Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:22:08.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of contraceptive use dynamics: research needs on decision and choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2011

Axel I. Mundigo ,
James F. Phillips  and
Aphichat Chamratrithirong
Axel I. Mundigo
Affiliation:
Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University, Bangkok
James F. Phillips
Affiliation:
Special Program of Research in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva
Aphichat Chamratrithirong
Affiliation:
Research Division, Population Council, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Because of the importance of contraceptive behaviour in most societies today a better understanding is needed of the social and behavioural factors affecting contraceptive decisions and choices of individuals and couples. This paper examines the need for longitudinal, theoretically-based studies of contraceptive use dynamics, including the timing, duration and interaction of reproductive events which may be more important than contraceptive technology in the social, cultural and economic context of fertility control. New research methods and appropriate analysis of data are relevant. Consideration of the social context is essential for the formulation and implementation of effective policies relating to the provision of contraceptive services.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 21 , supplement S11: Dynamics of Contraceptive Use , 1989 , pp. 9 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akin, J. S. & Schwartz, B. (1988) The effect of economic factors on contraceptive choice in Jamaica and Thailand: a comparison of mixed multinomial results. Econ. Dev. cult. Change, 36, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaarts, J. (1982) The fertility inhibiting effects of the intermediate fertility variables. Stud. Fam. Plann. 13, 179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulatao, R. & Palmore, J. (1989) Choosing a Contraceptive: Factors in Method Choice in Asia and the United States. Westview, Boulder.Google Scholar
Carrasco, E. (1981) Contraceptive Practice.Compardtive Studies No. 9. World Fertility Survey, London.Google Scholar
Freedman, R. & Berelson, B. (1976) The record of family planning programs. Stud. Fam. Plann. 7, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollerbach, P. (1980) Determinants of the Unmet Need for Family Planning. Pan American Health Organization Report. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Jones, E. F. (1984) The Availability of Contraceptive Services. Comparative Studies No. 37. World Fertility Survey, London.Google Scholar
Judge, G. G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. C., Lutkepohl, H. & Lee, T. C. (1985) Qualitative and limited department variable models. In: The Theory and Practice of Economics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Mcfadden, D. (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers of Economics. Edited by Zarembka, P.. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mundigo, A. & Shah, I. (1988) Behavioural and social determinants of fertility regulation. In: Research in Human Reproduction: Biennial Report 1986–1987. Edited by Diczfalusy, E.Griffin, P. D. & Khanna, J.. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Nortman, D. (1988) Sterilization and the birth rate. Stud. Fam. Plann. 11, 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nortman, D. (1982a) Population and Family Planning Programs: A Compendium of Data Through 1981. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Nortman, D. (1982b) Measuring the unmet need for contraception to space and limit births. Int. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 8, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, J. F. (1981) A logit regression method for the multivariate analysis of contraceptive attrition. In: The Role of Surveys in the Analysis of Family Planning Programs. Edited by Hermalin, A. I. & Entwistle, B.. Ordina, Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. F., Hossain, M. B., Hugue, A. A. Z. & Akbar, J. (1989) A case study of contraceptive introduction: domiciliary DMPA services in rural Bangladesh. In: Demographic and Programmatic Consequences of New Contraceptives. Edited by Segal, J. S.Tsui, A. O. & Rogers, S.. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Potter, R. G. (1971) Inadequacy of a one method family planning program. Stud. Fam. Plann. 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. A. (1983) Birth control methods and their effects on fertility. In: Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, Vol. 2, Fertility Regulation and Institutional Influences. Edited by Bulatao, R. A. & Lee, R. D.. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A., Germain, A., Forrest, J. E. & van Ginneken, J. (1982) Findings from family planning research. Reports on Population/Family Planning, No. 12. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Schearer, S. B. (1981) The value of focus group research for social action programs. Stud. Fam. Plann. 12, 407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, J., Suyono, H., Bahrawi, W. & Hartoadi, A. (1976) Contraceptive use-effectiveness in Mojoke Kerto Regency, Indonesia: a comparison of regular program and special drive acceptors. Stud. Fam. Plann. 7, 186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsui, A. O. (1985) Community effects on contraceptive use. In: The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Edited by Casterline, J.. International Statistical Institute, Voorburg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Vaessen, M. (1980) Knowledge of Contraceptive Methods. Comparative Studies No. 8. World Fertility Survey, London.Google Scholar
Westoff, C. F. & Pebley, A. R. (1981) Alternative measures of unmet need for family planning. Int. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 7, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeidenstein, G. (1980) The user perspective: an evolutionary step in contraceptive service programs. Stud. Fam. Plann. 11, 24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed