contraceptive Access for Hard-to-Reach Populations With Vouchers and Social Franchising in Uganda
  • Community Health Workers as Social Marketers of Injectable Contraceptives: A Case Study from Ethiopia
  • Strengthening Postabortion Family Planning Services in Ethiopia: Expanding Contraceptive Choice and Improving Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraception
  • Rapid Contraceptive Uptake and Changing Method Mix With High Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives in Crisis-Affected Populations in Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Task Shifting Provision of Contraceptive Implants to Community Health Extension Workers: Results of Operations Research in Northern Nigeria
  • Stunning Popularity of LARCs With Good Access and Quality: A Major Opportunity to Meet Family Planning Needs
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Development of a Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural Guatemala
  • A Novel Approach to Assessing the Potential of Electronic Decision Support Systems to Improve the Quality of Antenatal Care in Nepal
  • Presenting a Framework to Professionalize Health Supply Chain Management
Show more ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs

Follow Us On

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire