Next we examined the effect of the campaigns on interpersonal communication
(Table 4). The campaigns increased communication about family planning with spouse
or partner, r = .10 (k = 10, n = 25661)). Baseline levels of spousal communication
averaged 38% (SD = 12.2%), and posttest levels averaged 45% (SD = 20.3%).
Only three campaigns reported their impact on communication with health
professionals in clinics or other settings. Their average affect was negative (r = -.03, n =
7132), but the extremely small size makes it impossible to generalize. Similarly the very
small number of campaigns reporting communication with friends or other relatives (k =
4, n = 9008) makes it difficult to generalize from the average effect size, r = .16. The
results for individual campaigns are in Table 4.
On average, 78% of the populations approved of family planning before the
campaigns, and 83% approved after the campaign (Table 5). The effect size was modest
(r = .09, k = 6, n = 16711).
Intentions to use family increased slightly due to the campaigns. The average
campaign effect on behavioral intentions was r = .08 (k = 8, n = 40217). Baseline rates
were at half of the population intending to use family planning on average (M = .57, SD =
14.2), compared to post-campaign rates of 64% (SD = 15.7).
Fifteen campaign reported data on use of modern family planning methods (Table
6). Pre-interventions, an average of 35% (SD = 15.1) of the populations reported modern
use, which grew slightly to an average of 41% (SD = 16.1)of the population using
modern methods after the campaign. The average effect size was r = .06 (n = 56843).
Use of any family planning method, including traditional means, was, logically,
higher than use of modern methods alone. The average rates were 46% (SD = 16.1) at
Convention