Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:52:22.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socio-economic factors associated with unwanted births to married women: a geographical analysis using census indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Mary E. Brennan  and
R. Hebel
Mary E. Brennan
Affiliation:
Department of Social Medicine, University of Birmingham
R. Hebel
Affiliation:
Department of Social Medicine, University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The proportion of unwanted births to married women who were delivered in a district maternity hospital during a 3-month period in 1971 was computed for each ward in the administrative area. The percentage varied from 5 to 20% with an average of 10%. These results were compared with the distributions of socio-economic variables derived from the 1971 Census. Party was shown to be the most important indicator; Kendall's rank correlation coefficient was 0·56 (P <0·01). When the effect of parity was eliminated by the use of Kendall’s partial rank correlation coefficient, overcrowding and family structure were shown to be statistically significant (P <0·05).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1975 , pp. 463 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Brennan, M. & Opit, L.J. (1973) The demand for family planning advice among patients in a district maternity hospital. Br. med. J. iii, (suppl.) 19.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. & Opit, L.J. (1974) The unwanted birth and the family planning service. J. biosoc. Sci. 6, 407.Google Scholar
Calhoun, J.B. (1971) Space and the strategy of life. In: The Use of Space by Animals and Men. Edited by Esser, A.Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. (1970) Parents and Family Planning Services. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Chevan, A. (1971) Family growth, household density and moving. Demography, 8, 451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutright, P. (1971) Income and family events. J. Marr. & Fam. 33, 161.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security (1968) Report on the Circumstances of Families. HM Stationary Office, London.Google Scholar
Heeren, H.J. & Moors, H.G. (1969) Family planning and differential fertility in a Dutch city. J. Marr. & Fam. 31, 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoflund, O. (1963) Simulated distributions for small n of Kendall’s partial rank correlation coefficient. Biometrika, 50, 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, K., Hale, C.S., Myklowyez, R. & Hughes, C. (1971) Density, space, sociality and health in behaviour and the environment. In: The Use of Space by Animals and Men. Edited by Esser, A.Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Parming, T. (1972) Population changes in Estonia, 1935–1970. Popul. Stud. 26, 53.Google ScholarPubMed
Peled, T. (1969) Problems and Attitudes in Family Planning. Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (1949) Family limitation and its influence on human fertility during the past fifty years. In: Report of the Royal Commission on Population, Vol. 1. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Shannon-Stokes, L. (1973) Family structure and socio-economic differentials in fertility. Popul. Stud. 27, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric Methods for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Simon, J.L. (1974) The Effects of Income on Fertility. Carolina Population Centre Monograph No. 19. University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Woolf, M. (1971) Family Intentions. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Wrong, B.H. (1969) Population and Society. Random House, New York.Google Scholar