Fertility in rural Chile

Plank, Stephen J.; Milanesi, M.

doi:10.1080/19485565.1973.9988036

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If it is true , then either the hygienic practice of breast-feeding, the immunologic content of the breast milk, or the resulting milieu in the bowel after breast milk protects from infection. Certainly, the antiinfective benefits of breast-feeding have been well established in the Third World (3)(4)(5)(6). The incidence of diarrhea, especially of cholera (7), shigella (8), and Escherichia coli, are significantly reduced by breast-feeding ; yet the effects are usually attributed to improved hygiene and to the antiinfective properties of the milk.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Fecal Flora of Breast‐Fed Infants Limit Gastroenteritis?

1992

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Fecal Flora of Breast‐Fed Infants Limit Gastroenteritis?

1992

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family allowance and family planning in Chile.

Plank¹

1978

Am J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family allowances designed to promote maternal and child health and welfare could be selfdefeating if they stimulated otherwise unwanted births, as often assumed. That assumption, with its public health and demographic implications, needs testing. An attempt to test it was made in Chile in 1969-1970 through interviews with 945 wives receiving an allowance and 690 non-recipients. Recipients practiced contraception significantly more than did non-recipients. This was not explained by wives' educational attainment or employment, the couples' earnings, or number of living children, but was associated with a 50 per cent greater utilization of professional prenatal care by recipients during the most recent pregnancy;Family allowance systems providing an additional stipend for each child might discourage family planning, as a Planned Parenthood Federation editorial cautioned,' but thishas not yet been demonstrated. "An extensive literature about whether pronatalist government policies, such as family allowances, can increase fertility is inconclusive," wrote Freedman,2 probably expressing the consensus among scholars. Heer and Bryden found "it is not possible to offer conclusive proof concerning the effects of any family allowance program,"3 and Moynihan declared "whatever else changes the birth rate, the family allowance does not."4 Although most of the studies have focused on the economically advanced countries, Whitney was persuaded that "whether ... less developed countries have any form of family or children's allowances appears wholly unrelated to the level of fertility."5 Concurring that the postulated relationship had not been documented, Simon concluded "the only source of a response estimate must be studies of actual programmes. women with such care (regardless of allowance status) were 75 per cent more likely than others to control their fertility. Prenatal care was probably sought more by recipients in part because an additional stipend was provided as soon as pregnancy was confirmed, usually at clinics with integrated family planning. Greater family income, attributable to the allowance, probably also contributed to the recipients' better prenatal attention and to contraceptive practice. Noteworthy, too, was the finding that with the number of living children controlled, contraceptive practice was significantly greater among couples who had never lost a child. (Am. J. Public Health 68: 989-994, 1978.) credited by one author with having "stimulated population growth" and the later modifications with having "started a population explosion".8 The United Nations' demographic data do not confirm this, however, but show instead that in each instance the legislative change was followed by a drop in the birth rate the next year.9 Instead of the predicted "explosion", births fell from 36.1 per thousand in 1961 to 32.8 in 1964 and then to 25.0 by 1969. While the decline might possibly have been even more rapid without the presumed pronatalist incentive, any effect of the successive extensions of eligibi...

show abstract

Fertility in rural Chile

Cited by 2 publications

References 8 publications

Does the Fecal Flora of Breast‐Fed Infants Limit Gastroenteritis?

Does the Fecal Flora of Breast‐Fed Infants Limit Gastroenteritis?

Family allowance and family planning in Chile.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About