Scipediacontent: Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 862558380 to Pratim-Roy 2016a

2016-10-20T14:35:27Z

Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 862558380 to Pratim-Roy 2016a

Scipediacontent: Created page with "Dear Sir, The article by Choudhary et al. is a real eye opener [1]. It reemphasizes the fact that even at national capital and its surroundings, the practice of fa..."

2016-10-20T14:35:19Z

Created page with "Dear Sir, The article by Choudhary et al. is a real eye opener [1]. It reemphasizes the fact that even at national capital and its surroundings, the practice of fa..."

New page

Dear Sir,

The article by Choudhary et al. is a real eye opener [[#bib1|[1]]]. It reemphasizes the fact that even at national capital and its surroundings, the practice of family planning method is far from satisfactory, particularly when we are chasing the target of bringing down net reproductive rate to one. The article found literacy as a factor responsible for reproductive behaviour. As depicted earlier by Prusti, availability and policy taken by local health service providers also play pivotal role for the same outcome [[#bib2|[2]]]. While interpreting the finding, caution must be taken in this regard.

Number of living children and socio-economic status (SES) also play role in determining contraceptive uptake [[#bib2|[2]]] and [[#bib3|[3]]]. A comparison between respondents belonging to low SES and others (all classes merging together) would have given extra edge to the study. Pattern of gender preference is another issue deserves mention. Preference for son is undoubtedly a vital factor in determining contraceptive practice in this part of the country [[#bib2|[2]]].

The respondents who never used contraceptives in spite of having knowledge (81 out of 297) form the chunk where we could expect maximum benefit with minimum effort. They know it but yet to adapt the practice due to some barrier – they should be the first target of family welfare program. It is not clear what the authors mean to say by “lack of knowledge” while analysing this group (66.7% said so). Is it knowledge about benefit, side effect, place of availability or simply method of use?

Another point where the article could improve is synchronization. Result section says that 58 participants were illiterate (14.5%) while in discussion section, the rate is as high as 46.5%. Besides, highlighting about the sampling technique and specification of socio-economic scale used here would have strengthened the article.

==References==

<ol style='list-style-type: none;margin-left: 0px;'><li>
[[#bib1|[1]]] D. Choudhary, R. Pal, N. Goel; Awareness and practice patterns of family planning methods among antenatal women in Indian community: are we hitting the bulls eye?; Biomed J, 38 (2015), pp. 356–358</li>
<li>
[[#bib2|[2]]] R.K. Prusty; Use of contraceptives and unmet need for family planning among tribal women in India and selected hilly states; J Health Popul Nutr, 32 (2014), pp. 342–355</li>
<li>
[[#bib3|[3]]] S. Das, A. Dasgupta, M.K. Das, A. Kumar, D. Biswas; Unmet need for contraception: a study among tribal women in a district of West Bengal; Int J Health Sci Res, 5 (2015), pp. 29–36</li>
</ol>

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:35, 20 October 2016
(No difference)

Pratim-Roy 2016a - Revision history

Scipediacontent: Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 862558380 to Pratim-Roy 2016a

Scipediacontent: Created page with "Dear Sir, The article by Choudhary et al. is a real eye opener [1]. It reemphasizes the fact that even at national capital and its surroundings, the practice of fa..."