Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare · 2015 · 10 citations · 3 references
Public AffairsUrban PlanningFamily PlanningFamily PolicyUrban DevelopmentFertility PolicyAccess To Family Planning
INTRODUCTION: \nUnderstanding \nof \nfamily \nplanning \nscenario \namong \ndifferent \nsocieties \nand \ncommunities, \nwhich \nby \nand \nlarge \nreside \nin \nurban \nslum \nareas, \nmight \nprove \nuseful \nin \nincreasing \nfamily \nplanning \nacceptance \nby \nthem \nand \ndecreasing \npopulation \ngrowth. \nUnmet \nneed \nis \na \nvaluable \nindicator \nfor \nassessing \nthe \nachievements \nof \nnational \nfamily \nplanning \nprograms. \nOBJECTIVES: \nThe \npresent \nstudy \nwas \nundertaken \nwith \nthe \nobjectives \nto \nestimate \nunmet \nneed \nfor \nfamily \nplanning \namong \nthe \nmarried \nwomen \nof \nreproductive \nage \ngroup \n(15 \n- \n49 \nyears) \nin \nurban \nslums \nof \nLucknow \nand \nto \ndetermine \nthe \nvarious \nfactors \nthat \ninfluence \nthe \nunmet \nneed. \nMETHODS: \nA \ncommunity \nbased \ncross \n- \nsectional \nstudy \nwas \nconducted \nin \nslums \nof \nLucknow \nCity \nfrom \nFebruary \n2014 \nto \nSeptember \n2014. \nA \ntotal \n452 \nmarried \nwomen \nin \nreproductive \nage \ngroup \nwere \ninterviewed \nthrough \nhouse \nto \nhouse \nsurvey \nwith \nthe \nhelp \nof \na \npre \n- \ndesigned, \npre \n- \ntested \nand \nsemi \n- \nstructured \nquestionnaire. \nRESULTS: \nThe \ntotal \nunmet \nneed \nfor \nfamily \nplanning \nwas \n69.0%. \nMultivariate \nlogistic \nregression \nrevealed \nsocioeconomic \nstatus \nupper \nlower \nand \nbelow \n(OR \n2.7; \n95% \nCI \n1.5 \n- \n5.1; \np \n= \n0.00); \nduration \nof \nmarriage \nless \nthan \n1 \nyear \n(OR \n1.8; \n95% \nCI \n1.1 \n- \n2.9; \np \n= \n0.01); \nless \nnumber \nof \nlive \nissues \n(OR \n1.6; \n95% \nCI \n1.1 \n- \n2.5; \np \n= \n0.00); \nworking \nstatus \nof \nwomen \n(OR \n1.9; \n95% \nCI \n1.1 \n- \n2.9; \np \n= \n0.03); \nsocial \nclass \ni.e. \nOBC \nand \nSC/ST \n(OR \n2.3; \n95% \nCI \n1.1 \n- \n4.6; \np \n= \n0.02) \nwere \nfound \nto \nbe \nindependent \npredictors \nof \nunmet \nneed \nof \nfamily \nplanning. \nCONCLUSION: \nThe \npresent \nstudy \nrevealed \nthat \nunmet \nneed \nfor \nfamily \nplanning \nwas \nquite \nhigh \namong \nwomen \nbelonging \nto \nsocial \nclass \ni.e. \nOBC \nand \nSC/ST, \nwith \nlow \nsocioeconomic \nstatus, \nduration \nof \nmarriage \nless \nthan \none \nyear \nless \nnumber \nof \nlive \nissues \nand \nworking \nstatus \nof \nthe \nwomen.
3