Contextual Influences on Reproductive Wellness in Northern India

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 93, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 1820-1829

  Stephenson, Rob ^a   Tsui, Amy Ong ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DATA ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT INFECTION; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INDIA; LABOR COMPLICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL STAFF; MODEL; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; URBAN POPULATION; WELLBEING; DEMOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNOLOGY; FAMILY SIZE; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICE; MATERNAL WELFARE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHILOSOPHY; POVERTY; PREGNANCY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIOLOGY; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HOLISTIC HEALTH; HUMANS; INDIA; MATERNAL WELFARE; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POVERTY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; RURAL HEALTH; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SOCIOLOGY, MEDICAL;

EID: 0642275673     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.93.11.1820     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analysis of neighborhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:111-122.
2. Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:97-117.
3. Grady WR, Klepinger DH, Billy JOG. The influence of community characteristics on the practice of effective contraception. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993;25:4-11.
4. Chacko E. Women's use of contraception in rural India: a village-level study. Health Place. 2001;7:197-208.
5. DeGraff D, Bilsborrow RE, Guilkey DK. Community-level determinants of contraceptive use in the Philippines: a structural analysis. Demography. 1997;34:385-398.
6. Magadi MA, Madise NJ, Rodrigues RN. Frequency and timing of antenatal care in Kenya: explaining the variations between women of different communities. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:551-561.
7. Manda SOM. Unobserved family and community effects on infant mortality in Malawi. Genus. 1998;54:143-164.
8. Matteson D, Burr J, Marshall J. Infant mortality: a multilevel analysis of individual and community risk factors. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1841-1854.
9. Anderson R. Mortality effects of community socioeconomic status. Epidemiology. 1997;8:42-47.
10. Pebley AR, Goldman N, Rodriguez G. Prenatal and delivery care and childhood immunization: do family and community matter? Demography. 1996;33:213-247.
11. Congdon P. The impact of area context on long term illness and premature mortality: an illustration of multilevel analysis. Reg Stud 1995;29:327-344.
12. Von Korff M, Koepsell T, Curry S, Dieh P. Multilevel research in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1077-1082.
13. Entwisle B, Casterline JB, Sayed AA. Villages as contexts for contraceptive behavior in rural Egypt. Am Sociol Rev. 1989;54:1019-1034.
14. Entwisle B, Mason WM. Multilevel effects of socioeconomic development and family planning programs on children ever born. Am J Sociol. 1985;91:616-649.
15. Tsui AO. Community effects on contraceptive use. In: Casterline JB, ed. The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Survey; 1985:77-99.
16. Diez Roux AV. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1783-1789.
17. Goldstein H. Multilevel Statistical Models. London, England: Edward Arnold; 1995.
18. DiPrete TA, Forrostal JD. Multilevel models: methods and substance. Annu Rev Sociol. 1994;20:331-357.
19. Casterline JB. Community effects on fertility. In: Casterline JB, ed. The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Survey; 1985:65-67.
20. Potter JE. Effects of societal and community institutions on fertility. In: Bulatao R, Lee R, eds. Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries. Vol 2. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1983:627-625.
21. Hirschman C, Guest P. Multilevel models of fertility determination on four south-east Asian countries: 1970-1980. Demography. 1990;27:369-396.
22. Alauddin M. Rural development and family planning behavior in Bangladesh villages. Bangladesh Dev Stud. 1979;7:4-58. Cited by: Tsui AO. Community effects on contraceptive use. In: Casterline JB, ed. The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Survey; 1985:77-90.
23. Alauddin M. Rural development and family planning behavior in Bangladesh villages. Bangladesh Dev Stud. 1979;7:4-58. Cited by: Tsui AO. Community effects on contraceptive use. In: Casterline JB, ed. The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Survey; 1985:77-90.
24. Dixon-Meuller R. Gender Inequalities and Reproductive Health: Changing Priorities in an Era of Social Transformation and Globalization. Belgium: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population; 1999. Policy and Research Paper No.16.
25. Greenwell KF. Contraceptive method mix menu: providing healthy choices for women. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49:88-93.
26. Stokols D. The social ecological paradigm of wellness promotion. In: Jamner MS, Stokols D, eds. Promoting Human Wellness. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000:21-37.
27. Census of India, 2001. New Delhi: Government of India. 2001. Available at: http://www.censusindia.net/results. Accessed October 9, 2003.
28. International Institute for Population Sciences. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), India. 1998-99. Bombay, India: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2000.
29. Bloom S, Lippeveld T, Wypij D. Does antenatal care make a difference to safe delivery? A study in urban Uttar Pradesh, India. Health Policy Plann. 1999;14:38-48.
30. MEASURE Evaluation. PERFORM System Indicators Survey Uttar Pradesh 1995-1996. Chapel Hill, NC. Available at: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/measure/data/india/description.html. Accessed August 14, 2003.
31. Skinner C, Holt D, Smith TF, eds. The Analysis of Complex Surveys. 1989. New York, NY: Wiley; 1989.
32. Filmer D, Pritchett L. Estimating Wealth Effects Without Expenditure Data or Tears: An Application to Educational Enrollments in States of India. Washington, DC: Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank; 1988. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4.
33. Im S, Ginola D. Mixed models for binomial data with an application to lamb mortality. Appl Stat. 1998;37:196-204.
34. Visaria L, Jejeebhoy S, Merrick T. From family planning to reproductive health: challenges facing India. Int Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;25:S44-S49.
35. Pariani S, Heer DM, Van Arsdol MD. Does choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from East Java. Stud Fam Plann. 1991;22:384-390.
36. Young MK, Kols A, Mucheke S. Informed choice and decision-making in family planning counseling in Kenya. Int Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;24:4-11.
37. Das Gupta M. Death clustering, mother's education and the determinants of child mortality in rural Punjab, India. Popul Stud. 1990;44:489-505.
38. Finch CE, Vaupel JW, Kinsella K, eds. Cells and Surveys: Should Biological Measures Be Included in Social Science Research? Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.