Decreased desire to have children: A qualitative study

Abstract

Objective: To explain barriers to childbearing among working women from the perspective of working women and midwives.

Methods: In this study, a qualitative study of content analysis method was employed. The study was conducted from December 2021 to July 2022. The population consisted of working women and midwives. Data collection was conducted using semi-structured interviews and continued until data saturation was achieved. Through purposeful sampling, 10 women and 11 midwives were selected as the sample. The data were analyzed by Graneheim and Lundman content analysis approach. For more rigorous, Nvivo 14 software was also used for data management, analysis, coding and organization of data.

Results: This study included 21 women (10 women employees and 11 midwives) aged 25-43 years (for women employees) and 2756 years (for midwives) with 1 to 34 years of job experience. In examination of participant’ views about the barriers to childbearing, 1 124 codes were identified, of which we managed to extract six subthemes and two themes. Two themes emerged: “lack of social support and lack of family support”. Subthemes of “lack of social support” were “inadequate leave, long distance from workplace, and insufficient wages”. Subthemes of “lack of family support” were “lack of spouse support, lack of spouse's family support, and lack of their family support”.

Conclusions: Different socioeconomic factors influence childbearing tendency in working women. Social and family supports play an important role in this regard. It is important to take these factors into account at the time of policymaking in the field of midwifery.

Keywords

Content analysis / Employee women / Childbearing / Midwives / Qualitative study

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the people who participated in this study along with the Kerman University of Medical Sciences for their support.

Funding

This study was supported by Kerman University of medical sciences, with grant number: 95000387.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on special request.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to this article equally. The final manuscript was also approved by all authors.

Publisher’s Note

The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] UNFPA. A holistic approach underpins the Islamic Republic of Iran's success in family planning. [Online]. Available from:http://www.unfpaorg/countryfocus/iran/familyhtm [Accessed 16 November 2019].

[2] Health Do. A preliminary report on demographic and health survey. Ministry of Health and Medical Education Tehran, Iran. [Online]. Available from:http://wwwfhphbiir/FHPPages/MainOffice/DHS-REPHTM [Accessed 17 November 2019].

[3] United Nation PD. World contraceptive use. [Online]. Available from:http://wwwunorg/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2003/WallChart_CP2003pdf [Accessed 13 November 2019].

[4] Iran SCo. Annual book of statistics. Tehran, Iran. [Online]. Available from:http://amar.sci.org.ir/index_e.aspx [Accessed 15 November 2019].

[5] Iran SCo. Population growth, 2011. [Online]. Available from:http://www.amar.org [Accessed 13 November 2019].

[6] Studies D. Population growth. [Online]. Available from:http://wwwrcmajlisir [Accessed 13 November 2019].

[7] Ehrbar V, Urech C, Tschudin S. Fertility decision-making in cancer patients-Current status and future directions. Expert Rev Quality Life Cancer Care 2018; 3(4):113-119.

[8] Shabanikiya H, Darman A, Ghavami V, Moghri J, Varmaghani M, Noughabi JJ, et al. Men's involvement in family planning programs and associated factors from the perspective of women in Afghanistan; a case study. Midwifery 2023; 117:103575.

[9] Kokabisaghi F. Right to sexual and reproductive health in new population policies of Iran. J Public Health Policy 2017; 38:240-256.

[10] Park EH. Ultra-low fertility and policy response in South Korea: Lessons from the case of Japan. Ageing Int 2020; 45(2):191-205.

[11] Jalovaara M, Neyer G, Andersson G, Dahlberg J, Dommermuth L, Fallesen P, et al. Education, gender, and cohort fertility in the Nordic countries. Eur J Popul 2019; 35:563-586.

[12] Eyni-Zeynab HSZ, Shams-Ghahfarokhi F, Shiri M, Eslami M, Motlagh ME. The multivariate study of the changes in fertility trend in Iran. Tehran: Statistical Research and Training Center. [Online]. Available from:http://wwwsrtcacir/en/ResearchPlan/DetailView/258/html .2015. [Accessed 17 November 2019].

[13] Lindgren BM, Lundman B, Graneheim UH. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. Int J Nurs Stud 2020; 108:103632.

[14] Dougall KM, Beyene Y, Nachtigall RD. Age shock: Misperceptions of the impact of age on fertility before and after IVF in women who conceived after age 40. Hum Reprod 2013; 28(2):350-356.

[15] Lappegård FGEBT. The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Popul Dev Rev 2015; 41(2):207-239.

[16] Behboudi-Gandevani S, Ziaei S, Farahani FK, Jasper M. The perspectives of Iranian women on delayed childbearing: A qualitative study. J Nurs Res 2015; 23(4):313-321.

[17] Brehm U, Engelhardt H. On the age-specific correlation between fertility and female employment: Heterogeneity over space and time in OECD countries. Demographic Res 2015; 32(23):691-722.

[18] González L, Trommlerová SK. Cash transfers and fertility: How the introduction and cancellation of a child benefit affected births and abortions. J Hum Resour 2023; 58(3):783-818.

[19] Cooke A, Mills TA, Lavender T. Advanced maternal age: Delayed childbearing is rarely a conscious choice: A qualitative study of women's views and experiences. Int J Nurs Stud 2012; 49(1):30-39.

[20] Safari-Faramani RHA, Baneshi M, Dehnavieh R. Exploring the perception of childbearing barriers in a low fertility subgroup of Iran: A qualitative study. Electron Physician 2018; 10(6):6927-6934.

[21] Luppi F. When is the second one coming? The effect of couple’s subjective well-being following the onset of parenthood. Eur J Popul 2016; 32:421-444.

[22] Sofolahan-Oladeinde Y, Iwelunmor J, Conserve D, Gbadegesin A, Airhihenbuwa C. Role of healthcare in childbearing decision-making of WLHA in Nigeria: Application of PEN-3 cultural model. Glob Public Health 2017; 12(6):680-693.

[23] Eka P, Ujah I, Musa J, Swende T, Achinge G, Maanongun M. Reproductive desires and intentions of HIV-positive women of reproductive age attending the adult HIV clinic at the Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 33(2):232-237.

[24] Madiba S. When pregnancy coincides with positive diagnosis of HIV: Accounts of the process of acceptance of self and motherhood among women in South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(24):13006.