Submitted:
23 October 2024
Posted:
24 October 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
Rationale:
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Limitations
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
| 1 | Naya Qadam means “a new step” in English. |
References
- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan. Results of 7th Population and Housing Census 2023 “The Digital Census”. https://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/announcement-results-7th-population-and-housing-census-2023-digital-census.
- National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) [Pakistan] and ICF. (2019). Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2017-18. Islamabad, Pakistan, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NIPS and ICF.
- Mumtaz, Z., & Salway, S. (2009). “I never go anywhere”: extricating the links between women’s mobility and uptake of reproductive health services in Pakistan. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 2066-2073.
- Das Gupta, M. (1987). Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population and Development Review, 13(1), 77-100.
- Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435-464.
- Ghaus-Pasha, A., Muzaffar, N., & Naz, S. (2016). The role of women’s empowerment and fertility preferences in contraceptive use in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Women’s Studies, 23(1), 111-128.
- Mumtaz, Z., & Salway, S. (2009). “I never go anywhere”: extricating the links between women’s mobility and uptake of reproductive health services in Pakistan. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 2066-2073.
- Arnold, F., & Kishor, S. (2002). Sex-selective abortions in India. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 759-785.
- Guilmoto, C. Z. (2012). Sex imbalances at birth: Current trends, consequences, and policy implications. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
- Channon M. D. (2017). Son Preference and Family Limitation in Pakistan: A Parity- and Contraceptive Method-Specific Analysis. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 43(3), 99–110. [CrossRef]
- Royan, R., Zaidi, B. (2011). Trends in sex selection in Pakistan, UNFPA: Report of the International Workshop Skewed Sex on Ratios at Birth: Addressing the Issue and the Way Forward, Ha Noi, Vietnam.
- Government of Pakistan (2013). Pakistan Labour Force Survey 2012-13: Statistical Division, Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Islamabad.
- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS). Key Findings of Pakistan Census 2023. 2023. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS). [https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2023/Pakistan.pdf]. Accessed May 3, 2024.
- Sathar, Z., Rashida, G., Hussain, S., & Hassan, A. (2015). Evidence of Son Preference and Resulting Demographic and Health Outcomes in Pakistan. [CrossRef]
- Bongaarts, J. (2013). The implementation of preferences for male offspring. Population and Development Review, 39(2), 185-208.
- Sathar, Zeba, Gul Rashida, Sabahat Hussain, and Anushe Hassan. 2015. “Evidence of son preference and resulting demographic and health outcomes in Pakistan.” Islambad: Population Council.
- Leone, T., Matthews, Z., & Dalla Zuanna, G. (2003). Impact and determinants of sex preference in Nepal. International family planning perspectives, 29(2), 69–75. [CrossRef]
- Saleem, A., & Pasha, G. R. (2008). Women’s reproductive autonomy and barriers to contraceptive use in Pakistan. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 13(1), 83–89. [CrossRef]
- Channon, M. D. (2015). Son preference, parity progression and contraceptive use in South Asia. Population Horizons, 12(1), 24–36. [CrossRef]
- Islam, M. A., Islam, M. R., & Banowary, B. (2009). Sex preference as a determinant of contraceptive use in matrilineal societies: A study on the Garo of Bangladesh. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 14(4), 301–306. [CrossRef]
| Variable | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Province (n=495) | ||
| Punjab | 200 | 40% |
| Sindh | 295 | 60% |
| Health facility type (n=495) | ||
| CMWs | 117 | 24% |
| Public | 222 | 45% |
| Private | 156 | 32% |
| Age categories (n=495) | ||
| 15 – 24 years | 82 | 18% |
| 25 – 34 years | 309 | 68% |
| 35+ years | 63 | 14% |
| Average no. of children (n=495) | ||
| Daughter | 2.0 | |
| Son | 1.8 | |
| Parity (n=495) | ||
| 1 Child | 41 | 8% |
| 2 Children | 220 | 44% |
| 3 Children | 181 | 37% |
| >3 Children | 53 | 11% |
| Ever use (n=495) | ||
| Yes | 436 | 96% |
| No | 18 | 04% |
| Current use (n=495) | ||
| Yes | 173 | 38% |
| No | 281 | 62% |
| Current FP method mix (n=173) | ||
| Pill | 87 | 19% |
| Condom | 32 | 7% |
| Injectable | 28 | 6% |
| IUD | 15 | 3% |
| Implant | 6 | 1% |
| Female sterilization | 5 | 1% |
| Categories | n | % | Adjusted Odd Ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 Son (n=282) | |||
| 1 Daughter | 41 | 39% | 1 |
| 2 Daughters | 228 | 05% | 0.13*** (0.05 - 0.34) |
| 3+ Daughters | 13 | 79% | 6.6* (1.39 – 31.39) |
| 1 Son (n=402) | |||
| 0 Daughter | 40 | 40% | 1 |
| 1 Daughter | 220 | 21% | 0.39** (0.19 – 0.78) |
| 2 Daughters | 93 | 62% | 2.10 (0.93 – 4.71) |
| 3+ Daughters | 49 | 71% | 3.60** (1.42 – 9.03) |
| 0 Daughter (n=97) | |||
| 1 Son | 40 | 40% | 1 |
| 2 Sons | 30 | 87% | 11.08*** (2.72 – 45.11) |
| 3+ Sons | 27 | 100% | 23.29*** (4.13 – 131.32) |
| 1 Daughter (n=495) | |||
| 0 Son | 41 | 39% | 1 |
| 1 Son | 220 | 22% | 0.45* (0.22 – 0.93) |
| 2 Sons | 181 | 43% | 2.11* (1.01 – 4.39) |
| 3+ Sons | 53 | 72% | 4.11** (1.64 – 10.27) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).