A Case Study on High and Low Performance Areas for Family Planning

가족계획 우수.부진지역 사례연구

This study was conducted to compare the characteristics of high performane areas for family planning with that of low performance areas and to find factors which strongly affected contraceptive practice behavior. For the study, eight areas were selected from 274 rural family planning canvassing areas of Korean Population Policy and Program Evaluation Study, which was an action study operated in all areas of Cheju Island from July 1, 1976 until December 31,1979. As a first step of the action study, Cheju Island was devided up 318 family planning canvasser areas Each area was consisted of 200 households in rural district and 300 households in urhan one Duriog the period of project, each canvassing area had been managed by a female family planning canvasser, selected by director of health center considering several individual conditions needed for family planning activities Basic activities of canvassers were to counsell all the eligihie couples in own charged area about family planning methods and also to distribute contraceptives such as condoms and oral pills. In case couples desire to accept sterilization including vasectomy and tubal-ligation, the canvassers played a linking role connecting potential client with family planning field workers. Canvassng areas shows significant differentce in performance for family planning, nevertheless they are supposed to have almost the same conditions regarding family planning distribution channel. Because the purpose of the Cheju project was to eliminate all the problems that existed in governmental distribution system, that is to remove geographic, economic, cognitive and administrative barriers Accumulated performances of family planning methods accepted by residents in each area were calculated by eligible women aged 14-49. And then canvassing areas were ranked according to performance score. Consequently, 4 areas in extremely high and low family planning performance areas were selected respectively. Major results were obtained by comparing characteristics of high performance area with that of low performance areas, which are as follows: 1. The mean number of living children was about the same both in high and low performance areas for family planning. But respondents' mean age (38.5) in high performance areas was higher than that (37.0) in low performance areas 2. Respondents' perception in the expectant educational level of others' children in high performance areas was higher than that in low performance areas, although respondents educational level, monthly expenditure and ratio of children in high school and above was not different. 3. Ratio of ownerships of TV and newspaper in high performance areas was highen than that in low performance areas 4. The duration of canvasser' charge in high performance areas was longer than that of low performance areas, showing the fact that canvassers didn't move cut in high performance areas 5. In high performance areas, canvassers' houses were relatively located in the center part of the village. And so villagers resided in near distances from the anvasser's house 6. 4H clubs' activities in high performance areas were more active than those in low performance areas Therefore it was assumed that cohesiveness of community in high performance areas were stronger than that in low areas. 7. Canvassers' family planning practice rate was higher than that in low performance areas, and also canvassers' human relationship was more sociable than that of canvassers in low performance areas. 8. Fourteen variables which showed relatively high significance level in $X^2$ and F test were selected as independent variables for stepwise regression analysis. According to the results of regression analysis. five of 14 variables-distributors education level ($R^2$=.4439), duration of distributor's charge ($R^2$=.6166), 4H club activities ($R^2$=.6697), canvasser's contraceptive practice ($R^2$=.7377) and location of distributions house ($R^2$=.8010) explained 80.1 percent of total variance.