auteur vystekimages TransformPHARE Niger male segmentation Discussion of findings January 2018 Content 1 Background amp methodology 2 Aggregate survey findings 3 Segmentation analysis ID: 932838
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Mar 2017 Photo : fotolia" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Mar 2017
Photo : fotolia, auteur : vystekimages
Transform/PHARENiger male segmentation
Discussion of
findings
January 2018
Slide2Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide3Project background
Niger has one of the highest fertility rates in the world, rising to 7.6 children per woman in 2012. At current rates, Niger’s population is set to more than triple to 68m by 2050, placing significant strain on limited resourcesNiger’s Family Planning Action Plan (2012-2020) seeks to boost demand for, and provision of, FP services with the ambitious objective of increasing the CPR from 12% to 50% by 2020Men represent both an obstacle and an opportunity to achieve the Family Planning Action Plan - it is therefore critical to better understand this audienceThe following slides lay out the intermediary findings of Camber Collective’s male segmentation, which has identified six segments of men with different needs, attitudes, and behaviors towards FP in the three RISE priority regions: Maradi
, Zinder, and TillabériThis information will allow Transform/PHARE, the RISE/USAID project partners, the Nigerien government, and other FP stakeholders to define and implement interventions targeting those segments of men who are most likely to change their behaviours, thereby increasing program effectivenessSource: Nigerien Ministry of Health, USAID DHS program
CONTEXT
Slide4Segmentation overview
PROJECT OBJECTIVESRESEARCH OBJECTIVESSEGMENTATION
PARTNERS
Identify male segments that are most likely to change their attitudes and behaviors towards FP, and provide high-level principles for the design and implementation of interventions targeting these segments
Identify and capture the factors that influence male decision-making with regards to family planning
Identify segments of men in the three target regions of
Maradi
, Zinder, and
Tillabéri that are more or less likely to change their attitudes and behaviors towards FP
Segmentation of men aged 15 to 54*
Population Services International (PSI)
Camber Collective
REM Africa (market research provider)
PROJECT OVERVIEW
* Parental consent was obtained for participants aged 15-18
Slide5The segmentation process consists of data collection and analysis
SEGMENTATION PROCESSDATA COLLECTIONSEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
Gather dataCollect quantitative data with 1,144 participants in 3 regions in Niger*
Develop segmentation
Derive behavioral/attitudinal archetypes via latent class analysis
*
Maradi
, Zinder, and
Tillabéri
Analyze segments
Assess behavioral change potential and influencing guidance
Create classification tool
Develop simplified instrument to rapidly identify segments
Develop intervention
principles
High-level guidance
for the
development of solutions for priority segments
Design instrument
Develop tool to gather requisite attributional, attitudinal, and behavioral data
Field test
Refine tool and confirm effectiveness (response, completion rates)
Literature
review and hypothesis development
Conduct
secondary research and identify
potential
key behavior change levers
METHODOLOGY
Slide6Overview of our segmentation focus
Segmentation that identifies sub-groups within a population with different needs, attitudes, and willingness to change behavior.
Limitation: More challenging to target in outreach
Segmentation based on broad attitudes or personality traits, such as introversion or values.
Limitation: Identifies receptive audiences, but does not provide specificity to change behavior
Segmentation based on observable behavior, such as consumer activity or media use.
Limitations: Intensive use data may not be available, identifies behavior but does not explain it
Segmentation based on a single attribute, such as life-stage, or property status.
Limitation: Ignores other attributes that may be greater determinants of behaviorSegmentation based on a census or demographic factor, such as gender, urban/rural, or age. Limitation: Assumes common needs & behaviors across or within demographic groupsImpact on BehaviorDepth of Research Methods NeededNeeds, Behaviors, & AttitudesBehavioral
Psychographic
Attributional
Demographic
SEGMENTATION TYPES
SEGMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS
Camber’s Focus
In our behavioral change work, we typically use behavioral and attitudinal segmentation to understand and equip our clients to address latent demand in the populations they serve
SEGMENTAITION METHODOLOGY
Slide7Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide8The survey sample reflects male composition across Maradi, Zinder, and TillabériSURVEY OVERVIEW
A WEIGHTING VARIABLE WAS USED TO REFLECT THE THREE-REGION AVERAGESMARITAL STATUS AND SEGMEN-TATION CON-SIDERATIONS
19% urban
81% rural
64% uneducated
(including illiterate)
19% primary
15% secondary
2% university
51% married
22% poly-
gamous
24% currently unmarried
2% cohabitating
2% divorced, widowed, separated
Note that among unmarried men, the majority reported not currently having a partner, and was therefore not able to answer questions related to current sexual relationships
Pre-marital sex is a widespread societal taboo, which is also reflected in the fact that the average age of both first marriage and first sexual experience is 23
RURAL-URBAN
EDUCATION LEVEL
AGE GROUP*
* Parental consent was obtained for participants aged 15-18
Slide9Men particularly perceive having children as an economic benefit, and appear to underestimate the health risks of pregnancy
FERTILITY CONTEXT
20% small problem
72% no problem
MEN PERCEIVE CHILDREN
TO BE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT
92%
don’t think it would be big a problem if their partner was pregnant today
DESPITE BEING IN FAVOR OF SPACING, MOST MEN DO NOT
SEEM TO CONSIDER HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CHILD
BIRTH
8% big problem
70
%
are accepting of birth spacing in
principal*,
however
60%
do not think it’s unwise to have a child every year
*
This high figure is likely explained at least partly by the lack
of understanding of what constitutes safe
spacing
Slide10Our initial research surfaced five broad dynamics to explore in the survey
How do men perceive themselves, and the role of men in society more broadly?
1MASCULINITY
2
COUPLE DYNAMICS
3
FAITH
4
KNOWLEDGE
5
IMMEDIACY
How do men view relationships, and the role of men and women within them?
How religious are men, and how does their faith influence their perception of FP?
How much do men know about FP? Are there any widespread misconceptions?
How important is FP for men in comparison to other, more immediate and more tangible issues?
LITERATURE REVIEW INSIGHTS
Slide11A large family size is aspirational, and is seen as an important marker of male success, although not as important as decision making and financial security
MASCULINITY
Considered to be an indicator of male success
Of % citing as important, % that say this trait applies to them
95%
81%
85%
77%
79%50%37%
75%
think they should alone make financial decisions
59%
think they should alone make healthcare decisions, (33% jointly with partner)
)
56%
want either the same number or more children than their fathers
82%
of men aspire to polygamy
Men perceive themselves to be performing highest on the aspects of masculinity that they think are most important (decision making and financial success)
Slide12A majority of men observe and support positive couple dynamics, at least in theory
... AND APPEAR OPEN TO THE IDEA OF SHARING
RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING HEALTH AND FAMILY MEN BELEIVE WOMEN ARE AND
SHOULD BE INCREASINGLY EMPOWERED...
Men’s responsibility
Women’s responsibility
Joint responsibility
75% agree
25%
disagree
WOMEN SHOULD HAVE FREEDOM
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS
WOMEN SHOULD HAVE FINAL SAY IN MAKING DECISIONS REGARDING THEIR BODIES
61% agree
39%
disagree
WOMEN HAVE MORE
‘POWER’* THAN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
19%
disagree
81% agree
70% of those who believe female empowerment is happening consider it a good thing
COUPLE DYNAMICS
*
“Power”
is deliberately
undefined in
the survey, so as to
invite
men to express themselves on the prospect of increasing female power
in a general sense
. The word power is translated to «
Iko
»
i
n
Haussa
, which has an equally broad meaning.
Slide13Men who support female empowerment* are more likely to accept and adopt birth spacing, birth limiting and use of MM
COUPLE DYNAMICSSupporters of empowerment are significantly more likely to accept birth limiting, moderately more accepting of spacing/MM, and average one less childA natural explanation may therefore be to equate support for female empowerment with greater receptiveness to partner wishes, and more amenability to factoring them into FP decisions
Opposers of female empowerment (general)
Supporters of female empowerment (general)
* Men who stated they observed women having more power now than prior generations AND considered this a
good
thing
MEN WHO SUPPORT FEMALE EMPOWERMENT
TEND TO DISPLAY MORE POSITIVE FP ATTITUDES
THESE POSITIVE FP ATTITUDES TRANSLATE TO MORE
POSITIVE FP BEHAVIORS THAN OPPOSERS OF EMPOWERMENT
Supporters of female empowerment were:
48%
more likely to have considered using FP in their couple
No
more likely to have ever actually used an FP method
46%
more likely to intend to use an FP method
44%
less likely to attempt to have more children than their own father had
Slide14Theoretical support for female health empowerment, specifically, is weakened by a confused understanding of what it means
COUPLE DYNAMICSMost men agree that women should have the final say on decisions regarding their own health and bodies (61%); only 39% say they alone make decisions on their partner’s healthThis might suggest that 100% of men fall neatly into one or the other of these two distinct groups, with a clear division in attitudes
39% make decisions on partner’s health alone
Some
of those who agree with giving women the final say
also
admit to making unilateral decisions about their partner’s health, showing men’s difficulty in translating their stated principles into corresponding actions
This inconsistency is particularly striking among the two segments
theoretically most supportive of giving women the final say on decisions regarding their own health 61% believe women should have final say on decisions re. their health/bodies
54%of this segment is behaving contrary to their stated attitude
Dissatisfied
l
Progressives
Pious Modernizers
IN THEORY, MEN ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHED ON
THEIR SUPPORT FOR FEMALE HEALTH EMPOWERMENT
BUT WITHIN
SEGMENTS*
THAT CLAIM TO SUPPORT FEMALE
HEALTH EMPOWERMENT, ACTIONS MAY NOT MATCH BELIEFS
State women should have final say on decisions re. own health/bodies
Make unilateral positions re. their partner’s health
31%
of this segment is behaving contrary to their stated attitude
*
See Section 3 (slides 26-42) for a
detailed segment analysis
Slide15However, support for female empowerment does not necessarily correlate with increased propensity for gender-transformative behaviors
COUPLE DYNAMICSWhile support for female empowerment may correlate with better FP outlooks and usage behaviors, this is not generally indicative of a more open communication style within the couples of men who support female empowerment
In fact, supporters of empowerment are:less likely to give partners an opportunity to voice FP disagreementsless likely to recognize discrepancies within their couple
equally
unlikely to allow partners to determine the outcome of such disagreements
* Of men who declared agreement with partners on ideal family size,
# who had
ever had detailed discussion enabling partners to confirm
assumed agreementOpportunity given to partner to have a substantive FP discussion*FP disagreement decided by man
9%
3%
Average reported discrepancy in partner views on spacing, limiting and MM use
Opposers of female empowerment (general)
Supporters of female empowerment (general)
FP D
ECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
AMONG
MEN
WHO PERCEIVE THEMSELVES AS PRO-EMPOWERMENT
Slide16Men are deeply religious, but their religious beliefs around FP appear mixed and potentially open to change
FAITH98% perceive their destiny to be in Allah’s hands
12%somewhat agree
86% strongly agree
MEN ARE
DEEPLY RELIGIOUS
MEN’S PERCEPTION OF RELIGIOUS
PERMISSIBILITY OF FP IS MIXED AND OPEN TO CHANGE
95%
describe themselves as religious
28%
somewhat religious
67% very religious
83%
would increase FP use if Islam clearly encouraged it
17% negative
83% affirmative
46%
perceive contraception to NOT be a sin, and another 23% are unsure
31% agree
46% do not agree
23% neutral
90%
agree that Islam is more about good life choices than strict rules
10% disagree
65% strongly agree
25% agree
Slide17While faith is declared as central to many men’s FP outlooks, it may not dictate attitudes and behaviors as much as is suggested
FAITHOf the men who cite Islam as their main reason for not using FP, 21% also admit they still would not use FP even if Islam clearly encouraged itWhile Islam is the main reason cited for non-use, factors unrelated to Islam could still bring about a similar degree of behavioral change as a reinterpretation of Islam
Of the men who say they would be more likely to use FP if clearly encouraged by Islam, 79% also said they’d be more likely to use MM if someone they trusted was using themFor a substantial number of men, opposition to FP may not be derived from Islamic teachings and can be reversed when circumstances demand it
For a portion of men, Islam
may
co-exist
alongside a subset of other drivers
explaining their reluctance to use FP in their relationships
Of the men who say they would be more likely to use FP if encouraged to do so by Islam, only 32% considered contraception a sin and 76% had already used FPINDICATIONS OF EXAGGERATED IMPACT OF ISLAM
POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS
Slide18Men with a higher sense of free will* demonstrate more positive FP outcomes and attitudes
FAITH3 fewer children on average, despite despite being only 3 years younger (on average) than those who declared no sense of free willHalf as likely to see FP as a sin
The highest level of trust for healthcare workers for discussion of FP, instead of their partners3 times more likely to let their partners decide ideal family size, in instances of disagreement
M
EN WITH SOME SENSE OF FREE
WILL VS.
MEN WITH NO SENSE OF FREE WILL
*
See Annex for more information on the subject of “free will”, and our definition of it
Slide19Spontaneous knowledge of contraception varies by method, and concerns of infidelity and side effects resulting from FP use are not widespread
KNOWLEDGE
SPONTANEOUS CONTRACEPTION AWARENESS RATES VARY, AND DEPEND ON MARITAL STATUS
CONCERNS ABOUT NEGATIVE
EFFECTS OF CONTRACEPTION ARE NOT WIDESPREAD
41%
think there are or could be side effects to contraception
41%
agree
41% disagree
26%
think contraception could lead to infidelity
58% no
26% yes
16% neutral
18% neutral
*
Lactational
amenorrhea method
** Includes men who have multiples wives and men living with partners
Married* vs. Unmarried
As expected,
married men
have higher awareness levels of the pill and injectables than unmarried men
Surprisingly,
married men
also have higher levels of awareness of the morning after pill than unmarried men
As expected,
unmarried men
have higher levels of awareness of the male condom
Surprisingly, 25%
unmarried men
are aware of LAM
Slide20Over a third of married men are currently using FP methodsKNOWLEDGE
* Includes men who have multiples wives and men living with partners** We have considered Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) as a traditional method because anecdotal evidence suggests most men do not fully understand this technique
Not using, no intention to use in futureIntention to use in the future
FOR MARRIED MEN*, THE LARGEST DROP-OFF
OCCURS BETWEEN AWARENESS AND CONSIDERATION
MARRIED MEN USE SLIGHTLY MORE MODERN
THAN TRADITIONAL CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS
-34%
-26%-14%56%
of men that have used contraceptives used modern methods
42%
58%
Slide21Imams are a highly trusted source of health info, and are consulted by men regarding FP; however, partners are the most trusted for FP discussions
KNOWLEDGE
IMAMS, LOCAL HEALTH WORKERS AND COMMUNITY
LEADERS ARE THE MOST TRUSTED SOURCES OF HEALTH INFORMATION
Very much trust
Do not trust
Moderately trust
56%
discuss FP with their Imams at least occasionally
70%
perceive Imam approval for FP use as important
IMAMS AND PARTNERS STAND OUT IN TERMS
OF FAMILY PLANNING RELATED INFORMATION
39%
trust their partners the most when talking about contraception (17% local health workers the most, 14% other men the most, 10% imams the most)
71%
agree to some extent that government should not provide advice on FP
Slide22Men care about their health and appear to be acting on any concerns; in addition men seem generally open to receiving and sharing new information
IMMEDIACY68% believe they should try to change other people’s opinions when they disagree with them
8% slower
47% quicker
GENERALLY, MEN BELIEVE THEY CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS RELATIVELY QUICKLY, AND SEEK TO CHANGE OTHER’S OPTNIONS
47%
believe they change their opinions quicker than the average man
32% no
68% yes
36% average
7% rarely change opinion
MEN WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT
FP AND SEEM TO ACT ON ANY HEALTH CONCERNS
71% yes
29% no
71%
have visited a health center over the past six months
48%
want to learn more about FP
29% no
48% yes
23% don’t know
Slide23Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide24MATRIMONIAL OUTLOOKS
A sub-set of prioritized variables drive the segmentationSEGMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Marital status
Number of
current wives
Ideal number of wives
Partner’s education level
Notions of masculinity
Allocation of decision-making within the couple (health, finances, timing of children)
Autonomy of women to make their own decisions concerning their health and bodies
Views on female empowerment
Perception of his own religiosity
View on the degree of flexibility permitted in interpreting Islam
Alcohol and tobacco consumption
Perception of the permissibility of MM under Islam
GENDER
PERSPECTIVES
RELIGIOSITY
RESULTING IN 6 DISTINCT SEGMENTS
SEGMENTED ACCORDING TO KEY VARIABLES
1,144 RESPONDENTS
KEY VARIABLES
Preferred sources of health advice and FP discussion partners
Perceived FP use among peers
Desire to learn more about FP
Current and intended use, plus outlook on birth spacing
USAGE POTENTIAL
SELF-PERCEPTION
Perception of his own ability to determine his future
Willingness to change his own opinions and challenge those of others
Ability to manage an imminent pregnancy without difficulty
Intention to follow his father’s reproductive behaviors
Slide25The segmentation revealed six main sub-groups of Nigerien menSEGMENTATION RESULTS
DISSATISFIED PROGRESSIVES“
Islam and my wife’s wellbeing are crucial – I’m keen to avoid too many children and know a bit about family planning, but abstinence and condoms are both poor options.”
NOVICE YOUTH
“I have different wants and values to my parents, but I’m not very sexually active so I haven’t felt the need to consider family planning yet.”
CONSERVATIVE PATRIARCHS
“Men were intended to care for many wives and to lead large families – even if sometimes we do lose a child, I see no benefit in changing that.”
PIOUS MODERNISTS
“Islam is important to me, and family planning is no sin. My wife and I are ahead of the times, and by learning more we’ll build
our
big family together at the right pace
.
”
CURIOUS TRADITIONALISTS
“I prefer not to stray too far from the norms I know, but I do feel under-informed about family planning – and generally
listen to
those who know more than me.”
IRREVERENT SCEPTICS
“I trust my judgments, and my life and outlooks are very different to my peers’ – I don’t know much about family planning, but don’t trust health advice anyway.”
Slide26Wish to learn more
Share of population
The segmentation revealed six main sub-groups of Nigerien men
Currently use FP
Intend to use MM
Marital status
Support female empowerment
Irreverent Sceptics
(22%)
19%
22
%
36%
Married (
m
)
Novice
Youth
(25%)
0%
29
%
43%
Single
47%
62%
Men alone decide child timing
43%
36%
Very religious
61%
48%
High trust for NGOs
Quick to change opinion
48%
14%
Prefer to discuss FP with partner
20%
9%
48%
37%
Want fewer children than father
56%
62%
SEGMENTATION RESULTS
Consider MM a sin
27%
18%
Highest
Lowest
Problem if wife
pregnant today
NA
50%
15-24
25-44
0%
Pious
Modernists
(9%)
Married (
m/p
)
74%
86%
35%
10%
28%
32
%
35-54
72
%
59
%
93
%
3
%
6%
23
%
Dissatisfied Progressives
(10%)
57%
41%
Married (
m
)
14%
42%
13%
22
%
25-44
95
%
100
%
68
%
75
%
78
%
31
%
(16%)
Curious Traditionalists
41%
38
%
67%
Married (
m
)
49
%
44%
74%
51%
47%
24%
25-44
54%
72
%
11
%
Conservative Patriarchs
(18%)
25%
19
%
44%
Married (
p
)
63%
68%
49%
55%
17%
35-54
19
%
37%
52%
53%
12
%
Slide27Key variables could be regrouped under 3 themes, to visualize segment differences:
independent thinking, gender progressiveness and exposure to family planningSEGMENTATION RESULTSDegree of personal agency and flexibility in applying religious teachings
Extent of current FP knowledge, use, and intended and
perceived
used
Support for
female empowerment
and belief in
balanced gender rolesDegree of support for female empowermentLikelihood of viewing pregnancy timing as a joint decisionExtent of agreement for women’s final say over their bodiesCurrent use of any FP methodIntention to use a MMDesire to learn more
Propensity to view FP as non-sinful
Willingness to change his opinions
Desire to deviate from father’s reproductive behavior
Openness to NGOs
2. GENDER PROGRESSIVENESS
3. EXPOSURE TO FP
1. RECEPTIVE THINKING
DEFINITION
CRITERIA
KEY VARIABLES (inputs)
Segments that have optimal indicators within these three criteria suggest a higher propensity for behavioral change
Slide28Visual comparison of segments across three themesSEGMENTATION RESULTS
Agency
SEGMENTS
Gender
progressiveness
Receptive Thinking
Low
High
High
High
Rationale for these metrics:
receptive thinking, gender progressiveness and exposure to FP track a group’s
potential, propensity
,
and
possibilities
to change behavior.
Exposure to FP
Moderate self-determination
Moderate gender progressiveness
Low exposure to FP
Example:
NOVICE
YOUTH
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
T
hinking
IRREVERENT
SCEPTICS
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
P
IOUS
MODERNISTS
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
CONSERVATIVE
PATRIARCHS
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
CURIOUS
TRADITIONALISTS
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
DISSATISFIED
PROGRESSIVES
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
Receptive
Thinking
Receptive
Thinking
Receptive
Thinking
Receptive
Thinking
Slide29Novice Youth (25%): OverviewSEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
Fewer highly-distinct attitudes and behaviors to target Attitudes and behaviors may translated in a multitude of ways in future relationshipsSingle, young men for whom FP is not a priority due to low (expressed) sexual activity. Their opinions often reflect societal averages, but they are more likely to make decisions independent of religious beliefs, bolstered by above-average education levels. Opportunity to shape FP attitudes and behaviors before sexual activityCritical segment for mCPR progress High knowledge of FP
Wants fewer children than fatherAbove average sense of agencyDoes not consider MM a sinLargest segment
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION FUNNEL
99% single; 50% with formal education (most educated); average wealth
Only 9% admit to having had sex; no children
Prefer to discuss FP with other men; average trust in NGOs for health advice, but trust friends
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
21
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
T
hinking
Novice Youth not surveyed on FP consideration, or prior or current use, due to unmarried status and low admission of sexual activity.
Slide30Novice Youth (25%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICSN/A (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FPN/A
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors87% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
N/A
(
avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITYDeclares himself v. religious61% (avg. 67%)75% (avg. 83%)27% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit have had sex (taboo test)
9%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
34%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
100%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
0%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
0%
(avg. 11% - exc. NY&CP)*
N/A
(avg. 29%)
N/A
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
56%
(avg. 44%)
21%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
48%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
70%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
78%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
62%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
43%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
62%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
N/A
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
0%
(avg. 22%)
20%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
30%
(avg. 17%)
50%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
23%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
41%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
36%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
N/A
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
53%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
43%
(avg. 48%)
N/A
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
61%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
68%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
59%
(avg. 68%)
29%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
N/A
(avg. 45%)
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide31Irreverent Sceptics (22%): Overview
Very low confidence in any sources of health information, especially government / NGOsTrusts his own judgments and resists having opinion changedLeast likely to have recently visited a health centerMonogamous men with strong, unorthodox views and distrust of all health advice. While the least religious, their FP use, intention to use and interest is low. However, they desire fewer children than their fathers and would find imminent pregnancy problematic.Majority say imminent pregnancy would be problematic and 1 in 3 admit having an unplanned childDesires fewer children than fatherMost likely to involve partner in decisions on her healthUninhibited by religion
Large segment
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION
FUNNEL*
Most likely to be
Djerma
; 37% with formal education; poorest segment
Most are open about having had sex, averaging 4 children
Most likely to trust
HCW**
to discuss FP; do not trust partners
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
34
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
46
%
54%
*Only
losses ≥20%
highlighted in red
**HCW
: Healthcare Workers
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
Slide32Irreverent Sceptics (22%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICS9% (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FP46%
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors85% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
21%
(avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITYDeclares himself v. religious48% (avg. 67%)68% (avg. 83%)18% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit have had sex (taboo test)
64%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
41%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
2%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
75%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
18%
(avg. 11% - exc. NY&CP)*
41%
(avg. 29%)
26%
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
62%
(avg. 44%)
33%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
37%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
57%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
59%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
50%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
36%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
47%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
51%
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
5%
(avg. 22%)
34%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
29%
(avg. 17%)
37%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
21%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
51%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
29%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
19%
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
44
%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
36%
(avg. 48%)
21%
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
32%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
30%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
71%
(avg. 68%)
34%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
25%
(avg. 45%)
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide33Curious Traditionalists (16%): Overview
Wants more children than fatherConsiders MM a sinFollows perceived norms, and perceives low MM use by othersWould not consider imminent pregnancy a problemMonogamous men characterized by a tendency to follow social norms and high religiosity, both of which they believe discourage MM use.Keen to learn more about FP and already show some willingness to use. Half have small families currently, though most seek more children.Wants to learn more about FPHigh confidence in NGOsHigh impact potential, as half of segment has 2 kids or less
Keen to discuss FP with partner
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION
FUNNEL*
Often in mid-adulthood; monogamous; 33% with formal education; avg. wealth spread
Most are open about having had sex, averaging 3 children
Most likely to trust partners to discuss FP; high trust in NGOs, govt., HCW and imams for health advice
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
34
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
31%
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
*Only
losses ≥20%
highlighted
in red
Slide34Curious Traditionalists (16%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICS12% (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FP61%
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors89% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
50%
(avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITY
Declares himself v. religious74% (avg. 67%)93% (avg. 83%)54% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit having had sex (taboo test)
60%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
27%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
1%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
82%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
17%
(avg. 11% - exc. NY&CP)*
31%
(avg. 29%)
37%
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
24%
(avg. 44%)
3%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
46%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
40%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
79%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
63%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
44%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
49%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
11%
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
0%
(avg. 22%)
15%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
18%
(avg. 17%)
67%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
16%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
46%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
37%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
41%
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
66%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
67%
(avg. 48%)
16%
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
87%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
89%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
76%
(avg. 68%)
61%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
20%
(avg. 45%)
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide35Dissatisfied Progressives (10%): Overview
Uninterested in learning more; general distrust of health informationPut off by abstinence and condoms, so would shift FP method onto partnerWould not consider imminent pregnancy a problemSex may be a taboo subjectSmall segmentMonogamous men able to reconcile high religiosity with use of FP and a very gender progressive outlook, including care for his wife’s opinion on childbearing. With average family sizes, most have used FP but are disappointed by the experience.Sees no tension between high religiosity and FP/MM useAlready has knowledge of / used FP
Wants fewer children than fatherFastest to change opinionVery gender progressive + discussestiming of children / FP with partnerDoesn’t rely on imams for health advice
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION
FUNNEL*
Often in mid-adulthood; monogamous; 24% with formal education; avg. wealth spread
Very closed about whether they have had sex, average 5-6 children
Very strongly trust partners to discuss FP; moderate trust in NGOs for health advice
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
36
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
21%
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
*Only
losses ≥20%
highlighted
in red
Slide36Dissatisfied Progressives (10%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICS3% (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FP89%
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors97% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
70%
(avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITY
Declares himself v. religious100% (avg. 67%)96% (avg. 83%)13% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit have had sex (taboo test)
10%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
45%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
1%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
84%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
15%
(avg. 11% - iexc. NY&CP)*
45%
(avg. 29%)
21%
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
78%
(avg. 44%)
1%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
76%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
95%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
79%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
73%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
14%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
95%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
22%
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
0%
(avg. 22%)
8%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
15%
(avg. 17%)
77%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
21%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
43%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
36%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
57%
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
84%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
31%
(avg. 48%)
19%
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
48%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
97%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
61%
(avg. 68%)
72%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
31%
(avg. 45%)
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide37Conservative Patriarchs (18%): Overview
Wants more children than fatherConsiders MM a sinLow sense of agencyDoes not factor partners into most decision-makingWould not consider imminent pregnancy a problemBelieves FP encourages infidelityPolygamous men with large families, little perceived need for FP and low use, reflecting rreligious beliefs and low education.With a low personal agency but above average wealth, they support traditional gender roles and seek more children.
High confidence in NGOsThose who can be convinced to consider use will often useLarge majority has lost a childRelatively quick to change opinionComfortable discussing FP with partnersMost have lived in another African country
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION
FUNNEL*
Most likely to be older; ~100% polygamous; 25% with formal education; richer and most have lived outside of Niger
Most are open about having had sex, averaging 10 children
Most likely to trust partners to discuss FP; high trust in NGOs, govt., HCW and imams for health advice
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
44
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Receptive
Thinking
Exposure to FP
53
%
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
*Only
losses ≥20%
highlighted
in red
Slide38Conservative Patriarchs (18%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICS0% (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FP36%
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors77% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
30%
(avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITYDeclares himself v. religious63% (avg. 67%)88% (avg. 83%)53% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit have had sex (taboo test)
57%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
24%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
0%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
0%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
0%
(avg. 11% - exc. NY&CP)*
11%
(avg. 29%)
0%
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
12%
(avg. 44%)
6%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
55%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
37%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
79%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
61%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
52%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
37%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
17%
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
100%
(avg. 22%)
19%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
6%
(avg. 17%)
75%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
20%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
36%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
43%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
25%
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
34
%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
44%
(avg. 48%)
8%
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
80%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
85%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
76%
(avg. 68%)
62%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
89%
(avg. 45%)
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide39Pious Modernists (9%): Overview
Further progress would likely require advocating birth limiting; Want more children than fathersSlow to change opinions now, and least swayed by new informationMid-low trust in NGOsSex appears to be a taboo subjectBelieve FP has too many side effectsSmallest segmentMonogamous and polygamous men who fully embrace FP use and gender progressiveness, yet also have the greatest number of children. These very religious men consult their wives extensively, but prize imams’ health advice and distrust NGOs.
Very high FP use and interestSees no tension between high religiosity and FP/MM useVery gender progressive + keenest segment to discuss timing of children and FP with partnerDoes not consider MM a sin
SEGMENT SUMMARY
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
FP ADOPTION FUNNEL
2/3 mono 1/3 polygamous; 36% with formal education; wealthiest segment
Closed about whether they have had sex; average 11 children
Almost all prefer to discuss FP with partner(s); low trust in NGOs for health advice but very high trust for imams & HCW
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
38
Average Age
Agency
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
Receptive
Thinking
Gender
Progressiveness
Exposure to FP
Receptive
Thinking
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
Slide40Pious Modernists (9%): Profile
DEMOGRAPHICS3% (avg. 6%)EXPOSURE TO FP87%
(avg. 57%)Usage behaviors93% (avg. 87%)
Considered use FP
Ever used FP
76%
(avg. 42%)
RELIGIOSITY
Declares himself v. religious86% (avg. 67%)98% (avg. 83%)6% (avg. 31%)Considers MM a sinMore likely to use FP if clearly supported by Islam
Admit have had sex (taboo test)
26%
(avg. 40%)
Perceive high MM use by peers
84%
(avg. 38%)
# of children
No children
1-2 children
3-5 children
0%
(avg. 24%)
Marital outlooks
Single
Monogamous
(perm)/
cohab
.
Polygamous
49%
(avg. 43% - exc. NY&CP)*
19%
(avg. 11% - iexc. NY&CP)*
16%
(avg. 29%)
12%
(avg. 20%)
SELF-PERCEPTION
Would struggle to manage an imminent pregnancy
28%
(avg. 44%)
2%
(avg. 14%)
Future not 100% in Allah’s hands
Believes quick to change opinion
23%
(avg. 47%)
Wants fewer kids than father
GENDER PERSPECTIVES
96%
(avg. 61%)
Believe women should get final say on decisions re. own body
81%
(avg. 75%)
Proactive on health (HC last 3m)
Finances
47%
(avg. 59%)
Healthcare
3%
(avg. 37%)
Timing births
74%
(avg. 56%)
Support female empowerment
Thinks men should make unilateral decisions on:
32%
(avg. 28%)
Knowledge of FP
Monogamous aspiring to poly
32%
(avg. 22%)
18%
(avg. 19%)
Education
Secondary & above
18%
(avg. 17%)
64%
(avg. 64%)
No education
Primary
37%
(avg. 22%)
Wealth Index
30%
(avg. 42%)
Poorer/Poorest
Middle score
Richer/Richest
34%
(avg. 36%)
Currently use FP
72%
(avg. 36%)
Intention use FP
90%
(avg. 56%)
Desire to learn more about FP
93%
(avg. 48%)
4%
(avg. 14%)
If disagreement, willing to let partner decide ideal no. kids
92%
(avg. 63%)
Imam v. trusted for health info
19%
(avg. 65%)
Convinced religion promotes good life choices over strict rules
Will challenge others’ opinions
61%
(avg. 68%)
57%
(avg. 48%)
6+ children
69%
(avg. 45%)
SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
%
above average
%
below average
% approx. average
* Excludes data for Novice Youth & Conservative Patriarchs, as the former is ~100% unmarried and latter is ~100% polygamous.
Slide41Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide42Partnership analysis considerations * See Appendix for summary profiles of each of these five female segments.
In 2013-2014, Camber Collective conducted a national demand analysis for FP in Niger. As part of this
analysis, Camber identified five female segments* with distinctly different attitudes and use patterns.In addition to identifying male segments, this current segmentation analysis seeks to explore men’s segments’ relationships to the segments of women previously identifiedThe following partnership analysis is qualitative in nature as there is no couples data available to draw direct conclusions from. The findings in this section should therefore be regarded as informed hypotheses rather than evidence-based conclusions.CONTEXT & LIMITATIONS
The 2013-2014 demand analysis was national, whereas the male analysis focused only on
the
three RISE priority regions of
Maradi
, Zinder, and
Tillabéri. We assume that the five identified women’s segments from the national segmentation also pertain to the three priority regions, and in roughly the same proportions.While in reality some respondents from each male segment will have partners from every female segment, we have limited our analysis to identifying the most likely primary and secondary female partner segments for each of the six male segmentsIn the male segmentation, the Novice Youth segment is unmarried and not in a partnership. For our partnership analysis, we have therefore listed the most likely future female segments.
ASSUMPTIONS
Ten variables across three dimensions were compared for each of the partnership combinations:
Demographics
: Median age, rural-urban split, education levels, marital status
Religion
: Degree of religiosity, Perception of contraception as a sin
Empowerment and family planning
: Men’s FP usage, women’s FP acceptance
of MM,
male support for female empowerment, women’s perception of the importance of their husband’s permission to use
FP
METHODOLOGY
PARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS
Slide43Overview of likely partnerships between male and female segments
PARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS25%22%
16%18%10%9%QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
MODERN
ELITES
TRADI-
TIONAL
AUTONO-
MISTSCONSER-VATIVE
PASSIVES
SHEL-
TERED
SKEPTICS
SHEL-
TERED
SKEPTICS
HEALTHY
PRO-
ACTIVES
DISSATISFIED
PROGRESSIVES
CONSERVATIVE
PATRIARCHS
PIOUS
MODERNISTS
IRREVERENT
SKEPICS
CURIOUS
TRADITION-
ALISTS
TRADI-
TIONAL
AUTONO-
MISTS
CONSER-
VATIVE
PASSIVES
TRADI-
TIONAL
AUTONO-
MISTS
Primary partner segment
Secondary partner segment
SHELTERED
SKEPTICS
NOVICE
YOUTH
TRADI-
TIONAL
AUTONO-
MISTS
Slide44Novice Youth: Partnership snapshotPARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS
Novice Youth are young (average age 21) and currently unmarried, and we can assume that some men from this segment will eventually form partnerships with women from each of the five female segmentsHowever, their current cohort is the Sheltered Skeptics for the following reasons:Like Novice Youth, Sheltered Skeptics are the youngest
segment and most likely to be single. This leads us to think that these two segments are most likely to have similar mindsets and aspirations.With 72% of Sheltered Skeptics considering their (future) husband’s support for using contraceptives as important, these women are likely to value the fact that 62% of Novice Youth support female empowermentNovice
Youth
are less religious than their peers, but still twice as likely to describe themselves as very religious than Sheltered Skeptics
(61% vs. 30%). However,
Sheltered Skeptics are more likely to see contraception as a sin
(49% vs. 27
%).SHELTERED SKEPTICSNOVICE YOUTH
Slide45Irreverent Skeptics: Partnership snapshot
IRREVERENT SKEPTICSTRADITIONAL AUTONOMISTSSHELTERED
SKEPTICSIrreverent Skeptics have the highest education levels amongst men (63% have primary or secondary education), while Sheltered Skeptics have the lowest amongst women (31%). Given their contrarian and opinionated nature, some Sheltered Skeptics may prefer partnerships with less educated women. Irreverent Skeptics and Sheltered Skeptics are likely to value each others’ skepticism, which extends towards FP. Irreverent Skeptics are the least likely to have ever used
FP (21%),
and Sheltered Skeptics are
the least
likely to accept use of Modern
Methods (18%).
In line with their skeptic natures, both segments are not very religious. Irreverent Skeptics are the least religious segment amongst men (48% consider themselves very religious), while Sheltered Skeptics are moderately religious compared to peers (30%).In contrast to Sheltered Skeptics, Traditional Autonomists are the most educated female segment (48% have primary or secondary education). Some Irreverent Skeptics may prefer partnerships with strong willed, educated, and autonomous women. Few Irreverent Skeptics have used FP (21%), but they most also don’t think it’s a sin to use contraceptives (82%), and therefore may tolerate when Traditional Autonomists use MM (65% accept use). Traditional Autonomists are also less likely than other female segments to require their husband’s permission to use FP (30%).Both segments are not very religious. Irreverent Skeptics are the least religious segment amongst men (48% consider themselves very religious), and Traditional Autonomists are significantly less religious (20%).
1
2
PARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS
Slide46Conservative Patriarchs: Partnership snapshot
CONSERVATIVE PATRIARCHSSHELTERED SKEPTICS CONSERVATIVE PASSIVES
Both Conservative Patriarchs (25% with primary or secondary education) and Conservative Passives (38%) are fairly uneducatedBoth segments are not favorable towards FP. Conservative Patriarchs are unlikely to have used FP (30%), and a majority of Conservative Passives do not accept the use of Modern Methods (56%). In addition,
53% of respondents in both segments think FP is a sin. Conservative Patriarchs are also least likely to support female empowerment
(37%).
Conservative Patriarchs and Passives are
more likely to align on their conservative views on FP than religion.
This is because Conservative Passives are surprisingly unreligious (only 28% describe themselves as very religious).
Conservative Patriarchs (25% with primary or secondary education) and Sheltered Skeptics (31%) are among the least educated segmentsThese couples are unlikely to use Family Planning. Conservative Patriarchs are unlikely to have used FP (30%), but Sheltered Skeptics are most likely to think husband permission for FP use is important (28%). In addition, a sizeable portion of both segments (53% CP and 49% SS) consider contraception a sin.In comparison with other female segments, Sheltered Skeptics are more religious. However, they are less than half as likely to describe themselves as very religious than Conservative Patriarchs (30% vs. 63%).PARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS12
Slide47Curious Traditionalists: Partnership snapshot
CURIOUS TRADITIONALISTSTRADITIONAL AUTONOMISTSCurious Traditionalists are less educated (33% vs. 48% have primary or secondary education)
and slightly less likely to be from rural areas (83% vs. 89%) than traditional autonomistsWhile 65% of Traditional Autonomists accept the use of FP, the majority of these women only accept and use traditional methods. Because 70% of these women perceive their husband’s permission for FP as important, Curious Traditionalists may be able to help promote acceptance of modern methods. The fact that Curious traditionalists and traditional autonomists strongly disagree over whether contraception is a sin (54% CT vs. 27% TA), is likely to be linked to their different degrees of religiosity: 74% of CT’s consider themselves very religious, whereas only 20% of TAs do so,
Curious Traditionalists and Conservative Passives are equally likely to live in rural areas
(83%), and have
similar low education levels
(33% of Curious Traditionalists have a primary or secondary degree versus 38% of Conservative Passives)
With only 44% of
Conservative Passives accepting modern methods, these women tend to stick to social norms. Conservative Passives could therefore be encouraged to learn more about FP by their Curious Traditionalist husbands (50% of CTs have used FP). While Curious Traditionalists are significantly more religious than Conservative Passives, both segments are the most likely to see contraception as a sin (54% of Curious Traditionalists and 53% of Conservative Passives)12PARTNERSHIP ANALYSISCONSERVATIVE PASSIVES
Slide48Dissatisfied Progressives: Partnership snapshot
DISSATISFIED PROGRESSIVESBoth Dissatisfied Progressives (25%) and Modern Elites (34%) are most likely to live in urban areas, but Dissatisfied Progressives are almost half as likely to have a primary or secondary education than Modern Elites (23% vs. 45%).These couples are very likely to use Family Planning
, seeing as 70% of Dissatisfied Progressives have done so in the past and 79% of Modern Elites accept use of modern methods. In addition, Dissatisfied Progressives are most likely to support female empowerment (95%), and Modern Elites are least likely to think their husband’s permission for contraception is important. Both Dissatisfied Progressives (100%) and Modern Elites (38%) are most likely to describe themselves as very religious, but Dissatisfied Progressives are much significantly more religious in absolute terms. Dissatisfied Progressives (25%) are more than twice as likely than Traditional Autonomists (11%)
to live in urban areas,
but
less educated
(only 23% of Dissatisfied Progressives have a primary or secondary education vs. 48% of Traditional Autonomists)
At 70%, most Dissatisfied Progressives have used FP methods to date. And with 65% of Traditional Autonomists accepting the use of Modern Methods,
it is possible that these couples currently use FP.Dissatisfied Progressives are five times as likely to describe themselves as very religious than Traditional Autonomists (100% vs. 20%). However, both Dissatisfied Progressives (13%) and Sheltered Skeptics (27%) are unlikely to see contraception as a sin.12MODERN ELITESPARTNERSHIP ANALYSISTRADITIONAL AUTONOMISTS
Slide49Pious Modernists: Partnership snapshot
PIOUS MODERNISTSHEALTHY PROACTIVESPious Modernizers are more likely to live in rural areas (87%) than Healthy Proactives (78%), and are
slightly less educated (46% with primary or secondary education vs. 41%)These couples are highly likely to use Family Planning: Pious Modernists are the most likely to have used FP to date, and Healthy Proactives are the most likely to accept Modern Methods. In addition, Pious Modernizers are likely to support female empowerment (75%).Pious Modernists and Healthy Proactives feel differently about religion. 86% of PMs describe themselves as very religious, whereas this figure is only 17% for Healthy Proactives. However, despite being considerably more religious, Pious Modernists are more than five time less likely to consider contraceptive as a sin than Healthy Proactives (6% vs. 32%).
Pious Modernizers and Traditional Autonomists are
equally likely to live in rural areas
(87% vs. 89%), but
Pious Modernizers are less educated
(36%
with primary or secondary education vs. 48%)With Pious Modernizers being most likely amongst men to have tried FP in the past, and a majority (65%) of Traditional Autonomists accepting modern contraceptive methods, these couples are likely to use family planningWhile Conservative Pious are much more religious than Traditional Autonomists (86% vs. 20%), both segments are least likely to view contraception as a sin amongst their peers (only 6% of Pious Modernizers and 27% of Traditional Autonomists). 12PARTNERSHIP ANALYSISTRADITIONAL AUTONOMISTS
Slide50Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide51To prioritize amongst the six segments, we have
compared them along the dimensions of potential for impact, feasibility, and scalabilityPRIORITY SEGMENTS
POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTFEASIBILITYSCALABILITY
How significant is the opportunity to change this segment’s family planning engagement?
I
s
this
segment
practical to target and receptive to family planning?Segment size: How large is the segment?Opportunity to increase use: What % of men are currently not using?Amplification: Are men of this segment likely to influence peers?Critical moment: Would behavior change influence future family size? Accessibility: Does the population reside in easy to reach regions, and can this segment be reached (physically, digitally, etc.) through existing touch points?Openness to family planning: Are men in this segment open to new ideas and curious about family planning? Buy-in and interest from the family planning community: Is this segment currently or anticipated to be a priority for the Nigerien Ministry of Health and international donors working on family planning?
Is it likely that any achieved impact will be scalable and / or adaptable?
See Appendix A for the scoring of each of the segments against the
above criteria
Slide52Novice Youth and Curious Traditionalists are intervention prioritiesPRIIORITY
SEGMENTSNOVICE YOUTHCURIOUS TRADITIONALISTS
“I have different wants and values to my parents, but I’m not very sexually active so I haven’t felt the need to consider family planning yet.”
“I prefer not to stray too far from the norms I know, but I do feel under-informed about family planning and generally
listen to
those who know more than me
.”
Slide53A classification tools allows us to attribute men to specific segmentsCLASSIFICATION
The classification tool consists of a short questionnaire with binary choice answersRespondents’ answers determine the next question, allowing the canvasser to identify which segment he is most likely to be part of with a maximum of seven questionsThe next slide shows a “classification tree”, an illustrative overview of the classification methodology described aboveSee Appendix D
for the full classification questionnaire and an accuracy matrix showing the predictive strength of the tool for each of the six male segments
Slide54A classification tree enables the identification of segments CLASSIFICATION
ILLUSTRATIVESee Appendix D for the full
classification questionnaire
Slide55Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide56Novice Youth: Guiding
Principles (1 of 2)IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLESBEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVESOVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS
Create awareness for modern methods and how to access / use them, as a prerequisite to their first sexual experience
Higher levels of education
suggests a
focus on the use and value of modern methods
Low to average penetration of FP messaging
across all media (except online) to date
Preference for discussing FP with peers and in favor of group-sessions An above average sense of agency allows for FP to be framed as a tool for self-determination and success (especially as a majority support birth limiting)A relative lack of strong opinions may increase receptiveness to positive messaging from non-traditionalist influencersEnsure modern methods are perceived as a positive tool for planning one’s life and achieving one’s aspirations
Grow
understanding of
how to initiate
and
support
FP use for gender-progressive relationships
1
2
3
INTERVENTION APPROACH
Understand Novice Youths’ aspirations
for the future
as a
man, husband,
and
father
Develop the content for messages
that will help them
lead healthy and productive lives, and
transform
gender norms
Disseminate
the tailored messages through the
most widely used channels
Slide57Novice Youth: Guiding Principles (2 of 2)IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES
Early Messaging“Preparation for sexual activity means knowing the full range of FP options and discussing them with friends, so you can then find and use them to avoid unexpected pregnancies"Intermediate Messaging“Family planning is an opportunity to maximize your chances of having the future you want by controlling if and when you have children and whom you have them with”
Advanced Messaging“As future community leaders and responsible husbands-to-be, you can help shape the lives of those around you by using FP, and sharing your knowledge of it widely with others”KEY DISSEMINATION CHANNELS
POTENTIAL MESSAGING CONTINUUM*
*
M
essages
are early ideas for future testing. Messages are of increasing specificity in order to nudge Novice Youth towards positive behavior
changeFamily planning communication campaigns featuring role models such as well-known artists, business men or other reputable public figuresLearning sessions between Novice Youth and more experienced men such as their fathers or Pious Modernists to discuss family planning as a Nigerien man
Discussion sessions amongst friends
can draw on Young Novices' preference for peer-to-peer education, and can be continued on social media
Slide58Curious Traditionalists: Guiding Principles (1 of 2)IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES
BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVESConvert current high knowledge of FP methods and
desire to learn into higher usage and consideration of usage ratesReduce growth rate in family size by instilling birth spacing as a norm123
OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS
Half
have two children or less but most want many, creating an
opportunity to frame FP as a way to manage the pace of their family’s
growth
Strong support for spacing, intention to use and desire to learn more suggests FP related information will be welcomed The major obstacles to current use appear to be high religiosity and perception that FP is sinful, and particularly low perception of MM use among peersCurious Traditionalists are reluctant to relinquish power to women, both in general terms and in daily decision-makingThe current knowledge is mainly from friends, but these men are also positive towards NGOs, HCWs, and imams, and highly trust partners for FP discussion
INTERVENTION APPROACH
Draw
on
Curious Traditionalists’
trust
in NGOs and the government
, as well as their
high
levels of curiosity
Increase the perception
of
FP as a socially acceptable tool for a better life
Encourage
gender
equality
within couples
as a relationship objective
Soften the perception of FP as being in any way at odds with Islam, so that this segment stigmatizes FP less
Slide59Curious Traditionalists: Guiding Principles (2 of 2)IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES
Early Messaging“FP is the best way to ensure you build the large family you want at the right pace, and there are methods with no side effects that you could focus on to achieve this"Intermediate Messaging“
FP use is more widespread than you might imagine, and many men draw on the free will Allah gave them and their concern for their wife’s health to plan the timing of children”Advanced Messaging“There is a wide variety of potential FP methods to choose from, and many different organizations / people can tell you what you need to know so you can go on to try them”POTENTIAL MESSAGING CONTINUUM*
*
M
essages
are early ideas for future testing. Messages are of increasing specificity in order to nudge Novice Youth towards positive behavior
change
KEY DISSEMINATION CHANNELSWeekly radio shows devoted to FP featuring imams and healthcare professionals, and affiliated with group sessions in key communitiesTestimonials from other men (potentially from local communities), made available via a hotline or pushed via SMS to mobile phones
Village theatre productions
can help to introduce more delicate, abstract concepts, such as rebalancing power dynamics within couple decision-making
Slide60Content
1Background & methodology
2Aggregate survey findings3Segmentation analysis
4
Partnership
analysis
5
Priority segments &
classification tool6Implementation principles7Evaluation considerations
Contents
Slide61Interventions can be monitored and evaluated using a performance scorecard
EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONSProcess Indicators
Learning AgendaQuantitative Indicators
Are the activities of the intervention being carried out in accordance to the overall timeline and budget?
In case of delay or additional costs, what are the causes?
What worked well over the course of the intervention, and why?
What was unexpected or surprising? What could be improved moving forward? What changes would we make?
What outputs and outcomes have we achieved through the intervention?
How do these compare with the intended results of the intervention?
A
B
C
Performance Scorecard
The following slides provide high-level considerations for each dimension of the performance scorecard
Slide62Performance Scorecard: Process Indicators EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS
Process indicators enable the implementing organization to see whether the intervention is going according to planProcess indicators compare the actual timeline and costs of the intervention with the envisioned timings and budget
They should be tracked on a regular basisSample budgetSample timeline
ILLUSTRATIVE
Slide63Performance Scorecard: Learning Agenda
EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONSA learning agenda consists of a short set of qualitative questionsRegularly seeking to answer these questions helps the implementing organization understand if and how the intervention approach might be adapted
A learning agenda enables implementing organization to identify areas that could be improved and allows for course correctionSample learning agendaILLUSTRATIVE
What is working particularly well? Why?
What
has been
unexpected or surprising?
Why?
What could be improved moving forward? Is there anything that we should change to make this intervention even more impactful or cost-effective? If so, how could this be done?
Slide64Performance Scorecard: Quantitative Indicators
EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONSA logic model consists of inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomesWhile inputs, activities, and outputs can be tracked and monitored right from the start, outcomes take time to manifest themselves and should
Logic model templateInputsThe resources that go into an intervention (e.g., money, staff time)
Activities
The activities that the intervention undertakes
(e.g., development of key messages
)
Outputs
The direct results of the activities (e.g., number of men reached with the message)OutcomesThe changes or benefits that result from the intervention over time (e.g., increased knowledge of MM)ILLUSTRATIVE
Quantitative indicators enable the implementing organization to track the impact of the intervention over time
Slide65Content
ASegmentation and prioritization methodology
B2013-2014 female segmentation profilesCSelect definitions
D
Classification questionnaire
& accuracy matrix
Appendix
Slide66Our segmentations are structured to reflect key pillars of the Integrated Behavior Model (IBM)
APPENDIX A: SEGMENTAITION METHODOLOGY
Demographic variablesPersonality traitsExperiences
Feelings about Behavior
Behavioral Beliefs
Normative Beliefs – Other’s expectations
Normative Beliefs – Other’s behavior
Perceived Control
Perceived EfficacyFP AttitudesPerceived Norms
Perceived Agency
Intention to perform behavior
Knowledge & skill to perform behavior
Salience of Behavior
Environmental Constraints
Perpetuating Habits v. Cues to Action
Behavioral Outcome
Background Characteristics
FP Attitudes :
Perception of the favorableness (or not) of a behavior - both the emotional response to the idea of performing the behavior and beliefs about the desirability of the outcomes of said behavior
Perceived Norms:
The social pressure felt by an individual to behave in a certain manner, comprised of beliefs about what others think he should do (and his tendency to comply) as well as perceptions on what others are doing
Perceived Agency:
The ability to instigate and execute actions targeted at a given purpose, comprised of the degree to which an individual perceives it as feasible to perform a
behavior
, and his perceived effectiveness in performing it
Knowledge & Skill to Perform Behavior:
Prerequisites to actual performance of an intended behavior
Salience of Behavior:
Perceived importance of behavior
Environmental Constraints:
External factors that render the behavior difficult or impossible to perform
Perpetuating Habits v. Cues to Action:
How the behavior fits into individual’s life
Indirect / Direct
Influences on Intentions
Direct
Influences on Behavior
Background Characteristics:
Possible underlying sources of beliefs – but not direct drivers of behaviors
Source: Center for Health Behavior Research of the University of Pennsylvania
= Key areas of focus
Slide671. Magidson and
Vermunt “Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means”, Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20.1, 2002, pp.36-43.
Latent Class Analysis
Comparison with
traditional clustering approach
1
Instead of using distances to classify cases into segments (i.e. K-Means Approach), LCA uses probabilities
Can handle nominal, ordinal, and continuous variables (any combination of these)
Isn’t as sensitive to missing data as traditional cluster analysis techniques – easier to classify a respondent into a segment when some of the data is not availableStatistical tests available to compare different models (AIC, BIC, p-values, etc.)
Methods for LCA
Analysis was completed using Latent Gold software
Variables were determined to be of high salience for inclusion based on insights from the literature review and secondary data analysis. The final list can be found on slide 10.
For each model ran, a 1 class, 2 class, 3 class, 4 class, 5 class, 6 class, 7 class, 8 class, 9 class, and 10 class model were ran. The optimal fit was determined by comparing the AIC, BIC, p-values, and class error across each class
APPENDIX A: SEGMENTAITION METHODOLOGY
Slide681. Magidson and Vermunt “Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means”, Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20.1, 2002, pp.36-43.
Latent Class Analysis: Segmentation Process
PHASE 1: initial “cleaning” of variables
Amongst the
many
variables from the survey, Camber analyzed the results in SPSS to find where multiple variables could be combined (i.e. grouping method-specific use into overall use vs non-use), to filter out variables with high levels of missing data (that did not have a skip-patterns) or refused responses, and showed variability amongst response options.
PHASE 2: create a weighting variable
The
survey data were compared to DHS values for age, highest
education level, marital status, and rural-urban split. A weighting variable was created to make the survey data more representative based on past DHS results.
PHASE 3: selection of active variables and covariates
The initial selection of active segmentation variables were chosen based on findings from the literature reviews, the cleaning process, and guidance from the Integrated Behavior Model. From that initial selection, approximately
four
iterations were completed (running 1-10 cluster analyses for each grouping of variables), adding and removing active variables to assure that:
- A cluster analysis could be chosen where each individual segment was sizable (~>10%) though segments were not so large that findings were too generalizable
- The model had optimal statistical significance based on a series of statistical tests (BIC,
Npar
, L
2
, p-value, and class error)
APPENDIX A: SEGMENTAITION
METHODOLOGY
Slide69Overview of prioritization factors and indicatorsAPPENDIX A: PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
FactorIndicator(s)Scale
CriteriaWeightingPotential for impact
1
Segment size
% of population
1
<=10%
20%
2
>
10%
<=
20%
3
>
20%
2
Opportunity
to
increase use
% currently not using
1
<=
50%
15%
2
>
50%
<=
85%
3
>
85%
3
Amplification
% that seek to change opinions of others
1
<
60%
15%
2
>=
60%
<
75%
3
>=
75%
4
Critical moment
Qualitative assessment based on 1) average age and 2) current number of children
1
Limited
15%
2
Some
3
High
Feasibility
& Scalability
5
Accessibility
Qualitative assessment based on 1) % living in rural areas, 2) distance of a health center
1
Limited
10%
2
Some
3
High
6
Openness to
FP
Qualitative assessment based on 1) % quick to change their opinion, and 2) % wish to learn more about FP
1
Limited
15%
2
Some
3
High
7
Buy-in
and community
interest
Qualitative assessment based on secondary
research
1
Limited
10%
2
Some
3
High
Slide70Segment scores (1 of 2)APPENDIX A: PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
FactorIndicator(s)Novice YouthIrreverent Skeptics
Conservative PatriarchsCurious TraditionalistsDissatisfied ProgressivesPious ModernizersWeighting
1
Segment size
% of population
25%
22%18%16%10%9%20%
Rating
3
3
2
2
1
1
Weighted score
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
2
Opportunity to increase use
% currently not using
100
%
*
81%
75%
60%
42%
28%
15
%
Rating
3
2
2
2
1
1
Weighted score
0.45
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.15
0.15
3
Critical moment
Average age
21
34
44
34
36
38
15%
Average # current children
0.1**
4.24
10.39
3.36
5.56
11.39
Rating
3
2
1
3
2
1
Weighted score
0.45
0.3
0.15
0.45
0.3
0.15
4
Amplification
% seek to
change
opinions
59%
71%
76%
76%
61%
61%
1
5
%
Rating
1
2
3
3
2
2
Weighted score
0.15
0.3
0.45
0.45
0.3
0.3
* Note that Novice Youth did not answer this question because they are currently not in partnership. In practice, we have assumed that this translates into non-usage.
** Note that in an earlier version we had stated an average of 2.52 children for Novice Youth. This figure was derived from the fact that 12 novice youth (out of a total of 284) had answered that they had children, and their average was 2.52.
Slide71Segment scores (2 of 2)APPENDIX A: PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
FactorIndicator(s)Novice Youth
Irreverent SkepticsConservative PatriarchsCurious TraditionalistsDissatisfied ProgressivesPious ModernizersWeighting
5
Accessibility
%
living
in rural areas
77%82%86%83%75%87% 10%
Distance
of
nearest health center
1.67
2.62
1.52
1.49
1.8
2.31
Rating
3
1
2
2
3
1
Weighted score
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
5
Openness
to FP
% quicker to change opinion than peers
48%
37%
55%
46%
76%
23%
1
5
%
% wish to learn
more
about FP
43%
36%
44%
67%
31%
93%
Rating
2
1
2
2
3
2
Weighted score
0.3
0.15
0.3
0.3
0.45
0.3
7
Buy -in
Likeliness of segment being a priority for national and international FP stakeholders
10
%
Rating
3
2
1
3
3
1
Weighted score
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
Total
2.55
1.95
1.9
2.4
2
1.3
Slide72Content
ASegmentation methodology
B2013-2014 female segmentation profilesCSelect definitions
D
Classification questionnaire
& accuracy matrix
Appendix
Slide73Modern Elites (16%)APPENDIX B
*Traditional Methods** Modern MethodsTM*MM**AcceptanceFP NeedProactivity
Husband’sInfluenceA woman in this segment is well-educated (23% with secondary education or higher), wealthier (52% in upper 2 quintiles), and more urban (34%) than women in the sample overallShe is much more likely to have waited to get married until after age 18 (34% versus 22% overall) and to have earned money outside the home in the past year (27% vs 19% avg.)While she considers herself to be
very religious
, she believes that
she has the last word in deciding how to apply Islam
to her life (55% vs 43% avg.)
She is much more
accepting of using MM for spacing (94%) and, unlike other segments, the majority accepts limiting (52%)This may be because of her own agency, the relationship she has with her husband (63% making contraceptive decisions together), and her belief that others use contraceptives and/or are relatively accepting of useA woman in this segment believes that others support FP, and she’s still willing to seek out contraceptives when others don’t support use—for example, 52% of women in this segment don’t believe that you need others’ permission to use contraceptivesOVERVIEW
USE BEHAVIOR
DESCRIPTION
KEY NEEDS / PREFERENCES
15%
22%
54%
6%
9%
Using Consistently
27%
40%
95%
Aware
Still Using
Considered
85%
69%
Tried
This segment values a
quick return to fertility, easy to use, and few side effects
She prefers to receive
FP information from radio and peer education sessions
Slide74Healthy Proactives (28%)APPENDIX B
*Traditional Methods** Modern MethodsOVERVIEWUSE BEHAVIORDESCRIPTION
KEY NEEDS / PREFERENCESAcceptanceFP NeedProactivityHusband’sInfluence
TM*
MM**
39%
53%
65%
16%
23%
Using Consistently
23%
27%
96%
Aware
Still Using
Considered
81%
59%
Tried
Women in this segment are
slightly more affluent
than average (46% in the top 2 quintiles). They are the most likely to be
married
(95% vs. 90% overall)
She is
very proactive
with regards to her health and seeking out information on contraception (54% have been to a HC in the last 3 months, 93% would like to learn more about FP)
She is a big
supporter of spacing
(94%) and
uses both MM
(27%)
and TM
(23%)
In fact, Healthy Proactives
use the widest range of methods
, including LAMA, abstinence, the pill, and
injectables
She is the
least likely to agree that contraception is a sin
(51% disagree vs. 42% overall)
She
trusts the HCW
more than anyone else to give her good advice on FP (46%) and
discusses contraception with them often
This segment values a
discreet methods with quick return to fertility
She prefers to
discuss FP with her HCW
Slide75Traditional Autonomists (10%)APPENDIX B
*Traditional Methods** Modern MethodsOVERVIEWUSE BEHAVIORDESCRIPTION
KEY NEEDS / PREFERENCESAcceptanceFP NeedProactivityHusband’sInfluence
TM*
MM**
48%
56%
62%
29%
32%
Using Consistently
5%
5%
96%
Aware
Still Using
Considered
60%
16%
Tried
Largely
rura
l (89%) and
uneducated
(52%)
This segment
accepts spacing
(88%) and tends to agree that you should not get pregnant if you have a baby on your back (95%) and that your husband will hate you if you have a child every year (84%)
These women also
value autonomy
; they don’t want to be told when to have their first child, and believe that when it comes to decisions about their health, it’s their choice (77%)
There may be an
opportunity to address limiting
, as the majority also agree that if their oldest daughter is pregnant, they should not be (68%)
With regards to religion, this segment
believes that they will be judged at the gates of heaven on how well they took care of their children
(84%); they also believe that in Islam, there is
no room for a variety of opinions
(92%) and that
clerics and leaders have full authority
in how to apply Islam in everyday life (66%)
The
opinion of their husbands is very important
, and they tend to make FP decisions with him (63%)
This segment values methods with
no side effects, are free and easy to access, and are approved by their husbands
This segment should be
educated on the effectiveness of different traditional methods
, before introducing the idea of modern methods that may also fit their criteria
Slide76Conservative Passives (18%)APPENDIX B
*Traditional Methods** Modern MethodsOVERVIEWUSE BEHAVIORDESCRIPTION
KEY NEEDS / PREFERENCESAcceptanceFP NeedProactivityHusband’sInfluence
TM*
MM**
31%
41%
64%
14%
18%
Using Consistently
4%
4%
90%
Aware
Still Using
Considered
38%
9%
Tried
This segment is more likely to live in
rural
areas (83%) and to be
older
(18% age 36-49)
They are more likely to have a
husband with no education
(71%)
These women adhere to
traditional values
, with the majority of them
believing that contraception is a sin
(53%), and Islamic teachings are not open to interpretation (no room for a variety of opinion (93% ) and clerics have full authority (68%)
They are
the least accepting of girls wanting to wait until age 18 to get married
(26% do not find it acceptable, vs. 19% overall)
They are
the least likely to agree that sex is better when you don’t have to worry about getting pregnant
(18% vs. 29% overall)
They are
highly passive
, not having consultations (7%), or obtaining info regarding FP (12%)
They are the most likely
never to have spoken to a HCW
about contraception (53% vs. 39% overall)
These women
seek the permission of others
when it comes to FP decisions (72% prefer that their husbands are not opposed, 57% imams and 56% friends / family)
Interestingly, they are the
most likely to say that becoming pregnant today would be a problem for them
(46%)
This segment values
permission of husband, other women (friends / family), imams
They
tend to trust friends and family most
for discussing FP (36%)
Slide77Sheltered Skeptics (28%)APPENDIX B
*Traditional Methods** Modern MethodsOVERVIEWUSE BEHAVIORDESCRIPTION
KEY NEEDS / PREFERENCESAcceptanceFP NeedProactivityHusband’sInfluence
TM*
MM**
7%
16%
19%
4%
4%
Using Consistently
2%
4%
36%
Aware
Still Using
Considered
21%
7%
Tried
These women have
less control over HC
(including FP) due to
younger
age (20% are age 17 or younger),
lack of education
(69% have no education), and
lower social status
(60% are in the lowest 2 quintiles of wealth)
They tend to be
younger at the age of their first sexual encounter
(86% were younger than age 18 vs. 77% overall) and
younger at age of marriage
(33% before age 15 vs. 28% overall)
They are
less likely to have children
(22% have no children, versus 14% overall)
or be married
(12% are single, versus 7% avg.)
They are
the least likely to be able to refuse sex with their husbands
(97% cannot refuse, versus 88% overall)
They have very
low levels of knowledge about FP
, and are the
least accepting of spacing
(26%)
and MM use
(18%)
Their
husbands or their parents make decisions for them
(60% for HC decisions, and 67% for HH purchase decisions), and they have few outlets for discussion on FP
Interestingly, these women are
having sex more frequently
than other segments (66% have had sex in the last month vs. 61% avg.) and are
most likely to agree that sex is better when you don’t have to worry about getting pregnant
(35% vs 29% avg.)
This segment needs trusted sources of FP information, as they currently
tend not to trust anyone for FP advice
, and are
very passive
in their info seeking
Slide78Content
ASegmentation methodology
B2013-2014 female segmentation profilesCSelect definitions
D
Classification questionnaire
& accuracy matrix
Appendix
Slide79Free will as a feature of Islam and our survey
Free will within Islam
The dominant stream of thought on free will within Islam is that individuals are at liberty to select their actions, even if Allah reserves the final say over the outcomes of those actions. In effect, Allah has accorded humans free will in order to see them make ‘good’ choices in their lives, but only he has foreknowledge of what lies ahead. In practical terms, this means that men may not consider it inconsistent to believe that life ultimately rests in Allah’s hands, but that in the meantime they should be making their best effort to make what they consider to be genuinely correct choices. In fact, making this effort is part of the power humans have to exercise their free will, and relinquishing ownership of that freedom through complacency or apathy is a sign of ungratefulness for the blessing of being human. As a result, individuals should be doing everything within their power to optimize their lives, while accepting that Allah’s domain is ultimately far greater.
Free will within our survey questions
Within our survey of Nigerien men, two questions in particular isolated men’s sense of free will. The first measured how far men were willing to make sacrifices in the present, in order to achieve the future they want (only 40% said they were). The second measured how far men felt their destiny was entirely in Allah’s hands (only 14% felt any potential to shape their destiny).
There are two take-aways from the data we received on these two questions
:
(
i) Most men did not appear to identify with the notion of free will, in the abstract, presumably because it was construed as a challenge to Allah’s ultimate mandate to determine their destiny. (ii) Men do not appear to have associated both questions equally with the concept of free will, as evidenced by the fact that some segments (e.g. Irreverent Sceptics) simultaneously appeared most likely to believe they could shape some of their future while also being the least likely to make sacrifices now, to have the future they want. (Similarly, the Progressive Modernizers are by far the most willing to make sacrifices now for the future they want, yet they are also overwhelming in their conviction that Allah controls their entire destiny.)
APPENDIX C
Slide80Free will as a feature of Islam and our survey
Overarching points
Despite appearances, an analysis of men’s daily actions confirms a sense of free will exists, in line with the free will v divine destiny logic presented above. It’s clear that men exercise their free will on a recurring basis by making the important decisions around finances, their own and their partners’ health, and (to a lesser degree) timing of children. On that basis, and in view of the religious context presented above, we don’t discount free will as a feature of men’s lives, whether they perceive themselves to have it in opposition to divine destiny or (as for most) alongside it. Of the two questions, we focused on the question pertaining to men’s destiny, as we felt the other (willingness to make sacrifices) could be skewed by wealth factors, such that even men with a sense of free will cannot afford to contemplate sacrifices due to current poverty. As such, for the remainder of this answer, ‘free will’ is used to mean ‘those men who did not view their destiny as being 100% in Allah’s hands’. As mentioned above, 14% of respondents fall into this category.
Data points
While we cannot tease out the mechanics of exactly how free will influences men’s decision-making on fertility, reproduction, family size or general wellbeing – as this was beyond the scope of our restricted survey size – we can highlight the impact that a greater sense of free will appeared to correlate with, most of which we would classify as more positive FP attitudes and
behaviors
:
• The 14% of men who felt some sense of ownership of their own destiny had fewer children on average (4 instead of 7) despite two thirds of them being married and despite being only 3 years younger (on average) than the 86% who declared no sense of free will.
• They were more likely to most trust healthcare workers for discussion of FP, instead of their partners, and were only half as likely to see FP as a sin.• They were more likely to be content with a life of monogamy.• Within couples, they were 10-20% more likely to share decision-making responsibilities (varying according to the subject of the decision) and three times more likely to let their partners decide ideal family size in instances of disagreement with his partner; yet paradoxically, they were less likely to believe that women now had more power than in prior generations.• These men were only half as likely to want more children than their fathers had.
APPENDIX
C
Slide81Content
ASegmentation methodology
B2013-2014 female segmentation profilesCSelect definitions
D
Classification questionnaire
& accuracy matrix
Appendix
Slide82A classification tree enables the identification of segments APPENDIX D
Slide83Segments can be identified through a classification questionnaireAPPENDIX D
Q1Would it be a problem for you if you found out today that your wife was pregnant?Q9To which extent do you agree with the following statement: "It's not prudent to have a child every year"
01. Not Married [END = Novice Youth] 01. Disagree; Neutral [END = Irreverent Skeptics]
02. Not a problem; Yes, small problem; Yes, big problem;
Missing
[Go to
next question
] 02. Agree [END = Pious Modernizers]
Q2
What is your current marital
status?
Q10
Do you want more children, fewer children, or the same
number
of children as your father had?
01. Single; Cohabitating; Married;
Divorced / Widowe
d
/ No
longer together;
Missing
[Go to
next question
]
01. Fewer children; Same # children;
Missing
[Go
to next question
]
02. Polygamous
[skip to Q15]
02. More Children
[skip to Q13]
Q3
With which ethnic group do you most identify?
Q11
Do you believe that women in Niger have more power now than in previous generations?
01.
Djerma
;
Touareg
;
Other
[Go to
next question
]
01. No
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
02.
Haussa
; Missing
[skip to Q8]
02.
Yes
[Go
to next question
]
Q4
Who do you trust the most for discussing family planning?
Q12
Is a man's
willingness to make sacrifices now in order to have the future that he
wants
the most important indicator of
male success?
01.
Friends; family; men in my community; cleric; healthcare workers; school
teacher
[Go to next question] 01. No [END = Curious Traditionalists]
02. My partner [skip to Q6]
02. Yes
[END = Dissatisfied Progressives]
Q5
To what extent do you trust advice on health coming from the national government?
Q13
Do you think that using contraception is a sin?
01. Strongly Trust
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
01. Agree
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
02. Do not trust; Moderately trust; Missing
[END = Irreverent Skeptics]
02.
Disagree
[Go
to next question
]
Q6
How many men in your community do you think are using
amulets,
grigris
or withdrawal with their partners?
Q14
Are implants available to your partner at health care centers?
01. Many of the men; Don't know;
Missing
[Go to
next question
]
01. No
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
02. None of the men; Some of the men
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
02. Yes
[END = Pious Modernizers]
Q7
To what extent do you agree with this statement: "Religion is more about making good life choices than following specific rules?
Q15
To what extent do you agree with this statement: "Religion is more about making good life choices than following specific rules"?
01.
Strongly agree; Missing
[END = Curious Traditionalists]
01. Strongly agree; Somewhat agree; Missing
[END = Conservative Patriarchs]
02. Somewhat agree; Somewhat disagree; Strongly disagree
[END = Irreverent Skeptics]
02.
Somewhat disagree;
Strongly
disagree
[Go
to next question
]
Q8
To what extent do you agree with this statement: "Religion is more about making good life choices than following specific rules"?
Q16
Do you intend to use traditional or modern FPP methods in the future?
01. Strongly Agree; Missing
[skip to Q10]
01. No intention to use a method
[END = Irreverent Skeptics]
02. Somewhat agree; Somewhat disagree; Strongly
disagree
[END = Irreverent Skeptics]
02. Intend to use MM, Intend to use
Traditional
Methods; Missing
[END = Pious Modernizers]
Slide84Accuracy matrixAPPENDIX D
PredictedError Rate
Correct ClassifiedCurious TraditionalistsDissatisfied Progressives
Novice
Youth
Irreverent Skeptics
Conservative Patriarchs
Pious Modernizers
ActualCurious Traditionalists131150
32
0
5
28.5%
71.5%
Dissatisfied Progressives
14
83
0
15
0
2
27.4%
72.6%
Novice Youth
0
0
282
2
0
0
0.6%
99.4%
Irreverent Skeptics
22
10
0
206
5
12
19.4%
80.6%
Conservative Patriarchs
0
0
0
0
201
9
4.1%
95.9%
Pious Modernizers
10
6
0
14
8
60
38.4%
61.6%