↓ Skip to main content

Spousal discordance on reports of contraceptive communication, contraceptive use, and ideal family size in rural India: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Spousal discordance on reports of contraceptive communication, contraceptive use, and ideal family size in rural India: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Women's Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12905-018-0636-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly B. Shakya, Anindita Dasgupta, Mohan Ghule, Madhusudana Battala, Niranjan Saggurti, Balaiah Donta, Saritha Nair, Jay Silverman, Anita Raj

Abstract

Persistent low rates of spacing contraceptive use among young wives in rural India have been implicated in ongoing negative maternal, infant and child health outcomes throughout the country. Gender inequity has been found to consistently predict low rates of contraception. An issue around contraceptive reporting however is that when reporting on contraceptive use, spouses in rural India often provide discordant reports. While discordant reports of contraceptive use potentially impede promotion of contraceptive use, little research has investigated the predictors of discordant reporting. Using data we collected from 867 couples in rural Maharashtra India as part of a men-focused family planning randomized controlled trial. We categorized couples on discordance of men's and women's reports of current contraceptive use, communication with their spouse regarding contraception, and ideal family size, and assessed the levels of discordance for each category. We then ran multinomial regression analyses to determine predictors of discordance categories with a focus on women's empowerment (household and fertility decision-making, women's education, and women's knowledge of contraception). When individuals reported communicating about contraception and their spouses did not, those individuals were also more likely to report using contraception when their spouses did not. Women's empowerment was higher in couples in which both couples reported contraception communication or use or in couples in which only wives reported contraception communication or use. There were couple-level characteristics that predicted husbands reporting either contraception use or contraception communication when their wives did not: husband's education, husband's familiarity with contraception, and number of children. Overall there were clear patterns to differential reporting. Associations with women's empowerment and contraceptive communication and use suggest a strategy of women's empowerment to improve reproductive health. Discordant women-only reports suggest that even when programs interact with empowered women, the inclusion of husbands is essential. Husband-only discordant reports highlight the characteristics of men who may be more receptive to family planning messages than are their wives. Family planning programs may be most effective when working with couples rather than just with women, and should focus on improving communication between couples, and supporting them in achieving concordance in their reproductive preferences. Clinical Trials Number: NCT01593943 , registered May 4, 2012 at clinicaltrials.gov.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 68 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 26 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 12%
Psychology 7 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 72 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,963,639
of 24,664,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#677
of 2,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,425
of 339,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,664,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.