Study Design
In this experimental study, couples receiving care at 8 government health clinics in Kigali, the capital city, were referred from a parent study of couples who did not want more children or wanted to wait at least 2 years for their next pregnancy. Long-acting reversible contraception methods were offered on site following joint HIV testing and family-planning counseling. At the first follow-up visit 1 month after enrollment in the parent study, couples who had not yet chosen a long-acting reversible contraception method were interviewed separately using motivational interviewing and then brought together and again offered long-acting reversible contraception.
Results
Following motivational interviewing, 78 of 229 couples (34%) requested a long-acting reversible contraception method (68 implant and 10 intrauterine device). Long-acting reversible contraception uptake after motivational interviewing was associated with the woman being Catholic (vs Protestant/Muslim/other, adjusted odds ratio, 2.87, 95% confidence interval, 1.19–6.96, P = .019) or having an income (vs no income, adjusted odds ratio, 2.54, 95% confidence interval, 1.12–5.73, P = .025); the couple having previously discussed long-acting reversible contraception (adjusted odds ratio, 8.38, 95% confidence interval, 2.54–27.59, P = .0005); either partner believing that unplanned pregnancy was likely with their current method (adjusted odds ratio, 6.67, 95% confidence interval, 2.77–16.11, P < .0001); or that they might forget to take or make an appointment for their current method (adjusted odds ratio, 4.04, 95% confidence interval, 1.32–12.34, P = .014). Neither partner mentioning that condoms also prevent HIV/sexually transmitted infection was associated with long-acting reversible contraception uptake (adjusted odds ratio, 2.86, 95% confidence interval, 1.17–7.03, P = .022), as was the woman citing long-term duration of action of the implant as an advantage (adjusted odds ratio, 5.41, 95% confidence interval, 1.86–15.76, P = .002). The woman not listing any side effects or disadvantages of implants was associated with long-acting reversible contraception uptake (adjusted odds ratio, 5.42, 95% confidence interval, 2.33–12.59, P < .0001). Clinic location (rural vs urban), couple HIV status, and concerns about negative economic effects of an unplanned pregnancy were significant in bivariate but not multivariate analysis.
Conclusion
Encouraging couples to reflect on the benefits and disadvantages of long-acting reversible contraception methods, the likelihood of unplanned pregnancy with their current contraception, and the impact of an unplanned pregnancy is an effective motivational interviewing technique in family-planning counseling. One third of couples who did not want a pregnancy for at least 2 years but had not chosen a long-acting reversible contraception method when provided with standard family-planning counseling did so after motivational interviewing. Involving the male partner in family-planning discussions facilitates joint decision making about fertility goals and contraceptive choice. Combining family planning and joint HIV testing for couples allows targeted focus on dual-method use with discordant couples, who are advised to use condoms for HIV/sexually transmitted infection prevention along with a more effective contraceptive for added protection against unplanned pregnancy.
