Predictors of Fertility Intention in Parents with Educable Intellectually Disabled Children in Isfahan, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The fertility rate has declined in many countries over the past decades. Fertility intention is the determinant of fertility behavior. Various factors may affect the fertility intention of couples with no or healthy children. However, some parents may also have children with intellectual disabilities that affect their childbearing. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to identify predictors of fertility intention in parents with educable intellectually disabled children. Materials and Methods: The present study was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted on 193 parents with educable intellectually disabled children living in Isfahan. Sampling was implemented using clustering and the classification method from February to July 2019. Data were collected through a self-report questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS 20, logistic regression, and independent t-tests. Results: Approximately 83.9% of participants had negative fertility intentions. Predictors of fertility intention were perceived behavior control (95%CI: 1.14- 1.42; p = 0.001; OR = 1.28), attitude (95%CI: 1.06- 1.24; p = 0.001; OR = 1.14) and subjective norm (95%CI: 1.08- 1.33; p = 0.001; OR = 1.20), respectively. On the other hand, the perceived behavioral control was the strongest predictor. The son preference was higher in parents with positive fertility intentions ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: According to the results of the present study, it seemed that factors such as perceived behavior control, attitude, and subjective norms affected fertility intention in parents with intellectually disabled children. Therefore, it is suggested to gain knowledge about the roles of these predictors and counsel parents to choose contraceptive methods or encourage them in childbearing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".