| Literature DB >> 31443724 |
Shiva S Halli1,2, Damaraju Ashwini3, Bidyadhar Dehury3, Shajy Isac4,3, Antony Joseph4,3, Preeti Anand4,3, Vikas Gothalwal4, Ravi Prakash4,3, B M Ramesh4, James Blanchard4, Ties Boerma4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uttar Pradesh (UP) is the most populous state in India with historically high levels of fertility rates than the national average. Though fertility levels in UP declined considerably in recent decades, the current level is well above the government's target of 2.1. DATA AND METHODS: Fertility and family planning data obtained from the different rounds of Sample Registration System (SRS) and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS). We analyzed fertility and family planning trends in India and UP, including differences in methods mix, using SRS (1971-2016) and NFHS (1992-2016). Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used.Entities:
Keywords: Family planning; Geographical variation; NFHS; Total fertility rate; Uttar Pradesh
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31443724 PMCID: PMC6706892 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-019-0790-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Fig. 1Average annual rate of decline in TFR in India and Uttar Pradesh, 1971–2016, India. Source: Sample Registration System (SRS)
Fig. 2Contraceptive use among married women 15–49 years in India and Uttar Pradesh, 1998–2016. Source: National Family Health Surveys (NFHS)
Fig. 3Demand satisfied by modern and traditional methods among currently married women (15–49 years) in India and Uttar Pradesh. Source: National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 1998–99 to 2015–2016
Fig. 4Total fertility rate by district, Uttar Pradesh. Source: National Family Health Survey (NFHS), 2015–16
Factors affecting TFR level in 2015–16 and the relative change in TFR during 1998 to 2016
| District characteristics | Levels of TFR 2015–16 | |
| % of Currently married women who were: | Bivariate model: | Multivariate model: |
| B-coefficient (Std.Error; | B-coefficient (Std.Error; | |
| Not attended school | 0.040 (0.004; 0.000) | 0.034 (0.007; 0.000) |
| Urban residents | −0.014 (0.003; 0.000) | −0.001 (0.004; 0.807) |
| Muslim | 0.011 (0.005; 0.030) | −0.000 (0.005; 0.932) |
| Schedule caste | −0.004 (0.010; 0.674) | −0.007 (0.007; 0.348) |
| Poor wealth quintile | 0.015 (0.003; 0.000) | 0.005 (0.005; 0.349) |
| Model fit (R2) |
| |
| Among currently married women in districts: | TFR Change 1998–2016 | |
| % Change in women with schooling | 0.655 (0.144; 0.000) | 0.559 (0.179; 0.003) |
| % Change in urbanization level | 0.110 (0.096; 0.258) | −0.155 (0.098; 0.118) |
| % Change in Muslim population | −0.175 (0.128; 0.177) | −0.053 (0.119; 0.658) |
| % Change in Schedule Caste population | −0.258 (0.189; 0.177) | −0.164 (0.173; 0.347) |
| Baseline level of fertility | 10.059 (2.032; 0.000) | 7.332 (2.085; 0.001) |
| Model fit (R2) |
| |
Note: Poor wealth quintile includes both poor & poorest quintile
Model fit (R2) for both the regressions are statistically significant at p<0.001
Fig. 5Relative change in district TFR between 1998 & 2016 by level of total fertility in 1998, UP. Source: National Family Health Survey
Fig. 6Demand satisfied by modern and traditional methods among currently married women (15–49 years), by current TFR (2015–16). Source: National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 1998–99 and 2015–16
Fig. 7Percent distribution of main contraceptives methods among currently married women (15–49 years), by current TFR (2015–16). Source: National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 1998–99 and 2015–16