Highlights
- •Unmet need for spacing (UNS) was found significantly high in India.
- •A clear spatial heterogeneity of UNS was observed in India.
- •Likelihood of UNS was noticeably high among the multiparous women, OBCs, rural areas and South region compared to their counterparts.
- •This study suggests an extensive remodeling of the existing family planning policies for spacing contraception.
Abstract
Background
Objectives
Data and methods
Results
Conclusion
Keywords
Abbreviations:
FP (Family planning), LMICs (Lower-and Middle-income countries), UFP (Unmet need for family planning), UNS (Unmet need for Spacing), NFHS (National Family Health Survey), DHS (Demographic and Health Survey), IIPS (International Institute for Population Sciences), OBC (Other backward class), SC/ST (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes), TFR (Total fertility rate)1. Introduction
2. Data and methods
2.1 Data source
2.2 Outcome variable
2.3 Predictor variables
2.4 Statistical analyses
3. Results
3.1 Distribution of demand for family planning in India

3.2 Existing demand for spacing



3.3 Descriptive statistics of the sample
Characteristics (n = 56742) | n | Per cent |
---|---|---|
Age group | ||
15–19 | 5,952 | 10.5 |
20–24 | 23,595 | 41.6 |
25–29 | 18,191 | 32.1 |
30–34 | 6,532 | 11.5 |
35+ | 2,472 | 4.4 |
Parity | ||
0 | 8,958 | 15.8 |
1 | 32,038 | 56.5 |
2 | 10,463 | 18.4 |
3+ | 5,283 | 9.3 |
Have at least one son | ||
Yes | 26,400 | 46.5 |
No | 30,342 | 53.5 |
Level of education | ||
Illiterate | 9,109 | 16.1 |
Primary | 6,073 | 10.7 |
Secondary | 30,400 | 53.6 |
Higher | 11,159 | 19.7 |
Wealth status | ||
Poorest | 9,584 | 16.9 |
Poorer | 11,152 | 19.7 |
Middle | 10,774 | 19.0 |
Richer | 11,942 | 21.0 |
Richest | 13,290 | 23.4 |
Religion | ||
Hindu | 43,500 | 76.7 |
Muslim | 9,826 | 17.3 |
Others | 3,416 | 6.0 |
Caste | ||
General | 17189 | 30.3 |
OBC | 23193 | 40.9 |
SC/ST | 16351 | 28.8 |
Place of residence | ||
Urban | 19,541 | 34.4 |
Rural | 37,201 | 65.6 |
Region | ||
North | 8,280 | 14.6 |
Central | 13,230 | 23.3 |
East | 16,253 | 28.6 |
North-east | 3,705 | 6.5 |
West | 7,427 | 13.1 |
South | 7,847 | 13.8 |
Mass media exposure | ||
No | 18,643 | 32.9 |
Yes | 38,098 | 67.1 |
Women's autonomy | ||
Yes | 5,955 | 59.7 |
No | 4,023 | 40.3 |
Missing | 46,764 | – |
Total | 56,742 | 100 |
3.4 Unmet need for spacing by background characteristics
Characteristics (n = 56742) | n | Unmet need for spacing | Met need for spacing | Chi2 significance test |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age group | ||||
15–19 | 5,952 | 61.8 | 38.2 | p < 0.001 |
20–24 | 23,595 | 53.5 | 46.5 | |
25–29 | 18,191 | 47.2 | 52.8 | |
30–34 | 6,532 | 43.2 | 56.8 | |
35+ | 2,472 | 46.8 | 53.2 | |
Parity | ||||
0 | 8,958 | 58.6 | 41.5 | p < 0.001 |
1 | 32,038 | 45.6 | 54.4 | |
2 | 10,463 | 54.6 | 45.4 | |
3+ | 5,283 | 62.8 | 37.2 | |
Have at least one son | ||||
Yes | 26,400 | 50.8 | 49.2 | p < 0.001 |
No | 30,342 | 51.0 | 49 | |
Level of education | ||||
Illiterate | 9,109 | 62.9 | 37.1 | p < 0.001 |
Primary | 6,073 | 53.0 | 47 | |
Secondary | 30,400 | 49.1 | 51 | |
Higher | 11,159 | 45.0 | 55 | |
Wealth status | ||||
Poorest | 9,584 | 64.7 | 35.3 | p < 0.001 |
Poorer | 11,152 | 52.7 | 47.3 | |
Middle | 10,774 | 51.6 | 48.4 | |
Richer | 11,942 | 48.7 | 51.3 | |
Richest | 13,290 | 40.9 | 59.2 | |
Religion | ||||
Hindu | 43,500 | 52.0 | 48 | p < 0.001 |
Muslim | 9,826 | 48.5 | 51.5 | |
Others | 3,416 | 43.1 | 56.9 | |
Caste | ||||
General | 17189 | 40.2 | 59.8 | p < 0.001 |
OBC | 23193 | 58.2 | 41.8 | |
SC/ST | 16351 | 51.8 | 48.2 | |
Place of residence | ||||
Urban | 19,541 | 44.6 | 55.4 | p < 0.001 |
Rural | 37,201 | 54.2 | 45.8 | |
Region | ||||
North | 8,280 | 38.4 | 61.6 | p < 0.001 |
Central | 13,230 | 55.4 | 44.6 | |
East | 16,253 | 45.9 | 54.2 | |
North-east | 3,705 | 32.5 | 67.5 | |
West | 7,427 | 50.8 | 49.2 | |
South | 7,847 | 75.7 | 24.3 | |
Mass media exposure | ||||
No | 18,643 | 59.2 | 40.8 | p < 0.001 |
Yes | 38,098 | 46.8 | 53.2 | |
Women's autonomy | ||||
Yes | 5,955 | 45.6 | 54.5 | p < 0.001 |
No | 4,023 | 53.9 | 46.1 | |
Total | 56,742 | 50.9 | 49.1 | – |
3.5 Spatial heterogeneity of unmet need for spacing

3.6 Results from multivariate logistic regression
Variables | UOR [95% CI] | AOR [95% CI] |
---|---|---|
Age group | ||
15-19 (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
20–24 | 0.71*** [0.67–0.75] | 0.76*** [0.71–0.81] |
25–29 | 0.55*** [0.52–0.59] | 0.55*** [0.51–0.59] |
30–34 | 0.47*** [0.44–0.51] | 0.43*** [0.40–0.47] |
35+ | 0.54*** [0.49–0.60] | 0.41*** [0.36–0.45] |
Parity | ||
0 (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
1 | 0.59*** [0.57–0.62] | 0.65*** [0.62–0.69] |
2 | 0.85*** [0.80–0.90] | 0.94 [0.88–1.01] |
3+ | 1.20*** [1.12–1.28] | 1.42*** [1.3–1.55] |
Have at least one son | ||
Yes (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No | 1.01 [0.98–1.04] | 0.97* [0.92–0.99] |
Level of education | ||
Illiterate (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Primary | 0.66*** [0.62–0.71] | 0.73*** [0.68–0.78] |
Secondary | 0.57*** [0.54–0.60] | 0.69*** [0.65–0.73] |
Higher | 0.48*** [0.46–0.51] | 0.70*** [0.65–0.76] |
Wealth status | ||
Poorest (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Poorer | 0.61*** [0.57–0.64] | 0.63*** [0.6–0.67] |
Middle | 0.58*** [0.55–0.61] | 0.56*** [0.53–0.6] |
Richer | 0.52*** [0.49–0.55] | 0.49*** [0.45–0.52] |
Richest | 0.38*** [0.36–0.40] | 0.41*** [0.38–0.44] |
Religion | ||
Hindu (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Muslim | 0.87*** [0.83–0.91] | 0.86*** [0.82–0.9] |
Others | 0.70*** [0.65–0.75] | 0.91* [0.84–0.98] |
Caste | ||
General (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
OBC | 2.08*** [1.99–2.16] | 1.44*** [1.38–1.51] |
SC/ST | 1.60*** [1.53–1.67] | 1.09*** [1.04–1.15] |
Place of residence | ||
Urban (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Rural | 1.47*** [1.42–1.52] | 1.24*** [1.19–1.30] |
Region | ||
North (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Central | 2.00*** [1.89–2.11] | 1.52*** [1.43–1.61] |
East | 1.36*** [1.29–1.44] | 0.91** [0.85–0.96] |
North-east | 0.77*** [0.71–0.84] | 0.61*** [0.56–0.66] |
West | 1.66*** [1.56–1.77] | 1.80*** [1.68–1.92] |
South | 5.00*** [4.67–5.36] | 6.19*** [5.76–6.65] |
Mass media exposure | ||
No (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Yes | 0.61*** [0.58–0.63] | 0.80*** [0.77–0.84] |
Women's autonomy | ||
Yes | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No | 1.40*** [1.29–1.51] | 1.19*** [1.09–1.30] |
4. Discussion
5. Policy implications
6. Strengths
7. Limitations
8. Conclusion
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
Availability of data and materials
Funding
Authors’ contributions
Declaration of competing interest
Acknowledgements
References
- National, regional, and global rates and trends in contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning between 1990 and 2015: a systematic and comprehensive analysis.Lancet. 2013; 381: 1642-1652
Ewerling F, Victora CG, Raj A, Coll CV, Hellwig F, Barros AJ. Demand for family planning satisfied with modern methods among sexually active women in low-and middle-income countries: who is lagging behind?. Reprod Health. 201; 15(1):1-0.
- Existing demand for birth spacing in developing countries: perspectives from household survey data.Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005; 89: S50-S60
- Meeting demand for family planning within a generation: the post-2015 agenda.Lancet. 2015; 385: 1928-1931
- Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study.Bmj. 2000; 321: 1255-1259
- Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes.N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 589-594
- New evidence on birth spacing: promising findings for improving newborn, infant, child, and maternal health.Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005; 89: S1-S6
- Determinants of unmet need for family planning in rural Burkina Faso: a multilevel logistic regression analysis.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 1-11
- Assessing the impact of family planning advice on unmet need and contraceptive use among currently married women in Uttar Pradesh, India.PLoS One. 2015; 10e0118584
- Adolescent demand for contraception and family planning services in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Global Publ Health. 2019; 14: 1316-1334
- The impact of family planning programs on unmet need and demand for contraception.Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45: 247-262
- Religious and cultural influences on contraception.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008; 30: 129-137
Pinter B, Hakim M, Seidman DS, Kubba A, Kishen M, Di Carlo C. Religion and family planning. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 201; 21(6):486-495.
- Determinants of unmet need for family planning among married women of reproductive age in Burundi: a cross-sectional study.Contracept reprod med. 2018; 3: 1-3
- India National Family Health Survey NFHS-4 2015–16.IIPS and ICF, Mumbai2017
- Population control under various family planning schemes in Uttar Pradesh, India.Genus. 2019; 75: 1-12
- PSF process in India: achieving rapid population control using financial incentives.Popul Rev. 2004; 43: 82-86
- Demand for contraception to delay first pregnancy among young married women in India.Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45: 183-201
- Revising unmet need for family planning.DHS analy stud. 2012; 25: 3-14
- Changes in contraceptive use and method mix in India: 1992–92 to 2015–16.Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019; 19: 56-63
- Planning of births and maternal, child health, and nutritional outcomes: recent evidence from India.Publ Health. 2019; 169: 14-25
- Influence of son preference on contraceptive method mix: some evidences from ‘Two Bengals.Asian Popul Stud. 2015; 11: 296-311
- Effects of son preference on contraceptive use in Bangladesh.Kesmas: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional (Nat Publ Health J). 2019; 14
- The Population Myth: Islam, Family Planning and Politics in India.HarperCollins, New Delhi2019
- Women's education, autonomy, and fertility behaviour.Asia-Pac J Soc Sci. 2009; 1: 35-50
- The road from ICPD to SDGs: health returns of reducing the unmet need for family planning in India.Midwifery. 2021; 103103107
- Family planning and its association with nutritional status of women: investigation in select South Asian countries.Indian J Human Develop. 2017; 11: 56-75
- Family welfare expenditure, contraceptive use, sources and method-mix in India.Sustainability. 2021; 13: 9562
- Disentangling the effects of reproductive behaviours and fertility preferences on child growth in India.Popul Stud. 2021; 75: 37-50
- Do Indian women receive adequate information about contraception?.J Biosoc Sci. 2020; 52: 338-352
- Mass media exposure and use of reversible modern contraceptives among married women in India: an analysis of the NFHS 2015–16 data.PLoS One. 2021; 16e0254400
- The road from ICPD to SDGs: health returns of reducing the unmet need for family planning in India.Midwifery. 2021; 103103107
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy