MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035220404 · doi:10.1186/s12978-020-00940-9

Fertility preferences among couples in Nigeria: a cross sectional study

2020· article· en· W3035220404 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Kolawole Odusina, Ayotunde Titilayo, Michael Kunnuji, Dorothy N. Ononokpono, Ghose Bishwajit, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityDemographyResidenceLogistic regressionPolygynyReproductive medicineEducational attainmentCross-sectional studyChildlessnessPublic healthPsychologyPopulationMedicinePregnancySociologyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The persistently high and stalled total fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa, including in Nigeria, calls for new efforts towards fertility reduction. Most efforts on fertility desire in sub-Saharan Africa have focused either on individual men or women with little focus on couples as a unit of analysis. Moreover, the influences of different types of marriages in which couples reproduce have not been adequately explored. Therefore, this study examined fertility desires among couples in Nigeria. METHODS: This paper used data from the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) of 2018 to assess fertility desire by marriage type among couples in Nigeria. In addition, the association between fertility desire and disparity in couples' educational attainment, place of residence, region, religion, occupation, wealth status, children ever born and contraceptive use were considered. The participants consisted of 6813 couples aged between 15-49 years. Couples' characteristics were reported using frequency and percentage distribution tables. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, the study revealed that 73.8% of couples were in monogamous relationships while 26.2% were in polygynous relationships. The mean ideal number of children for men and women were 7.2 and 6.1, respectively. Also, 49.3% of the couples reported husbands desired more children, 43.9% claimed wives desired more children, while 6.8% indicated equal number of desired children among wives and husbands. The results of binary logistic regression showed that couples in polygynous relationships were 4.3 times as likely to desire more children, compared to couples in monogamous relationships (OR = 4.3; 95% CI: 3.5, 5.3). Couples in polygynous relationships wanted as many as four times the number of children desired by couples in monogamous relationships. Fertility desire was significantly higher among couples who indicated the following: either was using contraceptives (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.6-3.4), both were not using contraceptives (OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.1), lived in North East (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.6) and North West (OR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.3), both were not working (OR = 1.33, 95% CI; 1.1, 1.6) and were adherents of Islam (OR = 1.8; 95% CI; 1.5, 2.4). CONCLUSION: These findings reflect the role of region, use of contraceptives, work status and religion in the fertility desire of couples. Implementing programmes and policies on sexual education and reproductive rights of couples and individuals may reduce high fertility desire and its adverse consequences, such as child and maternal morbidity and mortality in Nigeria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive HealthSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207