Perception and barrier in access to sexual and reproductive health services among youth (aged 18-24) in Xiangkhuang province: A mixed-method study study

Authors

  • Mr. Johnly Phanthady University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Vanphanom Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Souksamone Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Vannasith Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Buasone Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Xayphasith Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Vassana Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR
  • Soudavanh Faculty of Public Health, University of Health Sciences, Lao PDR

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62992/eyj34w48

Keywords:

Accessibility, Barrier, Lao PDR, Perception of SRH services, Youth.

Abstract

Background: Sexual activity during youthful age is common in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. However, youth insufficiently use the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services and subsequently suffer from poor sexual and reproductive health. To stimulate evidence-informed decision-making in health policies, context specific research describing the barriers preventing Lao youth from accessing sexual and reproductive health services is needed.

Objectives: To explore the barriers in access to sexual and reproductive health services among unmarried young people in Laos. 

Methods: Mixed methods were employed to conduct this study in Xiangkhuang province with 444 youths. Face-to-face interviews using questionnaires classified accessibility as geographical (availability), affordability, and approachability, acceptability, and appropriateness. IDIs and FGDs were used to investigate cognitive, psychosocial, and geographic accessibility, affordability, and SRH service quality. Data were entered into Epi-data 3.1 and exported to STATA 14 for analysis. Univariable and multivariable analysis identified predictors of total accessibility, reported as Adjusted OR with a 95% CI and P-value < 0.05.

Results: The results found the mean age of the participants with 19.9 years and 68.6% were female,66.9% of them stayed in urban area, 79.9% were Lao, and 93.5% were single. More than half of the participants had poor level of perception toward accessibility of SRH services (51.4%), and 55.1% encountered barriers, highlighting significant challenges in accessing essential services. In multivariable analysis, spiritual individuals had lower odds in perceiving SRH as accessible than Buddhists (AOR = 0.4, 95%CI: 0.2-0.7, p = 0.004), but no significant difference existed among Christians. Those earning over 1,500,000 LAK were more likely to perceive SRH as accessible than those below this threshold (AOR = 2.7, 95%CI: 1.0-7.0, p = 0.041). Additionally, individuals with sexual experience had higher odds of seeing SRH as accessible compared to unexperienced (AOR = 1.9, 95%CI: 1.2-3.1, p = 0.006).

Conclusion: The study on youth's perception and barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services revealed unique challenges, including Lao ethnicity and Buddhism, financial obstacles, and family influence. The study suggested that targeted interventions should focus on culturally sensitive service delivery, addressing financial barriers, promoting education, and improving internet access to enhance accessibility and overall well-being among youth populations.

References

Mokdad AH, Forouzanfar MH, Daoud F, Mokdad AA, El Bcheraoui C, Moradi-Lakeh M, et al. Global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors for young people's health during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10036):2383-401.

Chandra-Mouli V, Svanemyr J, Amin A, Fogstad H, Say L, Girard F, et al. Twenty years after International Conference on Population and Development: where are we with adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights? The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2015;56(1 Suppl):S1-6.

Denno DM, Hoopes AJ, Chandra-Mouli V. Effective strategies to provide adolescent sexual and reproductive health services and to increase demand and community support. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2015;56(1 Suppl):S22-41.

Tylee A, Haller DM, Graham T, Churchill R, Sanci LA. Youth-friendly primary-care services: how are we doing and what more needs to be done? Lancet (London, England). 2007;369(9572):1565-73.

Molina RC, Roca CG, Zamorano JS, Araya EG. Family planning and adolescent pregnancy. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2010;24(2):209-22.

Lao Statistics Bureau. Lao Social Indicator Survey II 2017, Survey Findings Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR. Lao Statistics Bureau and UNICEF; 2018.

Darroch J, Woog V, Bankole A, Ashford L. Addiing it Up: Costs and Benefits of Meeting the Contraceptive Needs of Adolescents2016.

Hendrana A, Mutyara K, Rowawi R. Knowledge and Attitude of Senior High School Students in Jatinangor towards Sexually Transmitted Infections in 2013. Althea Medical Journal. 2015;2.

Gulliford M, Figueroa-Munoz J, Morgan M, Hughes D, Gibson B, Beech R, et al. What does 'access to health care' mean? 2002;7(3):186-8.

RamaRao S, Jain AKJSifp. Aligning goals, intents, and performance indicators in family planning service delivery. Studies in family planning. 2015;46(1):97-104.

Bertrand JT, Hardee K, Magnani RJ, Angle MAJIfpp. Access, quality of care and medical barriers in family planning programs. International family planning perspectives. 1995:64-74.

Russell S, Barron AB, Harris DJEM. Dynamic modelling of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony growth and failure. Ecological Modelling. 2013;265:158-69.

Hardee K, Kumar J, Newman K, Bakamjian L, Harris S, Rodríguez M, et al. Voluntary, human rights–based family planning: a conceptual framework. Studies in family planning. 2014;45(1):1-18.

McCleary-Sills AW, Stoebenau K, Hollingworth GJWDI. Understanding the adolescent family planning evidence base. Washington DC: ICRW. 2014.

Levesque J-F, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2013;12(1):18.

United Nation. Definition of Youth; United Nations Youth 2013 [Available from: https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf.

Kang, E., & Dunbar, M. S. Ethical considerations in conducting research with adolescents on sensitive topics. . Journal of Adolescent Health. 2018;6(3):267-72.

Hoffman RM, Moyo C, Balakasi KT, Siwale Z, Hubbard J, Bardon A, et al. Multimonth dispensing of up to 6 months of antiretroviral therapy in Malawi and Zambia (INTERVAL): a cluster-randomised, non-blinded, non-inferiority trial. 2021;9(5):e628-e38.

WHO. Inclusive healthcare services and sexual orientation: A global perspective. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

Gibson W, Brown A. Working with qualitative data. 2009.

Korstjens I., Moser, A. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. J European Journal of General Practice 2018;24(1):120-4.

Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches: Sage publications; 2016.

Morgan, D. L., & Hoffman, K. A system for coding the interaction in focus groups and dyadic interviews. 2018;23(3):519-31.

Cahill N, Sonneveldt E, Stover J, Weinberger M, Williamson J, Wei C, et al. Modern contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand satisfied among women of reproductive age who are married or in a union in the focus countries of the Family Planning 2020 initiative: a systematic analysis using the Family Planning Estimation Tool. The Lancet. 2018;391(10123):870-82.

Ali, H., Smith, M., & Johnson, R. Factors influencing access to sexual and reproductive health services among youth. . Journal of Adolescent Health. 2020;67(5):634-42.

Ministry of Health. Integrating cultural competence into health service provision: A handbook for health providers. 2020.

UNESCO. Education and access to sexual and reproductive health services. Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO; 2021.

Bryant, A., Thompson, K., & Williams, L.. Financial barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services: A review. Health Economics Review. 2020;10(1).

Downloads

Published

17-09-2024

How to Cite

1.
Perception and barrier in access to sexual and reproductive health services among youth (aged 18-24) in Xiangkhuang province: A mixed-method study study. IJPHAP [Internet]. 2024 Sep. 17 [cited 2025 Feb. 17];3(6):84-95. Available from: https://ijphap.com/index.php/home/article/view/88