A systematic review of the childbearing needs of single-child couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the challenge of having single child is spreading in many countries. Only- child family is prevalent in 26% of families in Canada, 21% in the United States, 47.5% in Europe and 20% in Iran, which can lead to fertility below replacement level. Therefore, the current review was conducted to identify the needs of single-child couples. METHODS: The PRISMA checklist was used to prepare this systematic review report. English and Persian articles published between 2000 and April 2023 were searched in the English databases of ISI, PubMed, Cochrane library and Google Scholar search engine as well as Persian databases of SID and Magiran using keywords of only child, needs assessment and Reproductive behavior. All cross-sectional and correlational studies that addressed the needs of single-child couples were included in the study. The quality assessment of the articles was done by the STROBE checklist. Data extraction was done by two independent researchers using a self-structured checklist. To analyze the data, following tabulating the extracted data, the process of qualitative synthesis was done for systematic review taking into account ethical considerations. RESULTS: Out of 1,581 articles found, 17 articles were included in the systematic review. The needs of single-child couples were divided into four general areas included 1) Financial needs, 2) Cultural needs, 3) Educational needs, and 4) Supportive needs. The support needs included two kinds of social and family support. CONCLUSION: Solving financial needs, creating a culture of positive values of childbearing and men's participation in household affairs, considering women's preferences in order to increase education and employment, childbearing training and counseling and creating social and family support in line with work and family harmony and quality care of children, as the most important needs of single-child couples, should be incorporated in the formulation of childbearing incentive programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".