Percent of men who have ever used any male family planning method or family planning method that requires male cooperation

Percent of men who have ever used any male family planning method or family planning method that requires male cooperation

Percent of men who have ever used any male family planning method or family planning method that requires male cooperation

Among men ages 15–54 years, the percentage distribution of all men (currently married men and of sexually active unmarried men) who have ever used any male contraceptive method or family planning (FP) method that requires men’s cooperation, by specific method and age. FP options include male sterilization (vasectomy), withdrawal, standard days method, and male condom.

The indicator is calculated as follows:

(Number of men 15–54 ever used a contraceptive method / Total number of male respondents) x 100

Data Requirement(s):

Men’s self-reporting of FP use

Data can be disaggregated by age, marital status (all men, currently married men, or sexually active unmarried men), geographic location, specific method, and modern versus traditional method

DHS men’s questionnaire

Special survey among the male clients at health facilities, program-based sexual and reproductive health sites, or among the men in the general public (population based)

Data collection may include men ages 15–49, 15–54, or 15–59, depending on the local context.

This indicator measures ever use of a contraceptive method by men by age and marital status. When disaggregated by modern versus traditional method, it is a quantitative outcome measure that can be used to track acceptance and use of modern contraception by men over time.

It is not possible, from this indicator, to correctly assess “use” and determine if men used the contraceptive method (withdrawal, standard days method, or male condom) correctly and consistently.

One advantage of this indicator is that the data are readily available through routinely collected service statistics or through DHS or RHS surveys. The shortcomings are two-fold. First, male involvement interventions usually target a limited geographical area, in which case these large-scale surveys lack appropriate data for evaluation (although a representative survey of the area will). Sec­ondly, although program-based service statistics are readily avail­able, they fail to capture contraceptive use outside the government or NGO facilities that provide family planning (e.g., pharmacies, which are a major source of supply of condoms).

family planning, male engagement