Modern family planning methods have created a very important avenue for women and families to have sizes they want at the time they need them and also manage them effectively. However in many developing economies this has been hindered by various factors. Many countries in Africa are facing this challenge especially for women in the reproductive age of 15 to 49 years. This study therefore set out to investigate the factors that affect the utilization of modern family planning methods among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) at Juba Payam (District) in Juba City of South Sudan. The study was conducted in Juba Payam and targeted a population of 372 women and a sample size of 197 was considered. The study was cross sectional and applied both qualitative and quantities methods. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics to derive means, frequencies, and percentages. Inferential statistic was used to derive odds ratios and significance using logistical regression and multivariate analysis. The study met all the ethical considerations required by law and regulations of Bugema University, Juba City authorities and South Sudan. The results revealed that the majority of the respondent were young women aged between 20-35 years, with some having only up to primary education level and with very low income. The contraceptive prevalence rate was very low (34%) and husband’s approval (85.5%) greatly affected the utilization of modern family planning methods. The need for education and awareness was also strongly reported and emphasized in the findings. It is therefore recommended that there is need for education and awareness on top of improving the local incomes of the local women especially those with low levels of education. Finally, since men are crucial in decision making among these communities, they should also be targeted in the education and awareness programme on modern family planning methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenyi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: