Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:16:37.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIVERSITY IN FAMILY PLANNING USE AMONG ETHNIC GROUPS IN GUATEMALA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2004

SOFIE DE BROE ,
ANDREW HINDE ,
ZOË MATTHEWS  and
SABU S. PADMADAS
SOFIE DE BROE
Affiliation:
Division of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton
ANDREW HINDE
Affiliation:
Division of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton
ZOË MATTHEWS
Affiliation:
Division of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton
SABU S. PADMADAS
Affiliation:
Division of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the ethnic differentials in contraceptive use in the north-eastern Ch’orti area of Guatemala, a region dominated by the Ladino culture. Data come from a household survey and in-depth interviews with service providers carried out in 2001 in the town of Jocotán, and a survey carried out in 1994 in two nearby indigenous villages (aldeas). Descriptive analysis and logistic regression are used to explore the data. Previous DHS surveys have used dress and language to classify ethnic groups. In this paper, an alternative approach based on self-identification is adopted. The results reveal significant differences in contraceptive behaviour among different ethnic groups within the same town and region. The results show that self-identified Ladino women who represented the minority of the population had contraceptive behaviour similar to their counterparts elsewhere in Latin America. The extremely low levels of contraceptive use among indigenous women from the aldeas suggest that the corresponding DHS figures in this region are probably overestimated.

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 2005 , pp. 301 - 317
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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.)