Gender-based discrimination and son preference in Punjabi-Canadian families: a community-based participatory qualitative research study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a qualitative study, guided by the principles of community-based participatory research, with the following objectives: (1) to provide a conceptual framework describing the drivers of son preference; (2) to understand experiences of son preference among Punjabi-Canadians and (3) with this understanding, identify and co-design an appropriate educational tool. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of four bilingual (Punjabi and English) focus group discussions with 11 mothers, 4 fathers and 17 grandmothers in Toronto and Brampton, Canada. Participants were queried about experiences and perspectives related to reproductive decision-making, gender equity and son preference, and for appropriate approaches to reducing inequities. Transcripts were simultaneously translated and written in English and thematic analysis was conducted. An infoposter was identified as a feasible educational tool and was co-designed by researchers and community partners. RESULTS: Participants identified patrilocality (ie, married sons reside with parents, married daughters with in-laws) and patrilineality (ie, sons inherit assets, daughters' husband receives a dowry) as structural precursors to proximal drivers (ie, old-age security) of son preference. Mothers' and grandmothers' value to their families depended strongly on having a son but did not guarantee security. Pressures (ie, internalised discrimination, reproductive coercion) to conceive a son were common after the birth of at least one daughter in the absence of sons. Participants did not know anyone who had a sex selective abortion in Canada; however, traditional sex selection methods (eg, herbal medicines) were mentioned. Our co-designed infoposter entitled 'Truths About Son Preference' addressed three misconceptions identified in discussions. CONCLUSION: This study may be useful to health and social care providers in providing structurally competent and culturally humble counselling and care, particularly after the birth of daughters in the absence of sons. Community engagement is necessary for future intervention development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".