Evaluation of 2 Intervention Models to Integrate Family Planning Into Worker Health and Livelihood Programs in Egypt: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Nahla Abdel Tawab; Elizabeth Tobey; Maryam Essam; Sara Chace Dwyer; Aparna Jain

doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00124

Figures & Tables

Tables

Additional Files

View popup

TABLE 1.

Background Characteristics of Respondents in a Study to Assess the Effect of 2 Intervention Models on Family Planning Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Souhag and Port Said, Egypt

	Souhag, %		Port Said, %
	Intervention (n=778)	Comparison (n=699)	Intervention (n=1,145)	Comparison (n=621)
Age,^{^a,^b} years
18–19	12.2	6.4	10.5	9.8
20–24	44.7	25.9	25.9	36.1
25–29	27.9	30.2	33.5	31.7
30–35	15.2	37.3	30.1	22.2
Residence
Urban	67.1	62.5	83.2	84.5
Rural	32.9	37.5	16.8	15.5
Sex^{^a}
Male	35.6	47.4	77.4	78.7
Female	64.4	52.6	22.6	21.3
Education completed^{^a,^b}
Never attended/less than primary	0.4	0.1	4.2	2.1
Primary/preparatory	5.5	0.7	10.7	7.4
Secondary/intermediary	62.1	58.7	68.9	67.3
University/higher	32.0	40.5	16.2	23.2
Employment status^{^a}
Currently employed	30.7	43.8	100	100
Unemployed and searching	36.8	24.5	0	0
Out of labor force	32.5	31.8	0	0
Marital status^{^a,^b}
Never married	55.5	34.9	40.5	48.0
Engaged/marriage contract	8.2	6.9	14.4	17.4
Married	33.9	56.4	42.8	32.1
Widowed/divorced/ separated	2.3	1.9	2.3	2.6
Number of living children^{^a,^b}
0	71.3	50.6	63.4	73.8
1	10.2	11.0	15.6	13.9
2	8.9	17.0	15.9	9.0
3 or more	9.6	21.3	5.1	3.4
Ever heard of a family planning method^{^b}
Yes	83.3	83.1	76.5	68.3
No/don't know	16.7	16.9	23.5	31.7

↵a Statistically significant for Souhag at P<.01.
↵b Statistically significant for Port Said at P<.01.

View popup

TABLE 2.

DiD Estimates of Young People's Exposure to FP and Their FP Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Souhag, Egypt

	Percentage^{^a}		DiD Results
Group	Baseline	Endline	Percentage Point Estimate	Adjusted Percentage Point Estimate^{^b}
Exposure outcomes
Heard, read, or seen anything about FP in the last 6 months
Intervention	28.1	74.1	41.3^{^c}	40.2^{^c}
Comparison	18.9	23.5	41.3^{^c}	40.2^{^c}
Has heard of Ma3looma website
Intervention	17.6	49.4	28.0^{^c}	27.7^{^c}
Comparison	8.7	12.5	28.0^{^c}	27.7^{^c}
Knowledge outcomes
Ever heard of an FP method
Intervention	83.3	96.1	12.6^{^c}	11.5^{^c}
Comparison	83.1	83.3	12.6^{^c}	11.5^{^c}
Knows 3 modern FP methods
Intervention	56.0	83.0	22.0^{^c}	19.6^{^c}
Comparison	49.6	54.6	22.0^{^c}	19.6^{^c}
Knows FP method that prevents sexually transmitted infections
Intervention	18.0	56.8	36.4^{^c}	35.0^{^c}
Comparison	13.0	15.4	36.4^{^c}	35.0^{^c}
Attitudinal outcomes
Disagrees with “FP methods can affect female fertility and it may reflect negatively on future pregnancies”
Intervention	52.6	73.5	18.6^{^c}	17.8^{^c}
Comparison	46.2	48.6	18.6^{^c}	17.8^{^c}
Willing to use FP in the future (among individuals not currently using an FP method)^{^d}
Intervention	88.8	94.5	6.5^{^e}	6.0^{^e}
Comparison	85.9	85.2	6.5^{^e}	6.0^{^e}
Behavioral outcomes (among married individuals who are not currently pregnant/whose wives are not currently pregnant)
Currently using FP^{^f}
Intervention	62.6	62.9	0.1	−3.0
Comparison	62.4	62.5	0.1	−3.0

Abbreviations: DiD, Difference-in-Differences; FP, family planning.
↵a Sample sizes at baseline were n=778 for the intervention group and n=699 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=741 for the intervention group and n=383 for the comparison group.
↵b Adjusted for age, residence, gender, education, employment, marital status, and number of children.
↵c P≤.01.
↵d Sample sizes at baseline were n=644 for the intervention group and n=490 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=587 for the intervention group and n=263 for the comparison group.
↵e P≤.05.
↵f Sample sizes at baseline were n=214 for the intervention group and n=335 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=245 for the intervention group and n=192 for the comparison group.

View popup

TABLE 3.

DiD Estimates of Factory Workers' Exposure to FP and Their FP Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Port Said, Egypt

	Percentage^{^a}		DiD Results
Group	Baseline	Endline	Percentage Point Estimate	Adjusted Percentage Point Estimate^{^b}
Exposure outcomes
Heard, read, or seen anything about FP in the last 6 months
Intervention	16.2	17.2	−4.9	−4.7
Comparison	16.9	22.8	−4.9	−4.7
Has heard of Ma3looma website
Intervention	6.1	10.2	−3.8	−4.0
Comparison	6.0	13.8	−3.8	−4.0
Knowledge outcomes
Ever heard of an FP method
Intervention	76.5	74.3	−6.5	−7.8^{^c}
Comparison	68.3	72.5	−6.5	−7.8^{^c}
Knows 3 modern FP methods
Intervention	34.5	38.9	0.8	−0.3
Comparison	27.7	31.2	0.8	−0.3
Knows FP method that prevents sexually transmitted infections
Intervention	12.9	15.1	−0.1	−0.9
Comparison	14.3	16.7	−0.1	−0.9
Attitudinal outcomes
Disagrees with: “FP methods can affect female fertility and may reflect negatively on future pregnancies”
Intervention	41.0	43.7	8.3^{^c}	9.2^{^c}
Comparison	43.6	38.0	8.3^{^c}	9.2^{^c}
Willing to use FP in the future (among individuals not currently using an FP method)^{^d}
Intervention	66.9	71.6	2.1	2.0
Comparison	74.3	77.0	2.1	2.0
Behavioral outcomes (among married individuals who are not currently pregnant/whose wives are not currently pregnant)
Currently using FP^{^e}
Intervention	62.6	69.9	−1.7	−0.9
Comparison	59.5	68.6	−1.7	−0.9

Abbreviations: DiD, Difference-in-Differences; FP, family planning.
↵a Sample sizes at baseline were n=1,145 for the intervention group and n=621 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=813 for the intervention group and n=426 for the comparison group.
↵b Adjusted for age, residence, gender, education, employment, marital status, and number of children.
↵c P≤.05.
↵d Sample sizes at baseline were n=896 for the intervention group and n=521 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=564 for the intervention group and n=343 for the comparison group.
↵e Sample sizes at baseline were n=398 for the intervention group and n=168 for the comparison group. Sample sizes at endline were n=356 for the intervention group and n=121 for the comparison group.