17
Constructive Male Engagement in Family Planning in Madagascar Ashley Jackson, Technical Advisor Population Services International (PSI) Laura Hurley, Senior Program Manager IntraHealth International Global Health Mini-U March 2, 2015

Constructive Male Engagement in Family Planning in Madagascar Ashley Jackson, Technical Advisor Population Services International (PSI) Laura Hurley, Senior

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Constructive Male Engagement inFamily Planning in Madagascar

Ashley Jackson, Technical AdvisorPopulation Services International (PSI)

Laura Hurley, Senior Program ManagerIntraHealth International

Global Health Mini-UMarch 2, 2015

Overview

page 2

Madagascar

Context– FP in Madagascar– Top Réseau– ISM Project

Gender assessment Male engagement approach Activity demonstration Lessons learned

29% MCPR among married women– 23% among all WRA

19% unmet need among married women– 10% for spacing– 9% for limiting– 15% among all WRA– 27% among age 15-19

Context: FP in Madagascar

page 3

23% of births are less than 2 years after a prior birth

33% of women (25-49) gave birth before age 18– 29% of 17-year-olds had given

birth or were pregnant

Context: FP in Madagascar

page 4

Nationwide network of 254 private health clinics

– Started by PSI in 2000– 67% urban

Services: – RH, STI, FP

• Including LARC methods

– Child survival, fever

Top Réseau social franchise

page 5

USAID funded project from 2013-2017– PSI, IntraHealth, and 4 other partners

Focus on social marketing and franchising for FP/RH, Child survival, malaria, and nutrition

Demand creation by IPC agents, peer educators, and CHW

Quality assurance is key project objective – gender integration is one aspect of QA

Integrated Social Marketing (ISM) Project

page 6

Objective: Identify gender-based constraints and opportunities that affect men’s and women’s health risks and capacity to seek appropriate quality care

Methodology– Literature review– 26 key informant interviews (MOH, NGOs, donors)– 12 focus group discussions with 93 people:

• Women and men (married & unmarried, younger & older)• Providers and Community Health Workers

Gender assessment led by IntraHealth (2013)

page 7

Barriers to contraceptive use: Male opposition to family planning was second only to side effects, and was raised in every focus group

– Misconceptions about what methods are appropriate for young people (only condoms and counting days)

– Myths that hormonal methods would lead to infertility, reduced sex drive, and health problems

– Married men felt that there were no family planning programs or information for them

Gender assessment findings

page 8

All focus groups brought up that many women hide contraceptive use from their partners

Men’s motivations to support contraceptive use:

– “Life is hard.” – Married rural man

– “You can fulfill your dreams.” – Unmarried urban man

Gender assessment findings

page 9

68% of women think their partner supports modern FP use– 50% of women think that their

husbands would accept their partner using an IUD

The most significant determinants associated with the use of FP among youth (age 15-24) were social support from friends and from partner

page 10

Quantitative data from PSI/Madagascar

Gender synchronized approach– Target men and women

alike with messages and services

Communication channels– Radio serial drama

– Peer education

– Couples’ counseling

page 11

Program design to constructively engage men

Healthy Images of Manhood (HIM) approach

page 12

Demo: Act Like a Man/Act Like a Woman

page 13

“When the PSI peer educators invited me to attend the session, I laughed because I told him that I can’t get pregnant. But after the session I realized that my future is also at stake and that if I really care about my partner I should help her to realize her dreams too.”

Meet Romelle, age 23

page 14

Increase in number of young male FP clients

page 15

Keys to success:– Separate peer education sessions for girls/women

and boys/men

– Involvement of providers in communication activities

– Training follow-up and supervision

Lessons learned

PAGE 16

Evaluation planning underway

Thank you

PAGE 17