IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263003.html

Can women’s 3E index impede short birth interval? evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017–18

Author

Listed:
  • Fatima Tuz-Zahura
  • Kanchan Kumar Sen
  • Shahnaz Nilima
  • Wasimul Bari

Abstract

Background: Women’s empowerment, education, and economic status are jointly introduced as women’s 3E. A number of studies found the significant association of these three variables with maternal health outcomes, but no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval. As several studies have revealed that the short birth interval increases the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal, and infant outcomes and it is also responsible for increasing the country’s population size, more research is needed on the birth interval. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the influence of women’s 3E on the short birth interval after controlling the other selected covariates. Methods: Data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017–18 have been used to serve the purpose of the study. To measure the birth interval, at least two live births for non-pregnant mothers and at least one live birth for currently pregnant mothers born in the 5 years before the survey were included in the study. The Chi-Square test was applied to know the unadjusted association of the selected covariates including women’s 3E with the short birth interval. In order to find out the adjusted association of women’s 3E with the short birth interval, sequential binary logistic regression models have been used. Results: The study found that about 23% of births in Bangladesh were born in a short birth interval. The likelihood of subsequent births of women decreases with an increase in the score of women’s 3E before or after controlling the characteristics of women, child, and households. The results of the final model show that mothers with the coverage of 50% - 75%, 75% - 100%, and full coverage (100%) in 3E have a 23%, 41%, and 42% lower odds of having short birth interval compared to mothers with coverage of below 50% in 3E, respectively. Conclusion and recommendation: Bangladesh still lags behind in meeting the minimum requirements for inter-birth intervals set by the World Health Organization. The study has shown that the 3E in women can contribute in prolonging the duration of subsequent births in Bangladesh. Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under-empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatima Tuz-Zahura & Kanchan Kumar Sen & Shahnaz Nilima & Wasimul Bari, 2022. "Can women’s 3E index impede short birth interval? evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017–18," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263003
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263003&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter McDonald, 2013. "Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equity," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(34), pages 981-994.
    2. Berna Miller Torr & Susan E. Short, 2004. "Second Births and the Second Shift: A Research Note on Gender Equity and Fertility," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 109-130, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sahera Akter & Md Solayman Hosen & Md Shehab Khan & Bikash Pal, 2024. "Assessing the pattern of key factors on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh: Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2007 to 2017–18," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Arnstein Aassve & Giulia Fuochi & Letizia Mencarini & Daria Mendola, 2015. "What is your couple type? Gender ideology, housework sharing, and babies," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(30), pages 835-858.
    3. Lars Dommermuth & Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott & Trude Lappegård, 2013. "Gender equality in the family and childbearing," Discussion Papers 759, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Gustav Feichtinger & Alexia Prskawetz & Andrea Seidl & Christa Simon & Stefan Wrzaczek, 2013. "Do Egalitarian Societies Boost Fertility?," VID Working Papers 1302, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    5. Gustav Feichtinger & Alexia Prskawetz & Andrea Seidl & Christa Simon & Stefan Wrzaczek, 2017. "A bifurcation analysis of gender equality and fertility," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 1221-1243, November.
    6. Soo-Yeon Yoon, 2017. "The influence of a supportive environment for families on women’s fertility intentions and behavior in South Korea," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(7), pages 227-254.
    7. Katja Köppen & Heike Trappe, 2019. "The gendered division of labor and its perceived fairness: Implications for childbearing in Germany," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(48), pages 1413-1440.
    8. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    9. Chris Wilson, 2013. "Thinking about post-transitional demographic regimes," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(46), pages 1373-1388.
    10. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    11. Ann-Zofie Duvander & Trude Lappegård & Synøve N. Andersen & Ólöf Garðarsdóttir & Gerda Neyer & Ida Viklund, 2019. "Parental leave policies and continued childbearing in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(51), pages 1501-1528.
    12. Liat Raz-Yurovich, 2012. "Normative and allocation role strain: role incompatibility, outsourcing, and the transition to a second birth in Eastern and Western Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2012-024, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    13. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2021. "When is fertility too low or too high? Population policy preferences of demographers around the world," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(2), pages 289-303, May.
    14. Gerda Neyer & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2013. "Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 245-272, August.
    15. Lara Lebedinski & Cristiano Perugini & Marko Vladisavljević, 2023. "Child penalty in Russia: evidence from an event study," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 173-215, March.
    16. Jan Van Bavel & Joanna Rózanska-Putek, 2010. "Second birth rates across Europe: interactions between women’s level of education and child care enrolment," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 8(1), pages 107-138.
    17. Letizia Mencarini & Delia Irazú Hernández Farías & Mirko Lai & Viviana Patti & Emilio Sulis & Daniele Vignoli, 2019. "Happy parents’ tweets: An exploration of Italian Twitter data using sentiment analysis," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(25), pages 693-724.
    18. Agnese Vitali & Arnstein Aassve & Trude Lappegård, 2015. "Diffusion of Childbearing Within Cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(2), pages 355-377, April.
    19. Kryštof Zeman, 2018. "Cohort fertility and educational expansion in the Czech Republic during the 20th century," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(56), pages 1699-1732.
    20. Melinda Mills & Letizia Mencarini & Maria Letizia Tanturri & Katia Begall, 2008. "Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.