Informed Decision-Making and Interpersonal Communication: Post-Counseling Results Among Women in the Counseling for Choice Evaluation, Malawi
| Control, No. (%) | Intervention, No. (%) | ORa(95% CI) | aORb(95% CI) | ICCc | σu2d | Observationse | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provider addressed all concerns about using contraception | |||||||
| Yes | 229 (39.6) | 460 (76.5) | 7.26f (3.57, 14.80) | 6.43f (3.08, 13.41) | 0.48 | 1.85 | 1,176 |
| No | 348 (60.2) | 140 (23.3) | |||||
| Provider asked about past contraceptive experience | |||||||
| Yes | 219 (37.9) | 448 (74.5) |
6.76g (3.35, 13.65) |
6.23f (3.00, 12.92) | 0.45 | 1.84 | 1,176 |
| No | 359 (62.1) | 153 (25.5) | |||||
| Trust provider will keep information discussed during consultation a secret | |||||||
| Yes | 501 (86.7) | 575 (96.7) |
3.23f (1.50, 6.97) |
3.06f (1.41, 6.67) | 0.34 | 1.14 | 1,163 |
| No | 27 (4.7) | 8 (1.3) | |||||
| Don't knowh | 50 (8.7) | 18 (3.0) | |||||
| Provider helped make a plan for how to remember to use the method, among short-term method usersi | |||||||
| Yes | 258 (54.6) | 453 (79.8) |
6.32f (2.60, 15.35) |
6.45f (2.57, 16.20) | 0.49 | 2.58 | 1,034 |
| No | 215 (45.5) | 115 (20.3) | |||||
| Confidence using chosen method, among those who received a method during the consultation | |||||||
| 1 - Not at all | 25 (5.3) | 10 (1.8) |
1.94g (1.04, 3.62) |
1.84 (0.99, 3.44) | 0.33 | 1.49 | 1,035 |
| 2 - No opinion | 27 (5.7) | 23 (4.1) | |||||
| 3 - Somehow confident | 104 (22.1) | 63 (11.2) | |||||
| 4 - Confident | 138 (29.4) | 189 (33.5) | |||||
| 5 - Very confident | 176 (37.5) | 280 (49.6) | |||||
Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ICC, intraclass correlation; OR, odds ratio.
↵a Estimated from multilevel mixed effects models including facility-level random effects. “Gave enough information” and “confidence to use chosen method” were modeled as ordinal variables. The “provider addressed all concerns” outcome was modeled as a binary variable. Odds ratios estimated from multilevel mixed effects model with ordinal or binary outcomes. Unadjusted odds ratios estimated from bivariate models.
↵b Estimated from models that include demographic variables (age, marital status, and education), a categorical variable for number of living children (defined as none, 1–2, 3–4, or 5 or more), and variables for method chosen at provider visit and type of facility (public or private).
↵c Estimated from unadjusted model with random intercepts for health facility but without fixed effects predictors.
↵d Estimated variance for the random effects at the health facility level in the adjusted model; estimate has not been exponentiated.
↵e Number of observations in the adjusted model; complete case analysis.
↵f Significant at P<.01.
↵g Significant at P<.05.
↵h For modeled estimates, we use a binary version of the indicator that combines "no" and "don't know" responses in a single category (versus “yes”).
↵i Asked only of women who received injectables, oral contraceptive pills, condoms, or emergency contraceptive pills.