Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T15:20:45.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contraception: answers of wives and husbands compared in a survey of Swiss couples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

F. Höpflinger  and
F. Kühne
F. Höpflinger
Affiliation:
Centre for Population Studies, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
F. Kühne
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, University of Zurich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a survey of Swiss couples, the husband-wife agreement on contraception (current use, and methods ever used) is high and husbands are generally as well informed on the use of contraceptive methods as their wives. The data indicate that the use of condoms may be underestimated in interviewing women only and that the contraceptive behaviour of a couple is related to the fertility preferences of both wife and husband.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 259 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ballweg, J.A. (1969) Husband-wife response similarities on evaluative and non-evaluative survey questions. Publ. Opinion Q. 2, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, L.J. (1978) Couples' decision-making processes regarding fertility. In: Social Demography, pp 57–81. Edited by Taeuber, K.E., Bumpass, L.L. and Sweet, J.A.. Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisson, A. & Piché, V. (1977) L'accord conjugal en matière de fécondité et de planification familiale: une enquête au Quebec. Population, 1, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouard, N. (1977) Evolution de la fécondité masculine depuis le début du siècle. Population, 6, 1123.Google Scholar
Both, A. & Welch, S. (1978) Spousal consensus and its correlates: a reassessment. J. Marriage & Fam. 40, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, J.J. (1978) The correspondence of data gathered from husband and wife: implications for family planning studies. Social Biol. 25, 196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane, S.H. & Bean, F.D. (1976) Husband-wife differences in the demand for children. J. Marriage & Fam. 38, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, L.C. & Fernandez, D. (1978) Husband-wife agreement about reproductive goals. Demography, 15, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, E.S., Hofferth, S.L. & Udry, J.R. (1980) Parity-specific and two-sex utility models of reproductive intentions. Demography, 17, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollerbach, P.E. (1980) Power in families, communication and fertility decision-making. Popul. Envir. 3, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höpflinger, F. (1982) Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede im Kinderwunsch—Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Ehepaaren. Z Bevölk Wiss. 8, 15.Google Scholar
Höpflinger, F. & Kühne, F. (1979) Die ideale Kinderzahl von Ehefrauen und Ehemannern: Sekundäranalyse einer Befragung von Schweizer Ehepaaren. Z. Bevölk Wiss. 5, 317.Google Scholar
Jaco, D.E. & Shepard, J.M. (1975). Demographic homogeneity and spousal consensus: a methodological perspective. J. Marriage & Fam. 37, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, H.W. & Pohl, K. (1978) Partnerbeziehung und generatives Verhaltan. Ergebnisse einer Longitudinaluntersuchung. Z. Bevölk Wiss. 4, 247.Google Scholar
Leridon, H. (1980) Les facteurs de la fécondité dans les pays développés. In: Proceedings of World Fertility Survey Conference 1980, Vol. 1. World Fertility Survey, London.Google Scholar
Lightbourne, R. & Singh, S. (1982) The World Fertility Survey: charting global childbearing. Popul. Bull. 37, 1.Google Scholar
Ryder, N.B. (1975) Fertility measurement through cross-sectional surveys. Social Forces, 54, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udry, J.R. (1982) The effect of normative pressures on fertility. Popul. Envir. 5, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar