2023
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Women’s marital status and use of family planning services across male- and female-headed households in low- and middle-income countries

Abstract: Background As more households are being led by women, who are often seen as disadvantaged, more attention is being given to the potential association of female household headship with health. We aimed to assess how demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods (mDFPS) is associated with residence in female or male headed households and how this intersects with marital status and sexual activity. Methods We used data from national health surveys carried out in 5… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
(40 reference statements)
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Women with female household heads with no sexual activity or infrequent sex are at minimal risk of pregnancy. Those who are married are less sexually active than women in male household heads because their husbands frequently do not live with them, therefore resulting in a low birth rate (18,23,24). Supporting previous studies, women with the poorest wealth index delivered more children than those in the middle wealth index (10,11,13,19,20,25,26,27).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Women with female household heads with no sexual activity or infrequent sex are at minimal risk of pregnancy. Those who are married are less sexually active than women in male household heads because their husbands frequently do not live with them, therefore resulting in a low birth rate (18,23,24). Supporting previous studies, women with the poorest wealth index delivered more children than those in the middle wealth index (10,11,13,19,20,25,26,27).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%