Explaining parents' experiences of tendency toward childbearing in Zanjan city: A qualitative study
Journal of Behdasht dar Arseh (i.e., Health in the Field),
Vol. 14 No. 1 (1405),
24 October 2026
,
Page 37-46
https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v14i1.52658
Abstract
Background and Aims: The decline in fertility rate below replacement level in Iran, particularly in urban areas such as Zanjan, has created numerous demographic challenges. This study was conducted with the aim of explaining parents' experiences regarding tendency toward childbearing and identifying facilitating and inhibiting factors of childbearing within the framework of the Value of Children (VOC) theory, in order to clarify the dimensions of costs and benefits of childbearing in a traditional-urban society.
Materials and Methods: This study was qualitative research using qualitative content analysis approach, conducted in Zanjan Province during 1404 (2025). Sampling was purposeful and included 27 parents or couples (15 women and 12 men) referred to hospital, fertility and health centers in Zanjan city, aged 20 to 50 years. Data collection was through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data analysis was performed manually using axial coding, with emphasis on traceability of the analysis process. Ethical principles were observed throughout the study.
Results: Data analysis through axial coding identified two main themes: facilitating factors (including family experiences and intimate relationships, family and social support, positive attitudes and beliefs, educational learning, and positive media influence) and inhibiting factors (including physical and medical challenges, economic and social pressures, emotional and educational pressures, negative attitudes, and occupational conflicts). The main theme of this study was extracted as the experience of childbearing at the intersection of individual, cultural, and economic challenges of parents, which aligns with the benefits and costs dimensions of the Value of Children theory.
Conclusion: The tendency toward childbearing in the studied society is influenced by the conflict between cultural values, structural-economic and emotional pressures, and benefits and costs. The findings emphasize the importance of developing effective supportive policies focusing on economic facilities, enhancing parenting literacy, and psychological-social supports in similar urban communities like Zanjan.
- Childbearing
- Qualitative content analysis
- Parents' experiences
- Population policies
- Value of Children
- Zanjan
How to Cite
References
1- Kiyanpour N, Rahman Zadeh SA, Hashem Zehi N. Factors affecting childbearing with an emphasis on virtual social networks. The Women and Families Cultural-Educational Journal 2023; 18(64):37-53 (In Persian).
2- Rad F, Savabi H. Investigation on tendency to fertility and its related social factors (a case study of married women aged 15 to 50 in Tabriz). Woman and Family Studies 2015; 3(1):127-55(In Persian).
3- Sheykhi MT. Working and non-working women in Iran: a socio-demographic study of quality of life. Middle East Journal of Psychiatry and Alzheimers 2013; 4(1):3-19. https://doi.org/10.5742/MEJPA.2013.41179
4- Razavizadeh N, Peikani T. A review of social studies on family planning and decline of fertility rate in Iran. Strategy for Culture 2015; 8(30):35-65 (In Persian).
5- Mahmoodi MJ, Moshfegh M. Economic and social challenges and opportunities caused by demographic transition with emphasis on Iran. Journal of Population Association of Iran 2009; 4(7):67-86 (In Persian).
6- Muluneh MW, Moyehodie YA. Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia. BMC Women's Health 2021; 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01563-3
7- Newman L. How parenthood experiences influence desire for more children in Australia: A qualitative study. Journal of Population Research 2008; 25(1):1-27. Doi: 10. 1007/BF03031938.
8- Zhao J, Zou Z, Chen J, Chen Y, Lin W, Pei X, et al. Offline social capital, online social capital, and fertility intentions: Evidence from China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2024; 11. Doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03643-9.
9. Kohler HP, Behrman JR, Skytthe A. Partner + children = happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well-being. Population and Development Review. 2005; 31(3):407-45.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2005.00078.x
10- Rindfuss RR, Guilkey DK, Morgan SP, Kravdal Ø. Child-care availability and fertility in Norway. Population and Development Review 2010; 36(4):725-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00355.x
11- Kuziemko I. Is having babies contagious? Estimating fertility peer effects between siblings [working paper]. 2006 Jun. Available from: https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/5799/fertility_11_29_06.pdf
12- Ghaffari F, Ghasemi M, Dehghan R. Factors affecting women’s reproductive behavior: A qualitative study. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences 2021; 10(2):87-94. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101719
13- Tavousi M, Esmaeil Motlagh M, Eslami M, Haeri Mehrizi AA, Farrokh-Eslamlou H. Fertility desire and its related factors among married women. Payesh 2016; 15(4):399-407.
14- Delbaere I, Verbiest S, Tydén T. Knowledge about the impact of age on fertility: A brief review. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 2020; 125(2):167-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1707913
15- Frey V, Hyee R, Thomas J. Changing societies, changing social policies. In: OECD. Megatrends and the Future of Social Protection. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2024. p. 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1707913
16- Ren Y, Cheng X, Niu C, Yang F, Zheng Y. Fertility intention of young people of childbearing age in China after the implementation of the two-child policy—A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2024; 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20956-1
17- Cox CM, Thoma ME, Tchangalova N, Mburu G, Bornstein MJ, Johnson CL, et al. Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Open 2022; 2022(4):hoac051. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac051
18- WHO. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.
19- Kalwij A. The impact of family policy expenditure on fertility in western Europe. Demography 2010; 47(2):503-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0104
20- Doepke M, Kindermann F. Bargaining over babies: theory, evidence, and policy implications. American Economic Review 2019; 109(9):3264-3306. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160328
21- Azin SA, Golbabaei F, Warmelink JC, Eghtedari S, Haghani S, Ranjbar F. Association of depression with sexual function in women with history of recurrent pregnancy loss: descriptive-correlational study in Tehran, Iran. Fertility Research and Practice 2020; 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-020-00089-w
22- Wei J, Xue J, Wang D. Socioeconomic determinants of rural women's desired fertility: A survey in rural Shaanxi, China. PLoS One 2018; 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202968
23- Landivar LC, Scarborough WJ, Collins C, Ruppanner L. Do high childcare costs and low access to head start and childcare subsidies limit mothers' employment? A state-level analysis. Social Science Research 2022; 102:102627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102627
24- Bergsvik J, Fauske A, Hart RK. Can policies stall the fertility fall? A systematic review of the (quasi-)experimental literature. Population and Development Review 2021; 47(4):913-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12431
25- Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2018. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
- Abstract Viewed: 19 times