| Literature DB >> 29486802 |
Sowmya Rajan1, Priya Nanda2, Lisa M Calhoun3, Ilene S Speizer3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sex composition of existing children has been shown to influence childbearing decision-making and behaviors of women and couples. One aspect of this influence is the preference for sons. In India, where son preference is deeply entrenched, research has normally focused on rural areas using cross-sectional data. However, urban areas in India are rapidly changing, with profound implications for childbearing patterns. Yet, evidence on the effect of the sex composition of current children on subsequent childbearing intentions and behavior in urban areas is scant. In this study, we analyze the impact of sex composition of children on subsequent (1) parity progression, (2) contraceptive use, and (3) desire for another child.Entities:
Keywords: Contraceptive use; Fertility desires; India; Parity progression; Sex composition; Son preference
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29486802 PMCID: PMC5830318 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-018-0482-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Baseline characteristics of married, non-pregnant, fecund mothers with one, two or three children at baseline (and followed up endline)
| Characteristic | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| 15–24 | 20.65 | 1189 |
| 25–34 | 51.73 | 2980 |
| Over 35 years | 27.63 | 1592 |
| Education | ||
| None | 19.21 | 1106 |
| Primary | 7.73 | 446 |
| Secondary | 39.41 | 2270 |
| More than secondary | 33.66 | 1939 |
| Religion | ||
| Hindu | 80.39 | 4630 |
| Other | 19.61 | 1131 |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| Poorest | 11.17 | 643 |
| Poor | 14.25 | 821 |
| Medium | 19.43 | 1120 |
| Rich | 25.97 | 1496 |
| Richest | 29.18 | 1681 |
| Slum residence | ||
| Slum | 15.90 | 915 |
| Non slum | 84.10 | 4846 |
| City | ||
| Agra | 23.10 | 1331 |
| Aligarh | 12.78 | 736 |
| Allahabad | 20.48 | 1180 |
| Gorakhpur | 15.79 | 910 |
| Moradabad | 9.70 | 558 |
| Varanasi | 18.15 | 1046 |
| Number of children | ||
| 1 | 30.80 | 1775 |
| 2 | 44.41 | 2558 |
| 3 | 24.79 | 1428 |
| Number of sons | ||
| 0 | 22.96 | 1323 |
| 1 | 52.18 | 3006 |
| 2 | 21.80 | 1256 |
| 3 | 3.06 | 176 |
| Number of daughters | ||
| 0 | 32.22 | 1857 |
| 1 | 48.40 | 2789 |
| 2 | 17.50 | 1009 |
| 3 | 1.87 | 108 |
| Fertility intentions | ||
| Want soon/ want later | 33.09 | 1906 |
| Want no more | 66.91 | 3855 |
| Contraceptive use | ||
| No method | 27.01 | 1556 |
| Modern method | 47.63 | 2744 |
| Traditional method | 25.36 | 1461 |
Note: Endline weights used for percentages and number of observations
Odds Ratios from Logit Regression of Baseline Sex Composition on Having Second, Third, and Fourth Child After Baseline
| Sex composition of previous children at baseline | Odds ratios (95%CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | ||
|
|
| |
| 1 son (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 0 sons, 1 daughter | 1.31 | .022 |
| (1.04–1.66) | ||
| Model 2 | ||
|
|
| |
| 2 sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 1 son, 1 daughter | 1.65 | .002 |
| (1.21–2.26) | ||
| 0 sons, 2 daughters | 4.65 | .000 |
| (3.11–6.93) | ||
| Model 3 | ||
|
|
| |
| 3 sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 2 sons, 1 daughter | .74 | .269 |
| (.44–1.25) | ||
| 1 son, 2 daughters | 1.51 | .100 |
| (.92–2.48) | ||
| 0 sons, 3 daughters | 3.45 | .000 |
| (1.83–6.52) | ||
Note: All models adjust for respondent’s baseline age, education, religion, household wealth, slum and city residence, fertility intentions, and contraceptive use
Odds Ratios from Logit Regression of Baseline Sex Composition on Modern Contraceptive Use at Endline
| Sex composition of previous children at baseline | Odds ratios (95%CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Model 4 | ||
|
| ||
| 1 son (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 0 sons, 1 daughter | 1.04 | .723 |
| (.84–1.29) | ||
| Model 5 | ||
|
| ||
| 2 sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 1 son, 1 daughter | .82 | .045 |
| (.67–.99) | ||
| 0 sons, 2 daughters | .58 | .000 |
| (.44–.76) | ||
| Model 6 | ||
|
| ||
| 3 sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 2 sons, 1 daughter | .83 | .314 |
| (.58–1.19) | ||
| 1 son, 2 daughters | .76 | .144 |
| (.53–1.09) | ||
| 0 sons, 3 daughters | .58 | .043 |
| (.35–.98) | ||
Note: All models adjust for respondent’s baseline age, education, religion, household wealth, slum and city residence, fertility intentions, and contraceptive use
Odds ratios from Logit Regression of Baseline Sex Composition on Desire for another Child at Endline
| Sex composition of previous children at baseline | Odds ratios (95%CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Model 7 | ||
|
| ||
| 1 son (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 1 daughter | 1.33 | .013 |
| (1.06–1.67) | ||
| Model 8 | ||
|
| ||
| 2 sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 1 son, 1 daughter | .68 | .082 |
| (.44–1.05) | ||
| 0 sons, 2 daughters | 3.96 | .000 |
| (2.45–6.41) | ||
| Model 9 | ||
|
| ||
| 2 or more sons (ref) | 1.00 | – |
| 2 or more daughters | 4.89 | .000 |
| (2.22–10.77) | ||
Note: All models adjust for respondent’s baseline age, education, religion, household wealth, slum and city residence, fertility intentions, and contraceptive use