Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:18:03.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting choice of sterilisation among low income women in Paraíba, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

José Rodrigues  and
Kazuhiko Moji
José Rodrigues
Affiliation:
Department of Administration, Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil
Kazuhiko Moji
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Nagasaki University School of Medicine, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Despite the absence of a family planning programme, the prevalence of sterilisation in Brazil has increased substantially, such that it is used by relatively young women in poor areas of the country. Sterilisation is influenced more by the characteristics of the health service than by socioeconomic characteristics of the population.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 1995 , pp. 339 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © 1995, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barros, F. C., Vaughan, J. P. & Victora, C. G. (1986) Why so many caesarean sections? The need for a further policy change in Brazil. Hlth Policy Plann. 1, 19.Google Scholar
Barroso, C. (1984) Esterilização feminina: liberdade e opressão. Rev. Saúde Públ. 18, 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENFAM (1987) Pesquisa nacional sobre saúde materno-infantil e planejamento familiar—Brasil, 1986. Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Bumpass, L. L. (1987) The risk of an unwanted birth: The changing context of contraceptive sterilization in the U.S.A. Popul. Stud. 41, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, S. H., Martins, I. R., Pinto, C. S. & Freitas, S. R. (1989) A prática de planejamento familiar em mulheres de baixa renda no município do Rio de Janeiro. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 5, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, H. E. (1985) Marx and Malthus in North-east Brazil: A note on the world's largest class difference in fertility and its recent trends. Popul. Stud. 39, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerstein, J. (1987) Contraception: an overview. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 157, 1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janowitz, B., Higgins, J. E., Clopton, C. D., Nakamura, M. S. & Brown, M. L. (1982) Access to postpartum sterilization in Southeast Brazil. Med. Care, 20, 526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mumford, S. D. & Kessek, E. (1992) Sterilization needs in the 1990s: the case for quinacrine nonsurgical female sterilization. Am. J. Obset. Gynec. 167, 1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philliber, S. G. & Philliber, W. W. (1985) Social and psychological perspectives on voluntary sterilization: a review. Stud. Fam. Plann. 16, 1.Google Scholar
Pitaktepsombati, P. & Janowitz, B. (1991) Sterilization acceptance and regret in Thailand. Contraception, 44, 623.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. (1988) Urban hospital cesarean section delivery rates in Paraíba State, Brazil, 1977–81. Am. J. publ. Hlth, 78, 704.Google Scholar
Warren, C. W., Monteith, R. S., Johnson, J. T. & Oberle, M. W. (1988) Tubal sterilization: questioning the decision. Popul. Stud. 42, 407.Google Scholar