Introduction
The sexual and reproductive health (SRH) of young adolescents (YAs: 10–14 years) is an emerging public health priority in developing countries. YAs comprise about half of the 1.2 billion adolescents aged 10–19 years globally [
1]. Young adolescence is often regarded as a relatively healthy phase compared to other age groups [
2]. Nevertheless, it is a period of profound changes characterized by the onset of puberty, which comes with physical, emotional, social and cognitive changes that affect their well-being, as well as their sense of self and self-esteem, and the ability to assess risks and consequences [
2].
Previous research indicates that puberty accelerates risk-taking among YAs [
3,
4]. At this stage of their life, YAs are initiating intimate relationships and acts such as kissing, hugging and fondling [
5,
6]. Studies have also shown that they are already engaging in sexual activities, including sexual intercourse [
5‐
7].
YAs in developing countries are disproportionately affected by SRH challenges, including coerced or forced sex, early marriage and gender-based violence [
1]. These often culminate in early, unintended and unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV [
8]. YAs also lack information, knowledge, skills and cognitive readiness to make informed decisions related to their SRH, including consensual sex, and condom and contraceptive use [
5‐
7]. Furthermore, gender norms that depict boys as virile and girls as weak and vulnerable often intensify these risks [
9].
Caregivers play a significant role in socializing and shaping the attitudes of YAs at an early age that are critical to laying the foundations for positive and safe SRH behaviours. This is through practices such as gender socialization and communication about sexuality in general [
10,
11]. Blum’s conceptual framework on early adolescence underscores the significant role of caregivers as part of the micro-environment that influences positive SRH outcomes for YAs [
12]. Studies have found a strong association between caregiver SRH communication and reduced sexual risk-taking behaviours among adolescents [
13], including delayed sexual initiation and safe SRH practices [
14]. Other studies further point to the need to start SRH discussions at an early age, and to provide accurate SRH information [
15].
There is considerable research into communication between caregivers and children about SRH in sub-Saharan Africa that emphasizes the existence of such communication despite traditional perspectives [
16,
17]. This SRH communication is often punitive [
15,
17], limited in breadth to comfortable topics such as abstinence [
18], and less about broader SRH topics such as prevention of pregnancy through contraception and the use of condoms [
18]. Moreover, many caregivers do not approve of YAs engaging in sexual and romantic relationships, since they are deemed too young and, therefore, not ready to receive SRH information [
15]. Caregivers are also not in the position to decipher SRH topics, due to cultural and religious dispositions that inhibit explicit discussions about sex [
17,
19]. Low self-efficacy of caregivers, as well as uncertainties about the appropriate timing of sexuality communication, impede sexuality communication [
15]. Other structural factors such as caregiver–child connectedness [
20] and socio-economic factors may influence communication between caregivers and children. Studies also report a substantial variation in caregiver–child communication by gender, with more pronounced communication between mothers and daughters [
15,
21].
Current research specifically into caregiver–child communication on SRH emphasizes older adolescents and barely addresses YAs [
1]. Moreover, several studies on caregiver–child communication on SRH present evidence on the level and frequency of SRH communication, but hardly any on the level of comfort with discussing SRH with YAs. There is barely any research assessing correlates of SRH communication and comfort with discussing SRH with YAs in settings where sexuality communication is a cultural taboo. Our research presents data derived from a baseline household survey of caregivers and their YAs (10–14 years) in a community-based participatory research project in rural south-western Uganda. The project aims to improve caregiver communication with YAs through a culturally sensitive intervention targeting caregivers. This paper has two objectives: to describe the current level of, and comfort with, caregiver SRH communication with their children, and to identify their correlates.
Methods
Study design and setting
A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in January and February 2020 among caregiver–YA dyads in six villages in Rwebishekye parish, Rwanyamahembe sub-county, Kashari county in rural Mbarara district of south-western Uganda. The study community comprised approximately 1,520 households, of which 29% headed by women, and an estimated population of 6,061 people [
22]. The community comprised a relatively homogenous and stable population with one main linguistic group, the Banyankore-Bakiga. The community is served by one public health facility (Bwizibwera Health Centre IV), located about 5 km from the furthest village.
Study population and sample selection
The study sampling frame comprised all households in the study community with YAs (10–14 years) and their caregivers. A community household profiling exercise was conducted at the start of the study and established an estimate of 300 households comprising YAs. The final sample comprised 218 caregiver–YA dyads (436 study participants overall). The sample size was calculated for the effectiveness study for an intervention to improve SRH communication between caregivers and YAs. It allows a moderate change (effect size 0.2) to be measured in good caregiver–adolescent communication between pre- and post-intervention measurements with a power of 0.8 and alpha of 0.05. This required a total sample size of 277 respondents. Accounting for design effect (× 1.3) and drop-out between waves (× 0.2), the required sample size amounted to 432 participants or 216 dyads.
We used consecutive sampling, based on whether a household contained a YA and whether both caregiver and YA were present simultaneously at the time of the survey. For households comprising more than one YA, we considered the oldest. Caregivers were either biological or non-biological. Within the sample, caregivers included biological parents, step-parents, foster parents or relatives, including older siblings entrusted with the greatest responsibility for the daily care and rearing of the child. Eligibility for caregivers included being 18 years or older, consenting to participate in the study, living in the community for the past six months and living with a YA in their household for whom they were the caregiver for the past six months.
Data collection
The survey was conducted by trained research assistants who were fluent in English and native speakers of Runyankore-Rukiga. Data were collected using a structured, pre-tested questionnaire administered by an interviewer. The surveys were computer-assisted using Kobo Collect software. The interviews with the caregiver and YA were conducted simultaneously but separately in convenient locations to avoid overhearing and to ensure open and truthful responses. The time for completion of the survey varied from one hour to one hour and 15 min. The survey team was coordinated by two team leaders and community leaders, who assisted in identifying the preselected households. There were also three monitors to check the data for consistency and completeness.
Given the participatory and sensitive nature of this research project, the survey questionnaire was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) in December 2019. The CAB comprised community representatives, including caregivers, young people, teachers, community leaders and influential members of the community, as well as religious leaders from the four majority faiths: Catholic, Anglican, Muslim and Pentecostal. The CAB also included representatives of different government entities, including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, and the Ministry of Education and Sports. These stakeholders reviewed the data collection tools and provided feedback on the pertinence and clarity of the survey questions.
Measures
Comfort with SRH discussions
Caregiver comfort with SRH communication was explored using nine SRH topics. Caregivers were asked how comfortable they were discussing any of the SRH topics with their YA children. The topics are indicated in Additional file
1: Appendix A. Caregivers were presented with statements such as ‘How comfortable do you feel discussing general health and bodily hygiene with your YA child?’ The response options for caregivers were ‘very comfortable’, ‘somewhat comfortable’, ‘somewhat uncomfortable’ and ‘very uncomfortable.’ The summated composite score for comfort was calculated with a minimum score of 10 and maximum score of 27. The scores were classified based on Bloom’s criteria [
24]. These were organized into 3 groups; scores 22–27 (80–100%) were reported as high comfort; scores 16–21.99 (60–79%) were reported as moderate comfort while scores < 16 (< 60%) were reported as low comfort with SRH discussions. This scale had a Cronbach alpha of 0.73.
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed using STATA 14 (College Station, Texas, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to describe numbers and percentages for the dependent and independent variables. The prevalence of discussion for each of the 10 SRH topics was presented by dyad type. Fischer’s Exact Tests were used to test for the level of significance of the difference in SRH communication across the dyad type for each of the 10 SRH topics (a 5% level of significance was set). The mean score for the number of topics discussed across the dyads was presented. Bivariate analysis was performed between the dependent variables (level of SRH communication and caregivers’ comfort with SRH discussions) and independent variables. The dependent variables were treated as linear variables (they were normally distributed). We conducted hierarchical linear regression analyses to examine the relationship between the dependent variables (level of SRH communication and caregivers’ comfort with SRH discussions) and the independent variables (demographic characteristics of caregivers, household characteristics, level of comfort, attitudes towards SRH, knowledge of SRH and level of connectedness). Separate linear regression models for number of SRH topics discussed and caregivers’ comfort with SRH discussions were run using a manual backward stepwise selection method. Multi-collinearity was tested using variance inflation factors; none of the variables were affected. Results from the bivariate and multivariate linear regression model for predictors of caregiver and YA communication and comfort with SRH communication are reported in Tables
3,
4,
5 and
6, respectively. Results from the bivariate analysis informed which variables to include in the multivariate linear regression model.
Discussion
This study sought to assess the current level of communication between caregivers and YAs about SRH, and caregivers’ comfort with such discussions, and identify their correlates. The study was conducted in a rural community in south-western Uganda, where an intervention to improve communication between caregivers and YAs on SRH would be tested. Unlike many studies which focus on SRH communication with older adolescents, this study focuses on YAs aged 10–14 years. This approach is driven by the notion that young adolescence is a stage of transition from childhood to adulthood where critical changes occur, especially in terms of sexual development [
2]. Addressing SRH issues during this transitional phase is considered to have more positive outcomes than dealing with them later in life. However, there is also building evidence the risk-taking behaviours is already occurring at this age [
7].
Overall, our findings indicate that communication about SRH does take place between caregivers and their YAs. However, this was relatively rare and varied according to the topics discussed. On average, 21.6% of caregivers in the study reported ever discussing an average of 3.9 of the 10 SRH topics listed in the questionnaire. This finding falls in tandem with several other studies in similar settings—for example, a study conducted in Korogocho settlement in western Kenya indicated that communication between caregivers and very young adolescents was rare [
15]. Similar findings are reported in a study conducted in Zanzibar, where only 40% of caregivers had ever communicated with their children about SRH [
18]. However, the latter study reports communication about SRH with older adolescents (aged 15–19).
A considerable number of caregivers reported discussing general health and bodily hygiene, and HIV/AIDS and other STIs. Indeed, on the comfort scale, caregivers reported high levels of comfort discussing HIV/AIDS and other STIs, as well as general health and bodily hygiene. Notwithstanding is the major finding of this study that the number of SRH topics discussed increased with an increasing level of comfort with SRH discussions. The probable reason for high reports of discussions on general health and bodily hygiene is that these topics can be discussed with minimal embarrassment. As far as HIV/AIDS is concerned, excess messaging around HIV/AIDS in the media, coupled with the high risk perception of HIV infection in many communities, may have triggered a lot of discussion around this topic. Topics deemed to be sensitive—such as night emissions in boys, condoms, birth control and sexual conduct—were discussed the least. Low or moderate levels of knowledge and a high proportion of caregivers reporting a negative attitude towards SRH in our findings could account for the low level of discussion of these latter topics. Additionally, evidence also shows that parents associate discussions with adolescents about condoms and birth control with being comparable to encouraging them to engage in sexual intercourse [
28].
The relationship between the SRH topics most and least commonly discussed and their perceived sensitivity strongly justifies the finding that the level of SRH communication increases with increasing level of comfort. This interrelates with the notion that open discussions about sexual issues are a taboo in many African settings, and the fact that many caregivers believed that it was too early to begin initiating discussions about sex [
15]. These factors, though not addressed in this study, serve as proxies for SRH communication by influencing how comfortable caregivers feel discussing these SRH topics with YAS. Our findings specifically reveal that religion and the number of adolescents in a household influence caregivers’ comfort with SRH communication. In their review, Abdallah et al. (2017) report religion as one of the factors influencing SRH communication in East Africa [
29].
Although there was no significant difference in SRH communication across the dyad types for each of the SRH topics except for HIV/AIDS and other STIs, mother–daughter dyads were reported to have the highest mean number of topics discussed, while mother–son dyads were reported to have the lowest mean number of topics. Many studies implicate the influence of gender on caregiver–child communication, with mothers communicating more than fathers, and girls receiving more communication than boys. Girls are disproportionately vulnerable to SRH risks than boys, and mothers spend more time with children than fathers [
29]. Moreover, evidence indicates that mothers are the preferred partners for socializing their daughters about sexuality [
19,
29,
30].
We found that the level of comfort with SRH communication reduced with an increase in the number of YAs in a household. It is possible that caregivers may find it uncomfortable having SRH discussions with more children than it would be if they were fewer. Previous studies have particularly investigated the effect of family size on the level of SRH communication. In this study, the number of YAs in a given household could serve as an indicator for family size. Studies in Bangladesh and Ethiopia indicate that the bigger the family size, the lower the level of SRH communication [
31,
32]. Another study in Ethiopia reports no association between family size and the level of SRH communication [
33]. Zakaria et al. attributes their findings to presence of older siblings in the household that the adolescents would most likely prefer to talk to about their SRH issues rather than their parents [
31]. Muhwezi et al. reveals that adolescents preferred to talk to their siblings about SRH than their parents because their parents were not comfortable about these SRH discussions [
34]. The other reason given for not discussing SRH issues in larger families could be due to parents feeling overburdened by the number of children to speak to and that parents are less concerned for SRH communication as the family size increases [
32]. However, there is need for further research to explore the association between comfort with SRH communication and family size.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.