Effects of various factors on selection for family planning status and natural fecundability: A simulation study

Abstract

The effect of various factors on selection for family planning status and for natural fecund ability is studied in a simulation that incorporates a beta distribution of fecundability among women. The mean fecundabilities of current spacers, current limiters, current nonusers, and pregnant women are compared. These ratios are influenced by duration of marriage and by desired number of children. Effects of different levels of contraception are measured. Another strategy, spacing the last two wanted births, is also studied. It is found that breast-feeding status has little effect on fecundability selection. The women usually found to have greatest fecundability are not those recently pregnant at durations of marriage five and ten years, unless they wanted fewer than two children, but rather those who are using contraception to limit the number of children.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Barrett, J. C. 1971. Use of a Fertility Simulation Model to Refine Measurement Techniques. Demography 8:481–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. — 1977. Selection for Fecundability. Population et Famille 40:97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  3. —, and W. Brass. 1974. Systematic and Chance Components in Fertility Measurement. Population Studies 28:473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. French, F. E., and J. M. Bierman. 1952. Probabilities of Foetal Mortality. Public Health Reports 67:1161–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Great Britain. 1913. Census of Ireland, 1911, General Report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jain, A. K. 1969a. Relative Fecundability of Users and Non-Users of Contraception. Social Biology 16:39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  7. — 1969b. Fecundability and its Relation to Age in a Sample of Taiwanese Women. Population Studies 23:69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leridon, Henri. 1973. Aspects Biométriques de la Fécondité Humaine. INED Cahier No. 65. Paris: Institut National d’Études Dérnographiques.

    Google Scholar 

  9. — 1974. Biostatistics of Human Reproduction. Pp. 93–132 in Chidambara Chandrasekharan and A. I. Hermalin, Measuring the Effect of Family Planning Programs on Fertility. OECD Ordina Editions. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Potter, R. G., J. B. Wyon, M. Parker, and J. E. Gordon. 1965. A Case Study of Birth Interval Dynamics. Population Studies 19:81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Potter, R. G., J. M. Sakoda, and W. E. Feinberg. 1968. Variable Fecundability and the Timing of Births. Eugenics Quarterly 15:155–163.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Potter, R. G., B. McCann, and J. M. Sakoda. 1970. Selective Fecundability and Contraceptive Effectiveness. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 48:91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Potter, R. G., G. S. Masnick, and M. Gendall. 1973. Postamenorrheic Versus Postpartum Strategies of Contraception. Demography 10:99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ridley, J. C., M. C. Sheps, J. W. Lingner, and J. A. Menken. 1969. On the Apparent Subfecundity of Non-Family Planners. Social Biology 16:24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tietze, C. 1959. Differential Fecundity and Effectiveness of Contraception. The Eugenics Review 50:231–234.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barrett, J.C. Effects of various factors on selection for family planning status and natural fecundability: A simulation study. Demography 15, 87–98 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2307/2060492

Download citation

Keywords

  • Family Planning
  • Beta Distribution
  • Birth Interval
  • Marriage Cohort
  • Taiwanese Woman