| Literature DB >> 31442271 |
Xinhua Li1,2, Yancun Fan1, Sawitri Assanangkornchai2, Edward B McNeil2.
Abstract
China relaxed its family planning policy and adopted a universal two-child policy on January 1, 2016 to actively address the country's aging trend. However, the policy has failed to have any significant effect on the fertility rate of many provinces. In light of the country having the highest sex ratio at birth in the world and the huge burden of the aging population, improving the fertility rate is an urgent priority in China. This facility-based cross-sectional survey aimed to study determinants of fertility decision-making among couples based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. The study was conducted in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China. A structured self-administered questionnaire was completed by 1,399 couples, consisting of wives aged 20-49 years and their husbands. Based on the structural equation modeling method of analysis, determinants of fertility decision-making were perceived behavior control (perceived importance of having a stable income and cost of raising a child), subjective norms (perceived social pressure about "sex preference of the newborn by themselves and their partner") and attitudes (only healthy parents can have a child). Other significant factors influencing fertility decision were ethnicity and education level, with ethnic minority couples having less perception of social norm towards fertility and those with higher education having higher perceived control toward having a (further) child. The study reveals the importance of the China's infrastructure and public facilities to support child-rearing to increase the fertility rate among couples of child-bearing age, which in turn will reduce the burden associated with an aging society.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31442271 PMCID: PMC6707598 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Conceptual model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior.
Demographic characteristics of the study sample.
| Characteristic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnic group | ||
| At least one minority | 359 | 25.7 |
| Both Han | 1040 | 74.3 |
| Education level | ||
| Both junior college and below | 566 | 40.5 |
| At least one college | 646 | 46.2 |
| At least one above college | 187 | 13.4 |
| Employment status | ||
| Both self-employed | 479 | 34.2 |
| Only one self-employed | 346 | 24.7 |
| Both employed | 574 | 41.0 |
| Monthly family income (RMB) | ||
| ≤ 3000 | 156 | 11.2 |
| 3001–5999 | 445 | 31.8 |
| 6000–9999 | 482 | 34.5 |
| 10001–19999 | 247 | 17.7 |
| ≥ 20000 | 69 | 4.9 |
| Wife's age at marriage | ||
| ≤ 23 | 234 | 16.7 |
| 24–35 | 1151 | 82.3 |
| 36–47 | 14 | 1 |
RMB: Chinese renminbi.
Summary of behavioral constructs and their subdomains.
| Measure | Range | Mean | S.D. | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived behavior control (PC) | 1–4 | 2.52 | 1.17 | 0.859 |
| PC1 | 1–4 | 2.36 | 1.01 | |
| PC2 | 1–4 | 2.46 | 1.11 | |
| PC3 | 1–4 | 2.68 | 1.03 | |
| PC4 | 1–4 | 2.62 | 1.07 | |
| PC5 | 1–4 | 2.57 | 1.13 | |
| PC6 | 1–4 | 2.47 | 1.11 | |
| Subjective norms (SN) | 1–4 | 1.89 | 0.82 | 0.707 |
| SN1 | 1–4 | 1.86 | 0.93 | |
| SN2 | 1–4 | 1.88 | 0.93 | |
| SN3 | 1–4 | 1.93 | 0.86 | |
| Attitudes (AT) | 1–4 | 2.34 | 1.34 | 0.829 |
| AT1 | 1–4 | 2.27 | 1.08 | |
| AT2 | 1–4 | 2.41 | 1.10 | |
| AT3 | 1–4 | 2.35 | 1.23 | |
| AT4 | 1–4 | 2.33 | 1.22 |
Legend of the variables
SD: standard deviation.
PC1: The couple is ready to sacrifice the time and freedom for the baby
PC2: A suitable babysitter is available when the couple works outside
PC3: A lot of money will be spent to raise a (another) child
PC4: The couple has sufficient materials for child rearing
PC5: The couple’s family members can help them take care of the baby
PC6: The couple has a stable income
SN1: The family should have a boy (or girl)
SN2: His/her partner prefers to have a boy (or girl)
SN3: The relatives and friends around the couple have already had two children
AT1: The couple enjoys having a big family
AT2: The couple enjoys the fun of raising a child
AT3: Only healthy parents can have a child
AT4: Having a child can maintain a good relationship between the couple
Comparison of the total scores of the fertility decision model by socio-demographic variables.
| Determinant | Score of fertility decision model | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnic group | 0.46 | |
| At least one minority | 31 (24,38) | |
| Both Han | 31 (23,37) | |
| Education level | <0.001 | |
| Both junior college and below | 27 (20,35) | |
| At least one college | 32 (24,38) | |
| At least one above college | 36 (29,40) | |
| Employment | <0.001 | |
| Both self-employed | 27 (20,34) | |
| Only one self-employed | 32 (22,38) | |
| Both employed | 34 (26,39) | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | 0.001 | |
| ≤3,000 | 28 (21,35) | |
| 3,001–6,000 | 29 (23,37) | |
| 6,001–10,000 | 31 (23,38) | |
| 10,001–20,000 | 33 (25,39) | |
| ≥20,001 | 33 (22,40) | |
| Wife's age at marriage (years) | <0.001 | |
| ≤23 | 27 (21,35) | |
| 24–35 | 31 (23,38) | |
| 36–47 | 28 (16,35) |
P-value obtained from Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test
Fig 2Final model of fertility intention based on Theory of Planned Behavior.
PC: Perceived Behavior Control; PC1: The couple is ready to sacrifice the time and freedom for the baby; PC2: A suitable babysitter is available when the couple works outside; PC3: A lot of money will be spent to raise a (another) child; PC4: The couple has sufficient materials for child rearing; PC5: The couple’s family members can help them take care of the baby; PC6: The couple has a stable income; SN: Social Norms; SN1: The family should have a boy (or girl); SN2: His/her partner prefers to have a boy (or girl); SN3: The relatives and friends around the couple have already had two children; AT: Attitudes; AT1: The couple enjoys having a big family; AT2: The couple enjoys the fun of raising a child; AT3: Only healthy parents can have a child; AT4: Having a child can maintain a good relationship between the couple; e in a circle denotes measurement error of that latent variable.
Standardized regression weights of parameters.
| Endogenous variables | Exogenous variables | Estimate (β) | Lower | Upper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fertility decision | Perceived behavior control | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.98 |
| Attitudes | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.87 | |
| Subjective norm | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.69 | |
| Perceived behavior control | PC1 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.69 |
| PC2 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.68 | |
| PC3 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.67 | |
| PC4 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.79 | |
| PC5 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.78 | |
| PC6 | 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.79 | |
| Attitudes | Attitude1 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.71 |
| Attitude2 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.69 | |
| Attitude3 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.85 | |
| Attitude4 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.82 | |
| Subjective norm | SN1 | 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.78 |
| SN2 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.80 | |
| SN3 | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.59 | |
| Ethnic group | Subjective norm | -0.13 | -0.18 | -0.06 |
| Perceived behavior control | -0.04 | -0.11 | 0.011 | |
| Attitudes | 0.00 | -0.07 | 0.05 | |
| Education | Subjective norm | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.17 |
| Perceived behavior control | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.27 | |
| Attitudes | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.24 | |
| Wife's age at marriage | Subjective norm | -0.04 | -0.11 | 0.03 |
| Perceived behavior control | -0.003 | -0.06 | 0.06 | |
| Attitudes | -0.004 | -0.05 | 0.07 | |
| Employment status | Subjective norm | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.19 |
| Perceived behavior control | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.18 | |
| Attitudes | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.20 | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | Subjective norm | 0.004 | -0.06 | 0.07 |
| Perceived behavior control | -0.03 | -0.08 | 0.04 | |
| Attitudes | 0.05 | -0.01 | 0.10 |
For explanation of the variable names, see Table 2