The Impact of Behavioral Economics-Based Counseling and Mobile Phone Text Educational and Reminder Messages on the Use of Modern Family Planning in Jordan: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Setting and Population
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Sample Size
2.4. Intervention
2.5. Data Collection
2.5.1. Baseline Data Collection
2.5.2. Follow-Up Data Collection
2.6. Ethical Approvals
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
3.2. Pregnancy-Related and Obstetric Characteristics
3.3. Current Use of Any Family Planning Methods
3.4. Current Use of MFPMs
3.5. Continuation of Using Modern Family Planning Methods
3.6. Multivariate Analysis
3.7. Pregnancy
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Spindler, E.; Bitar, N.; Solo, J.; Menstell, E.; Shattuck, D. Jordan’s 2002 to 2012 Fertility Stall and Parallel USAID Investments in Family Planning: Lessons from an Assessment to Guide Future Programming. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 2017, 5, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Department of Statistics (DOS) and ICF Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 2017–2018. Available online: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR346/FR346.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2022).
- Mohammad Fazle Rabbi, A.; Kabir, M. Relationship between Contraceptive Prevalence Rate and Total Fertility Rate: Revisiting the Empirical Model. J. Popul. Dev. 2014, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Krafft, C.; Kula, E.; Sieverding, M. An Investigation of Jordan’s Fertility Stall and Resumed Decline: The Role of Proximate Determinants. Demo Res. 2021, 45, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bietsch, K.; Arbaji, A.; Mason, J.; Rosenberg, R.; Al Ouri, M. Shifting Dynamics: Changes in the Relationship between Total Fertility Rate and Contraceptive Prevalence Rate in Jordan between 2012 and 2017. Gates Open Res. 2021, 4, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alyahya, M.S.; Hijazi, H.H.; Alshraideh, H.A.; Al-Sheyab, N.A.; Alomari, D.; Malkawi, S.; Qassas, S.; Darabseh, S.; Khader, Y.S. Do Modern Family Planning Methods Impact Women’s Quality of Life? Jordanian Women’s Perspective. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2019, 17, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shattnawi, K.K.; Khader, Y.S.; Al-Sheyab, N.; Alyahya, M.; Ready, K.; Halasa-Rappel, Y.A.; Prince, H. Perceived Barriers of Using Modern Family Planning Methods among Women in Jordan: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Community Based Nurs. Midwifery 2021, 9, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higher Population Council (HPC) Jordan’s National Strategy Reproductive and Sexual Health for 2020–2030. Available online: https://www.hpc.org.jo/sites/default/files/JORDAN%27SNATIONALSTRATEGY.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Jordan’s Family Planning Assessment Final Report 2016. Available online: https://jordankmportal.com/resources/usaid-slash-jordans-family-planning-assessment-final-report (accessed on 1 January 2023).
- High Impact Practices in Family Planning (HIP) SBC Overview: Integrated Framework for Effective Implementation of the Social and Behavior Change High Impact Practices in Family Planning. Available online: https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/sbc-overview/ (accessed on 28 October 2022).
- Using a Behavioral Economics Approach for Family Planning|Breakthrough ACTION and RESEARCH %. Available online: https://breakthroughactionandresearch.org/using-be-for-fp/ (accessed on 2 October 2021).
- Rice, T. The Behavioral Economics of Health and Health Care. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2013, 34, 431–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boonmanunt, S.; Pattanaprateep, O.; Ongphiphadhanakul, B.; McKay, G.; Attia, J.; Vlaev, I.; Thakkinstian, A. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Behavioral Economic Incentive Programs for Goal Achievement on Healthy Diet, Weight Control and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Ann. Behav. Med. 2022, 57, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Littman, D.; Sherman, S.E.; Troxel, A.B.; Stevens, E.R. Behavioral Economics and Tobacco Control: Current Practices and Future Opportunities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ashton, L.; Giridhar, N.; Holcombe, S.J.; Madon, T.; Turner, E. A Review of Behavioral Economics in Reproductive Health. 2015. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3m51m11s (accessed on 19 February 2023).
- Zakiyah, N.; Van Asselt, A.D.I.; Roijmans, F.; Postma, M.J. Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cleland, J.; Conde-Agudelo, A.; Peterson, H.; Ross, J.; Tsui, A. Contraception and Health. Lancet 2012, 380, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Cairo Declaration on Population & Development. Available online: https://www.unfpa.org/resources/cairo-declaration-population-development (accessed on 21 October 2022).
- The Department of Statistics of Jordan (DoS) Jordan in Figure 2017. Available online: http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/products/jordan-in-figure2017/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- Department of Statistics and ICF International 2012 Population and Family Health Survey Key Findings. Available online: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/SR202/SR202.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2022).
- Department of Statistics General Population and Housing Census 2015-Main Results. Available online: http://www.dos.gov.jo/dos_home_e/main/population/census2015/Main_Result.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2022).
- Courtney, M.R.; Spivey, C.; Daniel, K.M. Helping Patients Make Better Decisions: How to Apply Behavioral Economics in Clinical Practice. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2014, 8, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McConnell, M.; Rothschild, C.W.; Ettenger, A.; Muigai, F.; Cohen, J. Free Contraception and Behavioural Nudges in the Postpartum Period: Evidence from a Randomised Control Trial in Nairobi, Kenya. BMJ Glob. Health 2018, 3, e000888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cass, R. Sunstein Nudging: A Very Short Guide. Available online: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/16205305 (accessed on 29 October 2022).
- Yousef, H.; Al-Sheyab, N.; Al Nsour, M.; Khader, Y.; Al Kattan, M.; Bardus, M.; Alyahya, M.; Taha, H.; Amiri, M. Perceptions toward the Use of Digital Technology for Enhancing Family Planning Services: Focus Group Discussion with Beneficiaries and Key Informative Interview with Midwives. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e25947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Sheyab, N.A.; Al Nsour, M.; Khader, Y.S.; Yousif, H.; Alyahya, M.S.; Taha, H.; Bardus, M.; Al Kattan, M.; Amiri, M. Midwives and Women’s Perspectives on Family Planning in Jordan: Human Rights, Gender Equity, Decision-Making and Power Dynamics. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Okour, A.M.; Saadeh, R.A.; Zaqoul, M. Evaluation of Family Planning Counselling in North Jordan. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med. J. 2017, 17, e436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fjeldsoe, B.S.; Marshall, A.L.; Miller, Y.D. Behavior Change Interventions Delivered by Mobile Telephone Short-Message Service. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rokicki, S.; Cohen, J.; Salomon, J.A.; Fink, G. Impact of a Text-Messaging Program on Adolescent Reproductive Health: A Cluster–Randomized Trial in Ghana. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rokicki, S.; Fink, G. Assessing the Reach and Effectiveness of MHealth: Evidence from a Reproductive Health Program for Adolescent Girls in Ghana. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karim, A.M.; Guichon, D.; Yihun, B.Y.; Zemichael, N.F.; Lorenzana, K.; Barofsky, J.; Betemariam, W. Application of Behavioral Economics Principles to Reduce Injectable Contraceptive Discontinuation in Rural Ethiopia: A Stratified-Pair, Cluster-Randomized Field Trial. Gates Open Res. 2019, 3, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Group | Total N = 1032 | p-Value * | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control (n = 295) | Counseling Only (n = 326) | Counseling and Messages (n = 411) | ||||||
n | % | N | % | n | % | N | ||
Age (year) | ||||||||
<25 | 80 | 27.1 | 109 | 33.4 | 146 | 35.5 | 335 | 0.01 |
25–30 | 113 | 38.3 | 140 | 42.9 | 150 | 36.5 | 403 | |
>30 | 102 | 34.6 | 77 | 23.6 | 115 | 28.0 | 294 | |
Nationality | <0.001 | |||||||
Jordanian | 261 | 88.5 | 318 | 97.5 | 383 | 93.2 | 962 | |
Syrian | 34 | 11.5 | 8 | 2.5 | 28 | 6.8 | 70 | |
Mother’s education | 0.003 | |||||||
High school or less | 146 | 49.5 | 200 | 61.3 | 207 | 50.4 | 553 | |
More than highschool | 149 | 50.5 | 126 | 38.7 | 204 | 49.6 | 479 | |
Husband’s education | 0.93 | |||||||
High school or less | 204 | 69.2 | 221 | 67.8 | 282 | 68.6 | 707 | |
More than highschool | 91 | 30.8 | 105 | 32.2 | 129 | 31.4 | 325 | |
Occupation | 0.23 | |||||||
Housewife | 235 | 79.7 | 272 | 83.4 | 347 | 84.4 | 854 | |
Employed | 60 | 20.3 | 54 | 16.6 | 64 | 15.6 | 178 | |
Income (JD) | 0.48 | |||||||
<400 | 120 | 41.0 | 137 | 43.5 | 157 | 39.1 | 414 | |
400+ | 173 | 59.0 | 178 | 56.5 | 245 | 60.9 | 596 | |
Number of boys | 0.95 | |||||||
None | 68 | 23.1 | 77 | 23.6 | 101 | 24.6 | 246 | |
1 | 123 | 41.7 | 130 | 39.9 | 158 | 38.4 | 411 | |
2 | 68 | 23.1 | 71 | 21.8 | 96 | 23.4 | 235 | |
>2 | 36 | 12.2 | 48 | 14.7 | 56 | 13.6 | 140 | |
Number of girls | 0.33 | |||||||
None | 75 | 25.4 | 105 | 32.2 | 100 | 24.3 | 280 | |
1 | 108 | 36.6 | 110 | 33.7 | 160 | 38.9 | 378 | |
2 | 58 | 19.7 | 61 | 18.7 | 80 | 19.5 | 199 | |
>2 | 54 | 18.3 | 50 | 15.3 | 71 | 17.3 | 175 | 0.22 |
Smoking | 19 | 6.4 | 11 | 3.4 | 63 | 15.3 | 93 | <0.001 |
Anemia | 70 | 23.7 | 58 | 17.8 | 85 | 20.7 | 213 | 0.19 |
Hypertension | 13 | 4.4 | 23 | 7.1 | 12 | 2.9 | 48 | 0.03 |
Prediabetes | 2 | 0.7 | 4 | 1.2 | 2 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.51 |
Gestational diabetes | 6 | 2.0 | 7 | 2.1 | 2 | 0.5 | 15 | 0.11 |
Preeclampsia | 5 | 1.7 | 7 | 2.1 | 6 | 1.5 | 18 | 0.78 |
Variable | Group | Total N = 1032 | p-Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control (n = 295) | Counseling Only (n = 326) | Counseling and Messages (n = 411) | ||||||
n | % | n | % | n | % | N | ||
Number of antenatal visits | <0.001 | |||||||
0 | 40 | 13.6 | 90 | 27.6 | 19 | 4.6 | 149 | |
1–8 | 111 | 37.6 | 121 | 37.1 | 143 | 34.8 | 375 | |
>8 | 144 | 48.8 | 115 | 35.3 | 249 | 60.6 | 508 | |
Time at first visit | <0.001 | |||||||
First trimester | 212 | 71.9 | 215 | 66.0 | 345 | 83.9 | 772 | |
Second trimester | 23 | 7.8 | 16 | 4.9 | 22 | 5.4 | 61 | |
Third trimester | 20 | 6.8 | 5 | 1.5 | 25 | 6.1 | 50 | |
No visit | 40 | 13.6 | 90 | 27.6 | 19 | 4.6 | 149 | |
Multiplicity | 0.90 | |||||||
Single | 283 | 95.9 | 314 | 96.3 | 397 | 96.6 | 994 | |
Twin | 12 | 4.1 | 12 | 3.7 | 14 | 3.4 | 38 | |
History of stillbirth/neonatal mortality | 102 | 34.6 | 102 | 31.3 | 117 | 28.5 | 321 | 0.22 |
Perception of the timing of the last pregnancy | <0.001 | |||||||
Appropriate time | 216 | 73.2 | 249 | 76.4 | 303 | 73.7 | 768 | |
Good but not the best time | 59 | 20.0 | 20 | 6.1 | 71 | 17.3 | 150 | |
Wrong time | 20 | 6.8 | 57 | 17.5 | 37 | 9.0 | 114 | |
Place of delivery | 0.13 | |||||||
Hospital | 292 | 99.0 | 316 | 96.9 | 405 | 98.5 | 1013 | |
Home | 3 | 1.0 | 10 | 3.1 | 6 | 1.5 | 19 | |
Type of delivery | 0.80 | |||||||
Vaginal | 198 | 67.1 | 213 | 65.3 | 266 | 64.7 | 677 | |
Cesarean section | 97 | 32.9 | 113 | 34.7 | 145 | 35.3 | 355 | |
Gender | 0.48 | |||||||
Male | 158 | 53.6 | 177 | 54.3 | 206 | 50.1 | 541 | |
Female | 137 | 46.4 | 149 | 45.7 | 205 | 49.9 | 491 | |
Birthweight | 0.10 | |||||||
Normal | 261 | 88.5 | 303 | 92.9 | 365 | 88.8 | 929 | |
Low birthweight | 34 | 11.5 | 23 | 7.1 | 46 | 11.2 | 103 | |
Gestational age | 0.08 | |||||||
Full-term | 272 | 92.2 | 308 | 94.5 | 395 | 96.1 | 975 | |
Premature | 23 | 7.8 | 18 | 5.5 | 16 | 3.9 | 57 | |
Intend to use family planning methods following latest delivery | 250 | 86.6 | 291 | 89.7 | 360 | 89.8 | 901 | 0.15 |
3 Months | 6 Months | 9 Months | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | p-Value | OR | 95% CI | p-Value | OR | 95% CI | p-Value | ||||
Group | ||||||||||||
Control | 1 | |||||||||||
Counseling only | 1.6 | 1.1 | 2.3 | <0.01 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 2.8 | <0.001 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 3.0 | <0.001 |
Counseling and reminder messages | 1.7 | 1.2 | 2.4 | <0.01 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 2.7 | <0.001 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 3.2 | <0.001 |
Intention to use family planning (yes vs. no) | 2.0 | 1.3 | 3.3 | <0.01 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 8.8 | <0.001 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 8.1 | <0.001 |
Aware of family planning methods available at the clinic (yes vs. no) | 2.0 | 1.4 | 2.8 | <0.001 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 2.4 | <0.01 | ||||
Ever used any modern contraception (yes vs. no) | 1.9 | 1.4 | 2.5 | <0.001 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 2.8 | <0.001 | ||||
Place of delivery (home vs. hospital) | 6.5 | 1.8 | 24.0 | <0.01 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 15.3 | <0.01 | ||||
Multiplicity (single vs. twins) | 2.5 | 1.1 | 5.8 | <0.03 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 5.3 | 0.05 | ||||
Reason for current visit (postpartum care vs. immunization) | 1.6 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 0.04 | ||||||||
Husband’s education | ||||||||||||
High school or less | 1.6 | 1.1 | 2.1 | <0.01 | ||||||||
More than high school | 1.0 | |||||||||||
Income (<JOD 400 vs. JOD 400+) | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 0.04 | ||||||||
Feeling about the timing of the last pregnancy | ||||||||||||
Appropriate time | 1.0 | |||||||||||
Good but not the best time | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.41 | ||||||||
Wrong time | 2.0 | 1.3 | 3.2 | <0.01 | ||||||||
Heard about family planning (yes vs. no) | 1.4 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.03 | ||||||||
Breastfeeding (yes vs. no) | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 0.05 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Prince, H.; Khader, Y.S.; Halasa-Rappel, Y.A.; Khudair, S.A.; Alyahya, M.; Al-Sheyab, N.; Shattnawi, K.K.; AlHamawi, R.; Ready, K. The Impact of Behavioral Economics-Based Counseling and Mobile Phone Text Educational and Reminder Messages on the Use of Modern Family Planning in Jordan: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091314
Prince H, Khader YS, Halasa-Rappel YA, Khudair SA, Alyahya M, Al-Sheyab N, Shattnawi KK, AlHamawi R, Ready K. The Impact of Behavioral Economics-Based Counseling and Mobile Phone Text Educational and Reminder Messages on the Use of Modern Family Planning in Jordan: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Healthcare. 2023; 11(9):1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091314
Chicago/Turabian StylePrince, Heath, Yousef S. Khader, Yara A. Halasa-Rappel, Sara Abu Khudair, Mohammad Alyahya, Nihaya Al-Sheyab, Khulood K. Shattnawi, Rana AlHamawi, and Kelley Ready. 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Economics-Based Counseling and Mobile Phone Text Educational and Reminder Messages on the Use of Modern Family Planning in Jordan: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial" Healthcare 11, no. 9: 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091314
APA StylePrince, H., Khader, Y. S., Halasa-Rappel, Y. A., Khudair, S. A., Alyahya, M., Al-Sheyab, N., Shattnawi, K. K., AlHamawi, R., & Ready, K. (2023). The Impact of Behavioral Economics-Based Counseling and Mobile Phone Text Educational and Reminder Messages on the Use of Modern Family Planning in Jordan: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Healthcare, 11(9), 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091314