Social and logistical barriers to the use of reversible contraception among women in a rural Indian Village

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 241-250

  Hall, Mary Ann Kirkconnell ^a   Stephenson, Rob B ^a   Juvekar, Sanjay ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KEM HOSPITAL   (India)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Contraception; Contraceptive methods; Family planning; India; Reversible; Women

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONTRACEPTION; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMAN; INDIA; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PREGNANCY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTION BEHAVIOR; FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INDIA; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; RURAL HEALTH;

EID: 48249098882     PISSN: 16060997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Pathak KB, Feeney G, Luther NY. Accelerating India's fertility decline: the role of temporary contraceptive methods. Natl Fam Health Surv Bull 1998;(9):1-4.
2. Janowitz B, Bratt JH. What do we really know about the impact of price changes on contraceptive use? Int Fam Plan Perspect 1996;22:38-40.
3. Lewis MA. Do contraceptive prices affect demand? Stud Fam Plann 1986;17:126-35.
4. Bongaarts J, Bruce J. The causes of unmet need for contraception and the social content of services. Stud Fam Plann 1995;26:57-75.
5. Nag M. Some cultural factors affecting costs of fertility regulation. Popul Bull UN 1984;(17):17-38.
6. Basu AM. Ignorance of family planning methods in India: an important constraint on use. Stud Fam Plann 1984;15:136-42.
7. Chaudhury RH. Unmet need for contraception in South Asia: levels, trends and determinants. Asia Pac Popul J 2001;16:3-22.
8. Athavale A, Athavale S. Factors influencing the decision to undergo tubectomy in a rural area of Maharashtra state. Regional Health Forum WWO South-East Asia Region 2003;7:42-7.
9. Kumar R, Singh MM, Kaur M. Dynamics of contraceptive use in a rural community of Haryana. Indian J Med Sci 1999;53:201-11.
10. Santhya KG. Changing family planning scenario in India: an overview of recent evidence. New Delhi: Population Council, 2003. 52 p. (South and East Asia regional working paper no. 17).
11. Pritchett LH. Desired fertility and the impact of population policies. Popul Dev Rev 1994;20:1-55.
12. Rajaretnam T, Deshpande RV. Factors inhibiting the use of reversible contraceptive methods in rural South India. Stud Fam Plann 1994;25:111-21.
13. Donaldson PJ. The elimination of contraceptive acceptor targets and the evolution of population policy in India. Popul Stud (Camb) 2002;56:97-110.
14. Streatfield PK. Role of abortion in fertility control (editorial). J Health Popul Nutr 2001;19:265-7.
15. Zavier F, Padmadas SS. Use of a spacing method before sterilization among couples in Kerala, India. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2000;26:29-35.
16. Padmadas SS, Hutter I, Willekens F. Compression of women's reproductive spans in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2004; 30:12-9.
17. Maharashtra, Government of Human development report Maharashtra. Mumbai: Government Central Press, 2002. 295 p.
18. Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study. BMJ 2000;321:1255-9.
19. Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM, Breman R, Brockman SC, Rosas-Bermudez A. Effect of the interpregnancy interval after an abortion on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89(Suppl 1):S34-40.
20. Miller JE. Is the relationship between birth intervals and perinatal mortality spurious? Evidence from Hungary and Sweden. Pop Stud 1989;43:479-95.
21. Setty-Venugopal V, Upadhyay UD. Birth spacing: three to five saves lives. Pop Rep (Series L) 2002;30(13):1-23.
22. Whitworth A, Stephenson R. Birth spacing, sibling rivalry and child mortality in India. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:2107-19.
23. Sunil TS, Pillai VK, Pandey A. Do incentives matter? - evaluation of a family planning program in India. Popul Res Policy Rev 1999; 18:563.
24. Arnold F, Choe MK, Roy TK. Son preference, the family-building process and child mortality in India. Popul Stud 1998;52:301-15.
25. Arnold F, Kishor S, Roy TK. Sex selective abortions in India. Popul Dev Rev 2002;28:759-85.
26. Clark S. Son preference and sex composition of children: evidence from India. Demography 2000;37:95-108.
27. Gupta MD, Bhat PNM. Fertility decline and increased manifestation of sex bias in India. Popul Stud (Camb) 1997;51:307-15.
28. Perianayagam A. Gender preference, contraceptive use and fertility in India: regional and development influences. Int J Popul Geogr 2002;8:49-67