| Literature DB >> 24528888 |
Pramila Rai1, Ishwari Sharma Paudel, Anup Ghimire, Paras Kumar Pokharel, Raju Rijal, Surya Raj Niraula.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Son preference is predominant in developing countries especially South Asian countries and its effect is most visible when the fertility is on transition. Nepal is a country in South Asia where the fertility has declined and son is valued highly. This study examines the parent's gender preference for children and its effect on fertility and reproductive behaviors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24528888 PMCID: PMC3927821 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (N = 300)
| 1 | Education of the respondent: | | |
| Illiterate | 68 | 22.7 | |
| Primary | 147 | 49.0 | |
| Secondary and above | 85 | 28.3 | |
| 2 | Occupation of the respondent: | | |
| Business | 15 | 5 | |
| Agriculture | 61 | 20.3 | |
| Housewife | 182 | 60.7 | |
| Labour | 27 | 9 | |
| Service | 5 | 1.7 | |
| Others | 10 | 3.3 | |
| 3 | Education of the partner: | | |
| Illiterate | 29 | 9.7 | |
| Primary | 135 | 45 | |
| Secondary and above | 136 | 45.3 | |
| 4 | Economic status of the respondents: | | |
| Above poverty line | 83 | 27.7 | |
| Below poverty line | 217 | 72.3 |
Desired fertility behaviour of the respondents (N = 300)
| Desired number and sex composition of children: | | | |
| One son | 16 | 5.3 | |
| One daughter | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Two son | 1 | 0.3 | |
| one son and one daughter | 266 | 88.7 | |
| More son and one daughter | 16 | 5.3 | |
| Sex Preference for first child: | | | |
| Daughter | 96 | 32 | |
| Son | 193 | 64.3 | |
| Whichever | 11 | 3.7 | |
| Decision making for determining no. of children | | | |
| in family: | | | |
| Husband and wife | 260 | 86.7 | |
| Family | 14 | 4.7 | |
| Wife | 16 | 5.3 | |
| Husband | 10 | 3.3 |
Multinomial regression analysis of respondent’s family planning practices (N = 300)
| Age | 15–24 | 4.073** | 2.072–8.005 | 3.656* | 1.452–9.208 | |
| 25–34 | 3.050** | 1.667–5.580 | 2.837* | 1.374–5.860 | ||
| 35–49R | | | | | ||
| Education of the respondents | Illiterate | 0.385* | 0.189–0.785 | 0.875 | .356–2.149 | |
| Primary | 0.557 | 0.309–1.005 | 0.677 | .350–1.312 | ||
| SecondaryR | | | | | ||
| No. of children | 1 | 2.988* | 1.440–6.198 | 2.148 | 0.655–7.042 | |
| 2 | 1.668 | 0.794–3.504 | 1.330 | 0.586–3.017 | ||
| ≥3R | | | | | ||
| Sex of last child | Female | 0.738 | 0.449–1.213 | 0.833 | 0.377–1.843 | |
| MaleR | | | | | ||
| Sex composition | Only male | 1.478 | 0.803–2.722 | 0.519 | 0.190–1.420 | |
| Only female | 0.976 | 0.541–1.761 | 0.443 | 0.170–1.159 | ||
| bothR | | | | | ||
| Age | 15–24 | 0.143* | 0.032–0.643 | 0.411 | 0.066–2.540 | |
| 25–34 | 0.412* | 0.184–0.921 | 0.473 | 0.185–1.214 | ||
| 35–49R | | | | | ||
| Education of the respondents | Illiterate | 0.988 | 0.372–2.625 | 0.173* | 0.048–0.621 | |
| Primary | 1.219 | 0.520–2.858 | 0.289* | 0.097–0.854 | ||
| SecondaryR | | | | | ||
| No. of children | 1 | 0.104** | 0.028–0.384 | 0.046** | 0.007–0.294 | |
| 2 | 0.808 | 0.384–1.699 | 0.564 | 0.237–1.342 | ||
| 3R | | | | | ||
| Sex of last child | Female | 0.375* | 0.186–0.758 | 0.416 | 0.152–1.140 | |
| MaleR | | | | | ||
| Sex composition | Only male | 0.946 | 0.438–2.045 | 2.593 | 0.898–7.489 | |
| Only female | 0.277* | 0.105–0.732 | 1.073 | 0.315–3.655 | ||
| BothR | ||||||
*Significance p < 0.05, **Significance p < 0.001, the reference category is No use of contraceptives.
R = Reference.
It was found that model of fit is significant-2 log likelihood = 214.818 χ2 (18) = 86.980, p < .001, which indicates this model predicts significantly better, or more accurately.
Binary logistic regression analysis of respondent’s future fertility intention (N = 300)
| Age of the respondents | 15–24 | 10.892** | 4.754–24.956 | 2.650 | 0.767–9.156 | |
| 25–34 | 4.667** | 2.089–10.425 | 2.185 | 0.730–6.545 | ||
| 35–49R | | | | | ||
| Education of the respondents | Illiterate | 0.145** | 0.056–0.373 | 0.889 | 0.413–1.915 | |
| Primary | 0.353** | 0.194–0.642 | 0.599 | 0.168–2.140 | ||
| Secondary and aboveR | | | | | ||
| Sex composition | Only male | 9.545** | 3.133–29.082 | 3.577 | 0.726–17.634 | |
| Only female | 34.650** | 11.725–102.401 | 10.153* | 2.357–43.732 | ||
| Both male and femaleR | | | | | ||
| Sex of the last child | Female | 3.286 | 1.844–5.853 | 1.740 | 0.328–9.215 | |
| MaleR | | | | | ||
| No. of children | 1 | 13.057** | 4.448–38.329 | 2.472 | 0.544–11.238 | |
| 2 | 1.317 | 0.396–4.380 | 0.806 | 0.206–3.159 | ||
| ≥3 R | ||||||
*Significance p < 0.05, **Significance p < 0.001.
R = Reference.
The reference category is NOT having desire of more children.
Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used to find out fit of model. It has been found that this model predicts significantly better χ2 (8) = 1.858, p >0.05 = 0.985.