\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Factors of Non-Use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{1970-01-01 (revised: 01 January 1970)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{1970-01-01} \title{Factors of Non-Use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \affil[1]{ } \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 1 January 1970 Accepted: 1 January 1970 Published: 1 January 1970} \maketitle \begin{abstract} \end{abstract} \keywords{} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm) {{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{}} \end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& \par Results: Fear of side effects and opposition from women or partners were the main reasons given by women in a union in 2006 (21.0\%; 11.4\%) and 2017-2018 {\ref (18.4\%; 35.5\%)} for refusing to use modern contraceptives. At the bivariate level, except for the variable information received on family planning in 2017 and the number of child deaths, a significant association at the 1\% level was established between the non-use of modern methods and the independent variables. However, a decrease in proportion was recorded in the different subgroups of variables and especially in contraceptive decision-making.\par With a difference of 51 points, 70.8\% of women reported not deciding to use contraceptives within the couple in 2006 versus \hyperref[b17]{19}.5\% in 2017.\par The Oaxaca-Blinder multivariate decomposition revealed that 87.5\% of the observed changes in contraceptive use were due to differences in coefficients and 12.4\% to differences in characteristics. Family planning information, religion, department of residence, household standard of living, number of deceased children, contraceptive decision, and husband's desire to have children were significantly associated with the non-use of modern contraceptives between 2006 and 2017.\par Recommendations: Family planning programs and policies should be strengthened in all departments by involving spouses and partners more. Lifestyle improvement measures should be encouraged to ensure equitable access to contraceptives. {\ref INTRODUCTION} After the 1994 Cairo conference, international support for family planning impacted millions of people through its role in reducing poverty, improving health and human development. Benin has not remained on the sidelines of these changes and in its commitment to controlling its population growth. It has undertaken a series of reforms to its health system to promote reproductive health through the Ministry of Health by offering family planning services in all London Journal of Medical and Health Research health facilities (Ministry of Health, 2012). These actions are reinforced by the remarkable support and intervention of several Technical and Financial Partners (TFPs) and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). In 2020, the additional number of Beninese women using modern contraception was estimated at 204,000, the modern contraceptive prevalence rate at 13.0\%, and the unmet need for modern contraception at 35.3\% \hyperref[b21]{(Scoggins S and al, 2020)}.\par In addition, it is estimated that 131,000 unintended pregnancies, 46,000 unsafe abortions and 340 maternal deaths will be averted by modern contraception in 2019. Therefore, women's use of contraceptive methods has economic, health, and social benefits for the community. Despite these efforts, the contraceptive security index in Benin remains relatively low, calling for additional initiatives to achieve the goals related to new aspirations in reproductive health and contraceptive practice (USAID, 2012). Today, opposition to the use of modern contraceptive methods, particularly among women in union, is perceptible in Beninese society, with disparities between regions. Hence the importance of understanding the obstacles to the utilization of modern contraceptives within couples. This study aims to analyze the evolution of the determinant factors of the non-use of modern contraception among women in a union in Benin between 2006 and 2017. \section[{Literature Review}]{Literature Review}\par Several research studies have explored the different facets of family planning (FP), of which contraceptive practice is one of the topics of interest in demographic research (Ngo Mayack and al., 2019). Women's FP behaviors are analyzed under the prism of service supply and demand. According to Morhason-Bello IO and al (2022), the low level of family planning uptake in Nigeria is due to demand and supply side factors. \section[{Service delivery approach}]{Service delivery approach}\par According to this approach, the decision to use contraception depends on the availability and accessibility of services, which consider several dimensions. Availability refers to the existence of suitable FP service centers and, above all, the availability to the population of a variety of modern contraceptive methods capable of stimulating the use of family planning services.\par The accessibility of services, it refers to geographical, economic, administrative, cognitive, and psychosocial accessibility \hyperref[b2]{(Bertrand JT et al, 1995)}.\par Geographical accessibility indicates the physical location of services in relation to the place of residence of households and the obstacles encountered by the latter to access the products made available. Indeed, the further away the health facility offering FP services is, the fewer women use it \hyperref[b14]{(Moussa Z, 2011)}. Accessibility to family planning services improves women's knowledge and practice of contraception.\par Economic accessibility relates to the affordability of the direct and indirect costs of contraception, which are the unit selling prices of contraceptive products, the expenses related to consultation and travel as well as the waiting time in health centers influence the use of FP services (Rwenge M., and al, 2019) and therefore the choice of contraceptive method. Indeed, the high cost of modern contraception and the quality of services offered are constraints for economically disadvantaged women to use traditional methods more than modern ones. Administrative accessibility refers to the institutional and legal framework that can influence contraceptive practices. The policy context is the normative framework for FP intervention, where laws and regulations, as well as strategies and programmes that govern contraceptive behavior, are defined. For example, some laws that require a woman to have her husband's permission to use contraception restrict women's access to family planning services \hyperref[b10]{( Lenan G., 2009)}. Cognitive accessibility provides information on individuals' knowledge of contraceptive methods and FP centers. A study conducted in the Mumbunda health zone in Lubumbashi, DRC, showed that women with a high level of knowledge about contraceptive methods were twice as likely to be users of contraceptive methods as those with a low level of knowledge \hyperref[b3]{(Charles M., and al, 2015)}. \section[{London Journal of Medical and Health Research}]{London Journal of Medical and Health Research}\par Psychosocial accessibility addresses social factors that may prevent a woman from comfortably adopting better contraceptive practices. These include beliefs and stereotypes about contraception etc. \section[{Demand Approach}]{Demand Approach}\par This approach encompasses three dimensions that are decisive in the decision to use or not to use contraception. These are the economic, socio-cultural, and socio-demographic dimensi--ons. \section[{Economic dimensions of demand}]{Economic dimensions of demand}\par Low-income households are facing financial challenges in terms of the cost of counseling, contraceptive supplies and transportation which limit their access to family planning services. According to the results of the fifth Benin Demographic and Health Survey, the percentage of women in union with a high quintile of economic well-being who use modern contraception is double their counterparts with the lowest level of economic well-being \hyperref[b7]{(INSAE, 2017)}. Furthermore, occupation (type of economic activity) is also likely to influence contraceptive practices among women. In this context, Nounké K. (2011) notes that women in the modern sector, due to specific difficulties linked to their activity, including those of reconciling the function of mother and professional, tend to control their birth by resorting to the use of contraceptives. \section[{Socio-cultural dimensions of demand}]{Socio-cultural dimensions of demand}\par Cultural factors are equally important in understanding couples' choice of family planning and contraception \hyperref[b12]{(Mbarambara P. and al, 2016)}. Several authors have highlighted the central role of elements of tradition in explaining reproductive behavior in families. According to \hyperref[b17]{Noumbissi A. and al (2000)}, the low prevalence of modern contraception is due to the pro-natalist mentality maintained by the norms and values of the culture that values high fertility. Indeed, the perception of children in traditional African societies reflects a preference for high fertility among couples. This does not encourage a strong demand for contraceptive methods. In Africa, not only is the child considered a gift from God that perpetuates the family lineage, it is also a gain (or wealth) for the parents and therefore supposed to ensure their economic and social development \hyperref[b9]{(Kouadio A and al, 2015)}. These social representations of the child justify couples' reluctance to regulate births through modern contraception.\par Furthermore, the social environment characterized by ethnicity, place of residence during childhood and religion influences women's contraceptive practices as well as the environment in which fertility is achieved and whether or not they live with their spouse (Mayack J., and al 2017). \section[{Socio-demographic dimensions of demand}]{Socio-demographic dimensions of demand}\par Age appears to be one of the reasons for contraceptive failure, the immediate consequences of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections and diseases (STIs). In Brazil, the work of Da Costa Leite, I. and al {\ref (2007)} has shown that the risk of contraceptive failure decreases at older ages in women and this may be due to the decline in their fertility. The relationship between women's marital status and contraceptive use is established in the African context. Thus, sexually active women who are single or in a broken union (divorced, widowed) are more predisposed to the use of modern contraceptive methods than those in a conjugal union for economic and social reasons at times \hyperref[b5]{(Fassassi R., 2006}). Women's fertility plans, which are reflected in their desire or refusal to have additional children, may lead them to adopt specific contraceptive behaviors. In this case, contraception represents a strategy for stopping births. The risk of not using contraception increases with the occurrence of childbirth and the desire of women to have both sexes in their offspring. The results of the study by \hyperref[b27]{Vignikin K. (2004)} go to the same direction. Among other things, the gender relationship, which is illustrated by the man's involvement in favor of contraception, his opinion and the dialogue within the couple on family planning issues, was recognised as influencing the woman's contraceptive behavior. Regarding spousal exchanges, the study conducted by Charles M. and al ( {\ref 2015} discussed with their partners were 6 times more likely to use modern contraceptives than those who never discussed. On the other hand, the spouse's profile, such as education level and occupation, was also admitted as a factor that may affect a woman's decision whether or not to use contraception for the total satisfaction of her FP needs. \section[{II. METHODS}]{II. METHODS} \section[{Data sources}]{Data sources}\par The data for this survey comes from the Benin Demographic and Health Surveys (BDHS) conducted in 2006 and 2017-2018. Their sampling is based on a two-stage stratified cluster survey. In the first stage, clusters were chosen proportionally to their size from the list of DZs. In the second stage, households in which women were surveyed were selected randomly with equal probability from each cluster. This is a quantitative study with an analytical focus.\par Married or cohabiting women aged 15-49 are the study population. According to the two survey rounds, there is a nationally representative sample of 13403 and 11169 women in a union in 2006 and 2017-2018 respectively. This data source is appropriate due to the good quality of contraception data collected. \section[{Variables}]{Variables} \section[{Dependent variable}]{Dependent variable}\par Information on contraceptive means or methods was collected from women in both DHS {\ref (2006 and 2017-2018)}. The variable to be explained is the non-use of modern contraceptive methods.\par The study focuses on women in unions consisting of women aged 15-49 who are married or cohabiting at the time of the survey. The dependent variable is dichotomous, taking the value of 1 if the woman is not currently using any modern contraceptive method and 0 if she is using a modern method of contraception. \section[{Independent Variables}]{Independent Variables}\par The explanatory variables of the study take into account the supply and demand dimensions.\par These include: information received by the respondent on FP from community health workers, exposure to the mass media, place of residence, department of residence, religious affiliation, the woman's level of education, age, number of living children (parity), number of deceased children, the woman's professional occupation, the household's standard of living, the contraceptive decision and the husband's desire to have children \section[{Analysis}]{Analysis}\par Analysis process followed three steps. First, we describe the variation in the non-use of modern contraception according to the different characteristics. We evaluate the association between the dependent variable and each of the independent variables using the chi-square test at the 5\% threshold (p<0.05). In the second step, we looked for the determinants of the non-use of modern contraceptive methods between 2006 and 2017 using a binary logistic estimation. We then applied the Oaxaca-Blinder multivariate decomposition method to analyze the changes observed in the evolution of modern contraceptive practice over the last eleven (11) years. \section[{Oaxaca-Blinder Multivariate Decomposition Method}]{Oaxaca-Blinder Multivariate Decomposition Method}\par The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition was used to identify and quantify the variables that contributed most to the decline in the proportion of women not using modern contraception between 2006 and 2017. In addition, the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique generally describes the average difference in the variable of interest between two groups. This difference is comprized in two effects or components. First, the characteristics (or endowment) effect explains the difference between groups by the different levels of the observed characteristics. Second, the coefficient effect, again defined by the unexplained component, is closely associated with differences in the coefficients attributable to unobservable variables.\par In this study, we opted for the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition based on logistic regression. The general expression of the non-linear London Journal of Medical and Health Research decomposition of which the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition is a part is written as ? 1 -? 2 = 1 ? 1 ?=1 ? 1 ? ? ? 1 ? ? 1 ( ) -1 ? 2 ?=1 ? 2 ? ? ? 1 ? ? 2 ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + 1 ? 2 ?=1 ? 2 ? ? ? 1 ? ? 2 ( ) - \section[{III. RESULTS}]{III. RESULTS} \section[{Changes in non-use of modern contraception by characteristics}]{Changes in non-use of modern contraception by characteristics}\par The proportion of married or cohabiting women who do not use modern contraceptive methods fell between 2006 and 2017 from 93.9\% to 87.6\% respectively, a decrease of 6.3\%.\par The proportion of women not exposed to the mass media who do not use modern contraception has decreased by 7.2 percentage points between 2006 and 2017. The same is true for women in union who have not received information on FP from community health workers (6.2\%). Analysis by area of residence shows that the percentage gap of married or cohabiting women in rural areas not using modern contraceptive methods is decreasing (6.2\%) compared to women in urban areas (1.1\%). At the departmental level, Mono experienced the greatest decline in the number of women in union who do not use modern contraception, followed by Alibori and Zou, with a 13.7\%, 9.5\% and 9.3\% difference, respectively. On the other hand, the proportion remained unchanged among women in Couffo, with a 0-point difference. Concerning religion, the drop in the proportion of women who do not use modern contraceptive methods is high among women who practice Christianity (6.7\%) between 2006 and 2017. In the same period, there was a decrease of women not using modern contraception who had no education, a reduction of 6.4 percentage points. We also note that adolescents aged 15-19 years use modern contraception less, even if their proportion fell slightly from 2006 to 2017 (2.3\%). On the other hand, contraceptive prevalence is increasing among women farmers (5.3\%) and in other sectors (6.5\%) as well as among women from poorer (7.0\%) and middle-income households (6.9\%). In the same way, we record a low prevalence of non-use of \section[{Explanatory factors for non-use of Modern Contraception among Women in Union between 2006 and 2017}]{Explanatory factors for non-use of Modern Contraception among Women in Union between 2006 and 2017}\par According to the logistic estimation results presented in Table It is also noted that when the woman or the spouse/partner decides to use contraception alone, the probability of the woman using it within the couple were lower than if the decision was made by mutual agreement. This probability is estimated at 2.03 in 2006 and 2.12 in 2017 respectively. On the other hand, women whose husbands are undecided about their desire to have more children are 1.38 times more likely not to use modern contraceptive methods in 2006.Still, the effect of this variable was not significant in 2017. \section[{London Journal of Medical and Health Research}]{London Journal of Medical and Health Research} \section[{Analysis of differences due to characteristics}]{Analysis of differences due to characteristics}\par The result of the multivariate decomposition analysis showed that the composition effect accounts for 12.4\% of the total difference in contraceptive prevalence. In other words, 12.4\% of the difference in the proportion of women not using modern contraception is explained by differences in the characteristics of respondents between the 2006 and 2017 periods. In addition, the decrease in the proportion of women in union who do not use modern contraceptive methods is attributable to compositional factors such as: religion, department of residence, household standard of living, number of deceased children, and the person responsible for making decisions on contraceptive use within the couple. In addition, we note that a positive change in the behavior of women in union with regard to contraceptive methods residing in the departments of northern Benin (Alibori: 5.21\%, Borgou: 2.52\%, Atacora: 1.29\%) has strongly contributed to the decrease in contraceptive prevalence among women who do not use modern methods. Women in the southern departments (Atlantique: 0.48977 and Zou: 0.54476) also contributed to this decline, but only slightly.\par Similarly, women in endogenous religious unions (1.17\%), women of wealthy economic class (0.64\%) and women whose spouses adhere to contraceptive use (1.06\%) contributed positively to the evolution of contraceptive practices between 2006 and 2017. Furthermore, although women from poorer households and those with one (01) child influence the upward trend in contraceptive practices, their effects are less noticeable with negative contributions of 1.29\% (poorer) and 0.14\% (1 child) respectively. \section[{Analysis of differences due to coefficients}]{Analysis of differences due to coefficients}\par The analysis reveals that 87.5\% of the total differences in contraceptive prevalence are due to coefficient differences. Of this, for an identical characteristic composition between the two periods, differences in the proportion of women not using modern contraceptive methods decreased by 35.82 percentage points. The coefficient difference reflects the effects associated with unobserved factors that could be the improvement over time of FP service offerings and reproductive behaviors of the population.\par With regard to the observed variables, information on FP, religion, department of residence, standard of living and the couple's decision to use contraception are the factors significantly associated with the positive change observed in the use of modern contraceptive methods. Women in the department of Collines (8.70\%) and those who take the lead in the couple (7.01\%) in terms of contraceptive use have a preponderant share in the decline in the proportion of women not using FP over the periods 2006 and 2017. Women in a union who do not receive information on FP (9.97\%) and who belong to poorer households (3.97\%) show negative contributions to the observed percentage decline in non-users of modern contraceptive methods. These researchers showed that most women who had discussed family planning issues with their husbands or partners were in favor of contraceptive use, in contrast to women who had never discussed these topics with their spouses. It is therefore clear that the involvement of men in FP policies and programmes is necessary for their success and therefore actions should be taken to encourage couples to discuss FP more. This highlights, on the one hand, the importance and social representation of the child in African society as mentioned in the literature review and the need to provide the couple in general with information on FP for behavioral change to improve their sexual and reproductive health on the other hand. \section[{London Journal of Medical and Health Research}]{London Journal of Medical and Health Research} \section[{V. CONCLUSIONS}]{V. CONCLUSIONS}\par This study found that over the period 2006-2017, there is a downward trend in the proportion of married or cohabiting women who are not using modern contraceptives. This decrease of 6.3\% is attributable to changes in characteristics and coefficients. In this regard, women in a union who have received information on FP, of endogenous religion or no religion, residing in the northern departments, economically poorer or richer, having a deceased child and whose decision to use contraceptives within the couple emanates from the woman or her partner are groups that have contributed overall to the positive evolution observed in the use of modern contraceptive methods between 2006 and 2017. On the other hand, despite this modest progress, the proportion of women who do not adopt modern contraceptives is still high. Fear of side effects and opposition from wives or husbands are the main reasons cited by women who refuse contraceptive methods. Among others, information on FP, religion, department of residence, household standard of living, number of deceased children, contraceptive decision and husband's desire to have children are the main factors of resistance to contraceptive use among married or cohabiting women in 2006 and 2017 respectively.\par In light of these results, three actions can be taken. First, it is strongly recommended that development actors and the public authorities strengthen the various components of FP programmes throughout the country. Secondly, it is necessary to develop information and communication strategies directed mainly towards religious elites and disadvantaged populations for a positive change in behavior related to contraception and fertility. Finally, policies aimed at promoting reproductive health and the socio-economic conditions of women should be improved.\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png} \caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png} \caption{\label{fig_2}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png} \caption{\label{fig_3}Figure 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png} \caption{\label{fig_4}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.3364583333333333\textwidth}P{0.14105603448275864\textwidth}P{0.07755028735632184\textwidth}P{0.12823275862068964\textwidth}P{0.07632902298850575\textwidth}P{0.0903735632183908\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{selected characteristics}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{EDSB 2006}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{EDSB 2017-2018}\tabcellsep \\ Independent variables\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Difference\\ \tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep \\ Exposure to mass media\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Yes\tabcellsep 91,4\tabcellsep 6296\tabcellsep 85,6\tabcellsep 4409\tabcellsep -5,8\\ No\tabcellsep 96,5\tabcellsep 6283\tabcellsep 89,3\tabcellsep 5373\tabcellsep -7,2\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Information on FP for community health workers}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No\tabcellsep 93,9\tabcellsep 4200\tabcellsep 87,7\tabcellsep 2912\tabcellsep -6,2\\ Yes\tabcellsep 87,5\tabcellsep 1244\tabcellsep 86,4\tabcellsep 1790\tabcellsep -1,1\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,153\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Place of residence\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Urban\tabcellsep 91,0\tabcellsep 4434\tabcellsep 85,5\tabcellsep 3787\tabcellsep -5,5\\ Rural\tabcellsep 95,5\tabcellsep 8144\tabcellsep 89,0\tabcellsep 5995\tabcellsep -6,5\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Department\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Alibori\tabcellsep 96,0\tabcellsep 1097\tabcellsep 86,5\tabcellsep 1340\tabcellsep -9,5\\ Atacora\tabcellsep 94,9\tabcellsep 819\tabcellsep 90,0\tabcellsep 803\tabcellsep -4,8\\ Atlantic\tabcellsep 94,8\tabcellsep 1462\tabcellsep 86,3\tabcellsep 1131\tabcellsep -8,6\\ Borgou\tabcellsep 93,3\tabcellsep 1190\tabcellsep 88,0\tabcellsep 1215\tabcellsep -5,4\\ Hills\tabcellsep 89,7\tabcellsep 873\tabcellsep 81,9\tabcellsep 604\tabcellsep -7,9\\ Couffo\tabcellsep 95,5\tabcellsep 1074\tabcellsep 95,5\tabcellsep 710\tabcellsep 0,1\\ Donga\tabcellsep 96,1\tabcellsep 515\tabcellsep 94,1\tabcellsep 674\tabcellsep -2,0\\ Coastal\tabcellsep 89,2\tabcellsep 925\tabcellsep 80,8\tabcellsep 445\tabcellsep -8,4\\ Mono\tabcellsep 95,7\tabcellsep 776\tabcellsep 82,0\tabcellsep 421\tabcellsep -13,7\\ Ouémé\tabcellsep 91,0\tabcellsep 1684\tabcellsep 84,8\tabcellsep 835\tabcellsep -6,2\\ Tray\tabcellsep 96,6\tabcellsep 697\tabcellsep 94,3\tabcellsep 668\tabcellsep -2,3\\ Zou\tabcellsep 96,0\tabcellsep 1466\tabcellsep 86,7\tabcellsep 936\tabcellsep -9,3\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Religion\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Endogenous\tabcellsep 96,7\tabcellsep 2505\tabcellsep 91,4\tabcellsep 1038\tabcellsep -5,3\\ Muslim\tabcellsep 94,6\tabcellsep 2948\tabcellsep 89,4\tabcellsep 3279\tabcellsep -5,3\\ Christian\tabcellsep 92,2\tabcellsep 6409\tabcellsep 85,6\tabcellsep 4937\tabcellsep -6,7\\ Without religion\tabcellsep 95,6\tabcellsep 683\tabcellsep 89,0\tabcellsep 529\tabcellsep -6,6\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Woman's level of education\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No\tabcellsep 95,6\tabcellsep 9425\tabcellsep 89,2\tabcellsep 6612\tabcellsep -6,4\\ Primary\tabcellsep 91,2\tabcellsep 2175\tabcellsep 85,2\tabcellsep 1689\tabcellsep -6,0\\ Secondary and above\tabcellsep 84,3\tabcellsep 979\tabcellsep 83,4\tabcellsep 1481\tabcellsep -0,9\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Age group\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 15-19 years\tabcellsep 97,1\tabcellsep 648\tabcellsep 94,8\tabcellsep 586\tabcellsep -2,3\\ 20-29 years\tabcellsep 94,9\tabcellsep 5272\tabcellsep 88,8\tabcellsep 4107\tabcellsep -6,1\\ 30-39 years\tabcellsep 92,5\%\tabcellsep 4271\tabcellsep 84,7\%\tabcellsep 3168\tabcellsep -7,9\%\\ 40-49 years\tabcellsep 93,1\%\tabcellsep 2388\tabcellsep 87,9\tabcellsep 1922\tabcellsep -5,1\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Occupation Woman\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Inactive\tabcellsep 94,8\tabcellsep 1565\tabcellsep 90,9\tabcellsep 1585\tabcellsep -4,0\\ Administration\tabcellsep 82,2\tabcellsep 203\tabcellsep 80,1\tabcellsep 293\tabcellsep -2,1\\ Agriculture\tabcellsep 96,2\tabcellsep 4519\tabcellsep 90,9\tabcellsep 2255\tabcellsep -5,3\\ Other sector\tabcellsep 92,4\tabcellsep 6233\tabcellsep 85,9\tabcellsep 5650\tabcellsep -6,5\\ Pearson chi2\tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep p=0,000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Household standard of living\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ poorer\tabcellsep 97,6\tabcellsep 2576\tabcellsep 90,6\tabcellsep 1962\tabcellsep -7,0\end{longtable} \par \begin{quote} London Journal of Medical and Health Research 16 Volume 23 | Issue 3 | Compilation 1.0 Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin © 2023 Great ] Britain Journals Press Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin Source: EDSB data mining, 2006 and 2017-2018\end{quote} \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.4481818181818181\textwidth}P{0.20152727272727272\textwidth}P{0.2002909090909091\textwidth}} 2017\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep EDSB-2006\tabcellsep EDSB-2017\\ Independent variable\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep Model 1\tabcellsep Model 2\\ Exposure to mass media (Ref=Yes)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No\tabcellsep 0,859 ns\tabcellsep 0,916 ns\\ Information on FP for community health workers\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ (Ref=Yes)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No\tabcellsep 2,014 ***\tabcellsep 0,996 ns\\ Religion (Ref=Christian)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Endogenous\tabcellsep 1,149 ns\tabcellsep 2,052 **\\ Muslim\tabcellsep 1,015 ns\tabcellsep 0,861 ns\\ Without religion\tabcellsep 0,446 **\tabcellsep 1,290 ns\\ Place of residence (Ref=Urban)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Rural\tabcellsep 0,819 ns\tabcellsep 1,027 ns\\ Department of residence (Ref=Coastal)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Alibori\tabcellsep 0,020 ***\tabcellsep 0,364 **\\ Atacora\tabcellsep 0,098 ***\tabcellsep 0,176 ***\\ Atlantic\tabcellsep 1,884 **\tabcellsep 1,234 ns\\ Borgou\tabcellsep 0,222 ***\tabcellsep 0,131 ***\\ Hills\tabcellsep 0,586 *\tabcellsep 0,147 ***\\ Couffo\tabcellsep 0,354 ***\tabcellsep 0,810 ns\\ Donga\tabcellsep 0,328 **\tabcellsep 0,185 **\\ Mono\tabcellsep 0,436 **\tabcellsep 0,667 ns\\ Ouémé\tabcellsep 0,839 ns\tabcellsep 1,126 ns\\ Tray\tabcellsep 0,188 **\tabcellsep 0,519 ns\\ Zou\tabcellsep 1,094 ns\tabcellsep 0,421 **\\ Woman's level of education (Ref= Secondary and above)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No\tabcellsep 1,108 ns\tabcellsep 0,804 ns\\ Primary\tabcellsep 1,341 ns\tabcellsep 0,860 ns\\ Age group (Ref=15-19yrs)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 20-29 years\tabcellsep 1,310 ns\tabcellsep 1,267 ns\\ 30-39 years\tabcellsep 1,478 ns\tabcellsep 1,243 ns\\ 40-49 years\tabcellsep 0,922 ns\tabcellsep 1,312 ns\\ Occupation of the woman (Ref=Administrative)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Inactive\tabcellsep 0,841 ns\tabcellsep 0,746 ns\\ Farmer\tabcellsep 1,380 ns\tabcellsep 0,822 ns\\ Other sector\tabcellsep 0,965 ns\tabcellsep 0,871 ns\\ Household standard of living (Ref=Highest)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ poorer\tabcellsep 1,035 ns\tabcellsep 2,510 **\\ Poor\tabcellsep 1,277 ns\tabcellsep 0,861 ns\\ Medium\tabcellsep 1,300 ns\tabcellsep 1,184 ns\\ Rich\tabcellsep 1,027 ns\tabcellsep 2,041 ***\\ Number of living children (Ref=0 child)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 1\tabcellsep 0,861 ns\tabcellsep 0,749 ns\\ 2\tabcellsep 0,747 ns\tabcellsep 0,612 ns\\ 3\tabcellsep 0,615 ns\tabcellsep 0,647 ns\\ 4 or more\tabcellsep 0,388 ns\tabcellsep 0,315 ns\\ Number of children who died (Ref=0 child)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 1\tabcellsep 1,273 ns\tabcellsep 1,666 **\\ 2\tabcellsep 1,049 ns\tabcellsep 1,498 ns\\ 3\tabcellsep 2,075 ns\tabcellsep 0,546 ns\\ 4 or more\tabcellsep 10,260 **\tabcellsep 3,385 ns\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Contraceptive decision within the couple (Ref= joint decision)}\tabcellsep \\ Woman\tabcellsep 2,032 ***\tabcellsep 1,135 ns\end{longtable} \par \begin{quote} London Journal of Medical and Health Research 19 Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin\end{quote} \caption{\label{tab_3}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.22032158078264238\textwidth}P{0.2977140643161565\textwidth}P{0.005927934908950019\textwidth}P{0.18475397132894228\textwidth}P{0.052363425029058504\textwidth}P{0.07409918636187525\textwidth}P{0.014819837272375048\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Effect of characteristics (E)}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Effect of coefficients (C)}\\ Features\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep Coefficient\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Share (\%)}\tabcellsep Coefficient\tabcellsep Share (\%)\\ Aggregate effects\tabcellsep -0,050221\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 12,4\tabcellsep -0,35382\tabcellsep 87,5\\ Constant\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -0,25534\tabcellsep 63,198\\ \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Information on FP for community health workers (Ref=Yes)}\\ No\tabcellsep 7,7336E-05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0,019141\tabcellsep 0,040272**\tabcellsep -9,9673\\ \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Religion (Ref=Christian)}\tabcellsep \\ Endogenous\tabcellsep -0,0047382**\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1,1727\tabcellsep 0,012256\tabcellsep -3,0335\\ Muslim\tabcellsep -0,003239\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0,80165\tabcellsep -0,0043047\tabcellsep 1,0654\\ Without religion\tabcellsep 0,00069595\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -0,17225\tabcellsep 0,0077251*\tabcellsep -1,912\\ \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Department (Ref=Coastal)}\tabcellsep \\ Alibori\tabcellsep -0,021063**\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 5,2132\tabcellsep 0,0092831**\tabcellsep -2,2976\\ Atacora\tabcellsep -0,0052091***\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1,2892\tabcellsep 0,0034626\tabcellsep -0,857\\ Atlantic\tabcellsep -0,0019789\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0,48977\tabcellsep -0,01662\tabcellsep 4,1136\\ Borgou\tabcellsep -0,010164***\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2,5156\tabcellsep -0,0066568\tabcellsep 1,6476\\ Hills\tabcellsep 0,0091662***\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -2,2686\tabcellsep -0,035148**\tabcellsep 8,6992\\ Couffo\tabcellsep 0,00040829\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -0,101 05\tabcellsep 0,0067433\tabcellsep -1,669\\ Donga\tabcellsep -0,0000018788**\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{0,000465}\tabcellsep -0,0034446\tabcellsep 0,85254\\ Mono Ouémé Tray Zou poorer Poor Medium Rich 1 child 2 children 3 children >= 4children Woman Male\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{-0,0019886 -0,001716 -0,0025104 -0,0022011** Household standard of living (Ref=Highest) 0,49218 0,0030201 0,42471 0,0093718 0,62134 0,0016197 0,54476 -0,015247* 0,0052311** -1,2947 0,016045* -0,00098084 0,24276 -0,0089547 0,00036702 -0,09083 8 -0,0030457 -0,0025917** 0,64146 0,030238** Number of children who died (Ref=0 child) 0,00056687** -0,1403 0,010062 -0,00087913 0,21758 0,0049978 0,00025217 -0,062411 -0,0056867 -8,7023E-05 0,021538 -0,0015746 Contraceptive decision within the couple (Ref=joint decision) 0,0038849 -0,96151 -0,028337** -0,0042858** 1,0607 0,020996* Exponentiated coefficients ns p < 1, * p < 0.10, **}\tabcellsep -0,74747 -2,3195 -0,40087 3,7736 -3,9712 2,2163 0,75381 -7,4838 -2,4905 -1,237 ; 1,4075 0,38971 7,0135 -5,1966 p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01\tabcellsep London Journal of Medical and Health Research\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{IV. DISCUSSIONS}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{women in a union from 2006 to 2017. The fear of}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{From 2006 to 2017, at least 85\% of women in}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{health risks associated with the adoption of}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{union in Benin are not using modern}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{modern methods could be explained by the}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{contraceptive methods. The results show that this}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{multiplicity of information sources, preconceived}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{high prevalence of non-use of contraception is}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{ideas, rumors or unfortunate experiences of some}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{explained both by reasons given by non-users and}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{women. Studies have found similar results.}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{by a number of socio-demographic, cultural and}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Bakyono R. and al (2020) found that the}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{economic factors related to households.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{reluctance of married or cohabiting rural women}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{Fear of side effects of contraceptive products and}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{in Burkina Faso was related to preconceived ideas}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{opposition from women are the real reasons for}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{and the resulting side effects. In Dibindi, DRC,}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{the rejection of modern contraception among}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{although women are aware of modern}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 21\end{longtable} \par \begin{quote} Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin\end{quote} \caption{\label{tab_4}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \label{foot_0}\footnote{\label{foot_0} Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin © 2023 Great ] Britain Journals Press} \label{foot_1}\footnote{\label{foot_1} Volume 23 | Issue 3 | Compilation 1.0 Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin © 2023 Great ] Britain Journals Press} \backmatter \subsection[{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}]{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}\par We thank all those who have contributed to the improvement of the quality of this paper. Special thanks to all reviewers. \subsection[{Data Availability Statement}]{Data Availability Statement}\par The data used in this paper is fully available and can be accessed upon request. \subsection[{Funding}]{Funding}\par The writing of this paper has not been funded or sponsored. It was done at the author's expense. \subsection[{Conflict of Interest Statement}]{Conflict of Interest Statement}\par The authors state that there is no conflict of interest. \subsection[{Ethical Approval}]{Ethical Approval}\par The data used for the estimates do not include confidential information about individuals or animals that may raise ethical concerns. \subsection[{Consent for Publication}]{Consent for Publication}\par The authors grant his consent for publication of this paper. \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Bertrand et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘Access, quality of care and medical barriers in family planning programs’. J T Bertrand , K Hardee , R J Magnani , Angle Ma . \textit{International Family Planning Perspectives} 1995. 21 p. . \bibitem[Yina and Clement ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘Contraceptive practices among women of reproductive age in Mbeya, Tanzania’. H Yina , Elias K Clement , M . \textit{London Journal of Medical and Health Research} 2022. 2006. 23 p. 10. (Tanzania Journal of Health Research. to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin) \bibitem[Usaid ()]{b26}\label{b26} \textit{Deliver Project, Contraceptive Security Index}, Usaid . 2012. 2012. Arlington, VA, USA. \bibitem[Charles et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} ‘Determinants of contraceptive method use in the Mumbunda health zone in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo’. M Charles , K Simon , M Abel , N Angèle , M Dorcas , M Sylvie , K Julie , C Karen , FrançoiseK . \url{http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/content/article/22/329/full/} \textit{Pan African Medical Journal} 2015. \bibitem[Mbarambara et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Determinants of contraceptive use by women at Bagira General Referral Hospital, Democratic Republic of Congo’. P Mbarambara , C Kingombe , P Mututa , C Bisangamo . \textit{International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies} 2016. 16 (1) p. . \bibitem[Nduku et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Drivers of contraceptive use choice in Zambia’. M Nduku , D Beatrice , Simo-Kengne . \textit{African Journal of Reproductive Health} 2022. 26 p. 13. \bibitem[Insae ()]{b7}\label{b7} ‘Enquête Démographique et Santé du Bénin de 2017-2018’. Insae . \textit{Final Report} 2017. p. 675. \bibitem[Smaïla et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘Facteurs associés aux abandons ou changements de méthodes contraceptives modernes à Ouagadougou au Burkina Faso’. O Smaïla , S Maurice , P Bouanga , N Gaëlle . \textit{Revue Africaine des Sciences Sociales et de la Santé Publique} 2022. 4 p. 12. \bibitem[Tiruneh et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} ‘Factors associated with contraceptive use and intention to use contraceptives among married women in Ethiopia’. F N Tiruneh , K-Y Chuang , P A M Ntenda , Y-C Chuang . \textit{Women \& Health} 2016. 56 (1) p. . \bibitem[Moussa ()]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Factors influencing the use of modern contraceptive methods in the health zone of Kisanga a Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo’. Z Moussa . \textit{Politiques de population et réduction de la fécondité au Burkina Faso: limites et perspectives}, Numbi Mwanza , Chuy Vinie , Mashini Kalombola Didier , Ngongo Ghislain (eds.) (Johannesburg) 2011. 2022. p. 22. (Paper for the 7th UEPA conference) \bibitem[Scoggins and Bremner ()]{b21}\label{b21} \textit{Familly Planning P2020: Women's Spotlight 2018-2019}, S Scoggins , J Bremner . 2020. 2018-2019. Benin. (Summary of Key Indicators: FP2020 Annual Report. www. familyplanning2020.org) \bibitem[Ngo Mayack ()]{b16}\label{b16} ‘L'apport de l'approche qualitative dans l'analyse de la responsabilité London Journal of Medical and Health Research contraceptive’. J Ngo Mayack . \textit{Cahiers québécois de démographie} 2019. 48 (1) p. . \bibitem[Mayack ()]{b11}\label{b11} \textit{Le recours à la contraception d'urgence au Cameroun : le cas de la ville de Yaoundé}, J Mayack . 2017. p. 249. Université Catholique de Louvaine (PhD thesis in demography) \bibitem[Rakotoarizay ()]{b23}\label{b23} \textit{Les effets secondaires de la planification familiale moderne}, A J R Rakotoarizay . 2014. p. 59. University of Antananarivo (medical thesis) \bibitem[Vignikin ()]{b27}\label{b27} ‘Les facteurs de la contraception au Togo’. K Vignikin . \textit{Analyse des données de l'enquête démographique et de santé de 1998, Gripps, Documents d'analyse n° 3}, 2004. p. 41. \bibitem[Fassassi ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘Les facteurs de la contraception en Afrique de l'Ouest et en Afrique centrale au tournant du siècle’. R Fassassi . \textit{Documents d'analyse} 2006. 7 p. 67. \bibitem[Lenan ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘les facteurs explicatifs de la non-utilisation des méthodes contraceptives modernes par les femmes au Tchad" (Explanatory factors for the non-use of modern contraceptive methods by women in Chad) Master's thesis, IFORD, 100pMinistry of Health’. G Lenan . \textit{Evaluation rapide de la Planification Familiale au Bénin}, 2009. 2012. p. 42. (Rapid evaluation of family planning in Benin) Study report) \bibitem[Noumbissi and Wayack ()]{b17}\label{b17} A Noumbissi , M Wayack . \textit{La femme camerounaise face aux méthodes contraceptives modernes: Rejet ou inaccessibilité? Paris, ed. IRD, col. Colloques et séminaires}, 2000. p. . \bibitem[Asratie et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} ‘Prevalence of Contraceptive Non-use Due to Husbands/Partners Influence Among Married Women in Ethiopia: A Multilevel Analysis Using Demographic and Health Survey’. M H Asratie , Kassie Ba , D G Belay . \textit{Front. Reprod. Health} 2022. 2016. 4 (876497) p. 12. \bibitem[Nounké ()]{b18}\label{b18} \textit{Relations entre le niveau de vie, la fécondité et les besoins non satisfaits en matière de planification familiale en Guinée}, K Nounké . 2011. p. 253. Université de Montréal (demography thesis) \bibitem[Rwenge ()]{b24}\label{b24} M Rwenge , KanambayeS . \textit{Global approach to unmet FP needs in Mali}, 2019. 33 p. 28. \bibitem[Palamuleni ()]{b20}\label{b20} ‘Socio-Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting Contraceptive use in Malawi’. M E Palamuleni . \textit{African Journal of Reproductive Health} 2013. 17 (3) p. 91. \bibitem[Iqramul et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Sociodemographic Factors on Contraceptive Use among Ever-Married Women of Reproductive Age: Evidence from Three Demographic and Health Surveys in Bangladesh’. H Iqramul , S Saifullah , T Ashis . \textit{Medical Sciences} 2017. 5 (31) p. 11. \bibitem[Kouadio and Mamadou ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘The role of the child in the social organisation of work and its implication on rural women's use of modern contraceptive methods in Côte d'Ivoire’. A Kouadio , M Mamadou . \textit{European Scientific Journal} 2015. 11 (32) p. . \bibitem[Costa Leite and Gupta ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘Understanding the dynamics of oral contraceptive use in Brazil: factors associated with interruption, failure and change of contraceptive method’. Da Costa Leite , I Gupta , N . \textit{Cahiers québécois de démographie} 2007. 36 p. . \bibitem[Io et al.]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Uptake of modern and traditional contraceptive methods in Nigeria: Lessons from a nationwide initiative on programming for results (2015-2018)’. Morhason-Bello Io , O B Yusuf , J O Akinyemi , K K Salami , O Obisesan , A A Aderinto , K Eyelade Ro Alarape , A Alada , A S Jegede , O Fawole , I Kana , O Solanke , J Suleiman , D Okara , A Adebiyi , A M Abdullahi , O O Ejiade , Adewole If . \textit{African Journal of Reproductive Health} 26 p. . \bibitem[Ntambue et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Use of modern contraceptive methods in the Democratic Republic of Congo: prevalence and barriers in the Dibindi health zone in Mbuji-Mayi’. A M Ntambue , R N Tshiala , F K Malonga , T M Ilunga , J M Kamonayi , T Kazadi , C M Matungulu , Musau A N Mulamba , D Dramaix-Wilmet , M Donnen , P . \textit{Pan African Medical Journal} 2016. 26 p. 199. \bibitem[Bakyono et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Utilisation des contraceptifs par les femmes rurales mariées ou en concubinage au Burkina Faso : une analyse qualitative de London Journal of Medical and Health Research 23 Factors of non-use of Modern Contraception from 2006 to 2017 among Married or Cohabiting Women in Benin l'utilisation d'un bon gratuit’. R Bakyono , D G Tapsoba , A Lépine , A Berthé , P Ilboudo , C Diallo , N Méda , D 'exelle , M . \textit{Pan African Medical Journal} 2020. 37 p. 11. \bibitem[Igbodekwe et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} ‘Utilisation of Modern Contraceptive among Women of Childbearing Age in Resource Constraint Setting: Evidence from 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey in Nigeria’. F C Igbodekwe , O Oladimeji , K E Oladimeji , I A Adeoye , O M Akpa , LawsonL . \textit{Journal of Health Science} 2014. 4 (3) p. . \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}