Monitoring Progress in Equality for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Meeting Demand for Family Planning

Yoonjoung Choi; Madeleine Short Fabic

doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00012

Figures & Tables

Figures

Tables
Additional Files

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1
Boxplot Distribution of Within-Country Disparity in Family Planning Demand Met With Modern Methods (Percentage Point) Between the Most- and Least-Advantaged Subgroups,* by Background Characteristic
All disparity measures are among women in union, except disparity by union status, which is among all women.
Length of the box represents the interquartile range, the horizontal line in the box is median, the vertical line is a range of lower and upper adjacent values, and dots are outside values.
Data were from the latest DHS from 55 countries.
* Disparity by age or administrative unit represents the largest possible absolute gap among all subgroups.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2
Trends in National-Level Family Planning Demand With Modern Methods (%) and Disparity by Wealth^a (Percentage Point), by Region and Country
^a Difference between the highest and lowest wealth quintiles.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3
Illustrative Examples of Varying Trends of Family Planning Demand Met With Modern Methods (%), Nationally and by Household Wealth Quintile
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4
Correlation Matrix Among Various Disparities in Family Planning Demand Met With Modern Methods, With Correlation Coefficient
* P value <.05; ** P value <.01.
For education, household wealth, and residential area, disparity is between the most- and least-advantaged subgroups. For age and administrative unit, disparity represents the largest possible absolute gap among all subgroups.
Data are from the latest DHS from 55 countries.
All disparity measures are among women in union, except disparity by union status, which is among all women.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 5
Changes in the Distribution of Educational Attainment Among Female Population 6 Years and Older
Graph area varies by the number of surveys and intervals between them.
Source: DHS Program Application Programming Interface (API), available at http://api.dhsprogram.com/.

View popup

TABLE.

Estimated Annual Changes in Disparity in Family Planning Demand Met With Modern Methods Between the Most- and Least-Advantaged Subgroups^a by Background Characteristic (Percentage-Point Change per Year)

Absolute Disparity by:	Bivariate Model		Multivariate Model^b
Absolute Disparity by:	Coeff. on Year	P Value	Coeff. on Year	P Value	Coeff. on National Average	P Value
Education (secondary or higher vs. none)	−0.55	<.001	−0.24	.007	−0.27	<.001
Household wealth (highest vs. lowest quintile)	−0.61	<.001	−0.43	<.001	−0.17	.003
Residential area (urban vs. rural area)	−0.42	<.001	−0.19	.002	−0.20	<.001
Union status (in union vs. not in union)	0.75	<.001	0.17	.21	0.48	<.001
Age^a	−0.05	.46	−0.36	<.001	0.28	<.001
Administrative unit^a	0.47	<.001	0.36	.001	0.10	.12

↵a Disparity by age or administrative unit represents the largest possible absolute gap among all sub-groups. All disparity measures are among women in union, except disparity by union status which is among all women.
↵b Multivariate models include 2 covariates: year and national average.
Note: Sample size for regression is 213 surveys from 55 countries, except disparity by union status where only 161 surveys from 45 countries were available for analysis.