Sakineh Nazari1 
, Zohreh Abbasi1 
, Mohammad Jalal Abbasi- Shavazi2 , Abbas Ebadi3 , Seyedeh Mahboobeh Rezaeean4 , Zohreh Keshavarz5
, Zohreh Abbasi1 , Mohammad Jalal Abbasi- Shavazi2 , Abbas Ebadi3 , Seyedeh Mahboobeh Rezaeean4 , Zohreh Keshavarz5
1- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
2- Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria; Department of Demography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3- Nursing Care Research Center, Clinical Sciences Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran
5- Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,keshavarzzohre57@gmail.com
2- Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria; Department of Demography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3- Nursing Care Research Center, Clinical Sciences Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran
5- Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (1018 Views)
Background: Assessing fertility levels is considered one of the most critical indicators in population forecasting and reproductive health research. Therefore, this qualitative study was conducted to explore women’s and experts’ perspectives on childbearing, including the views of healthcare professionals, university faculty members, and sociologists, regarding factors influencing childbearing.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in 2025 in North Khorasan Province, Iran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and included three groups: women with two or fewer children (n = 35), women with more than two children (n = 16), and experts in the field of childbearing (n = 13). Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews and analyzed using MAXQDA 10 software according to conventional content analysis procedures.
Results: Analysis of the participants’ narratives identified four main themes influencing the decision to have more than two children: “gaining power, passive social acceptance, inefficiency of educational and health approaches, and a specific lifestyle pattern.” In contrast, rethinking the value of children and reconsidering fertility emerged as key factors influencing the decision to have fewer than two children.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that fertility preferences are shaped by a complex interplay of social and personal factors. While empowerment, passive social acceptance, ineffective educational and health strategies, and lifestyle considerations tend to promote larger family sizes, reassessment of the value of children and fertility considerations support smaller family choices. These results highlight the need for tailored reproductive health policies and context-sensitive educational interventions to support informed decision-making and balanced population strategies.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in 2025 in North Khorasan Province, Iran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and included three groups: women with two or fewer children (n = 35), women with more than two children (n = 16), and experts in the field of childbearing (n = 13). Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews and analyzed using MAXQDA 10 software according to conventional content analysis procedures.
Results: Analysis of the participants’ narratives identified four main themes influencing the decision to have more than two children: “gaining power, passive social acceptance, inefficiency of educational and health approaches, and a specific lifestyle pattern.” In contrast, rethinking the value of children and reconsidering fertility emerged as key factors influencing the decision to have fewer than two children.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that fertility preferences are shaped by a complex interplay of social and personal factors. While empowerment, passive social acceptance, ineffective educational and health strategies, and lifestyle considerations tend to promote larger family sizes, reassessment of the value of children and fertility considerations support smaller family choices. These results highlight the need for tailored reproductive health policies and context-sensitive educational interventions to support informed decision-making and balanced population strategies.
Type of study: Original Article |
Subject:
Midwifery
References
1. Iran Statistical Yearbook 2019-2020. Iran Statistical Yearbook 1398. Report: Financial - National vital registration - Subnationally representative. Available from: www.amar.org.ir. [View at Publisher]
2. Teimouri Arshad R, Rezapour Z, Sadeghi R. Study of Women's Attitude Toward Value of Children and Its Determinants in North Khorasan Province. J North Khorasan Univ Med Sci. 2022;14(2):35-42. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Mirzaei P, Vaez N, Talebian MH .Challenges of Population Policies on Childbearing and Reproductive Health After the Islamic Revolution of Iran. J Health Sci Surveillance Sys January. 2022;10;(1). [View at Publisher]
4. Galor O. The Demographic Transition: Causes and Consequences. Cliometrica (Berl). 2012;6(1):1-28. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
5. Rastegar khald A, Mohammadi M, reiahi MN. Women's value assimilation and fertility control. Socio Family and Women of Journal Quarterly. 2017;19(75):7-31. [View at Publisher] [DOI]
6. Weeks JR. Population: An introduction to concepts and issues: Cengage Learning; 13th edition. 2020. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
7. Thapaliya, S., & Pant, C. K. (2025). Socio-cultural barriers to reproductive health and their impact on mental health: A case of young married women. Chaturbhujeshwar cademic Journal (CAJ). 2025;3(1):93-106. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Safdari-Dehcheshmeh F, Noroozi M, Taleghani F, Memar S. Factors Influencing the Delay in Childbearing: A Narrative Review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2023;28(1):10-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-12. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
10. Alexander AP. Lincoln and Guba's quality criteria for trustworthiness. IDC International Journal. 2019;6(4):1-6. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
11. Friedman D, Hechter M, Kanazawa S. A theory of the value of children. Demography. 1994;31(3):375-401. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
12. Jacobson N. A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009;9:3. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. Gafari Sirizi F, Askari Nodoushan A, Ruhani A. Motherhood in Socio-cultural Context A Critical Qualitative Study. Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological. 2023;21(2):179-217. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14. Khojeh Z, Naghibi A, Khazaee-Pool M, Abdollahi F. Investigating Factors Affecting Childbearing, A Review Study. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2024;34(238):101-12 [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
15. Abassi Z ,Keshavarz Z, Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, Ebadi A. Factors affecting on fertility behavior from the perspective of professionals: A qualitative study. Koomesh. 2019;21(1):155-63. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
16. McQuillan J, Greil AL, Scheffler KM, Tichenor V. The Importance of Motherhood among Women in the Contemporary United States. Gend Soc. 2008;22(4):477-96. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
17. Meyer-Österlund M, Nyman-Kurkiala P, Hemberg J. The transition to motherhood: a qualitative study of new mothers' experiences of loneliness and associated challenges. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2026;21(1):2651509. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
18. Kariman N, Amerian M, Jannati P, Salmani F, Hamzekhani M. A path analysis of factors influencing the first childbearing decision-making in women in Shahroud in 2014.Glob J Health Sci. 2016;8(10):55381. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
19. Zhu C, Yan L, Wang Y, Ji S, Zhang Y, Zhang J. Fertility Intention and Related Factors for Having a Second or Third Child Among Childbearing Couples in Shanghai, China. Front Public Health. 2022;10:879672. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
20. Zarei L, Janani F, Mohamadi R, Eemai S, Changaee F. Evaluating the factors influencing childbearing motivation among women attending comprehensive health centers. Interdiscip. J. Acute Care.2025;6(1):31-37. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21. Abasi Z, Keshavarz Z, Abbasi- Shavazi MJ, Ebadi A, Esmaily H, Poorbarat S. Comparative Study of Reproductive Behaviors in Two Ethnicities of Fars and Turkmen in North Khorasan, Iran. JMRH. 2022;10(1):3109-18. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22. Malmir M, Ebrahimi M, Sadeghi R. Religious affiliation and childbearing preferences of Iranian women. J Relig Health 2023;62(2):748-63. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
23. Amirian A, Jandaghian Bidgoli M, Khorvash F, Abdi F, Shaterian N, Jafarimehr M. The Association of Religious Beliefs with Reproductive Behaviors in Reproductive Aged Women: A Systematic Review. JIMS. 2023;41(737):853-65. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24. Iman MT, Soroush M. The Value of children of Iranian Parents. Sociation Today. 2007;5(1):21-35. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
25. Xie D, Zhou Y. Religion effects on fertility preference: evidence from China. J Pop Res. 2022;39(3): 41-71 [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26. Choudhary P, Dogra P, Sharma K. Infertility and lifestyle factors: how habits shape reproductive health. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2025;30:14. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27. Axinn WG, Clarkberg ME, Thornton A. Family influences on family size preferences. Demography. 1994;31(1):65-79. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
28. Mönkediek B, Bras H. Family Systems and Fertility Intentions: Exploring the Pathways of Influence. Eur J Popul. 2017;34(1):33-57. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
29. Lawson DW, Borgerhoff Mulder M. The offspring quantity-quality trade-off and human fertility variation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1692):20150145. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
30. Furstenberg FF. Family Change in Global Perspective: How and Why Family Systems Change. Fam Relat. 2019;68(3):326-341. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
31. Hubbs-Tait L, Page MC, Huey EL, Starost HJ, Culp AM, Culp RE, et al. Parenting quality: Confirmation of a higher-order latent construct with mothers of Head Start children. Early Child Res Q. 2006;21(4):491-506. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
32. Wu AK, Elliott P, Katz PP, Smith JF. Time costs of fertility care: the hidden hardship of building a family. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):2025-30. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
33. Ranjbar M, Rahimi MK, Heidari E, Bahariniya S, Alimondegari M, Lotfi MH, et al. What factors influence couples' decisions to have children? Evidence from a systematic scoping review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):223. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
34. Seraj Shirvan F, Latifnejad Ruodsari R, Tehrani H, Ebrahimipour H, Moradi M. Iranian single-child couples' perceptions and experiences regarding childbearing incentives. Reprod Health. 2024;21(1):148. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
35. Chen S. The Positive Effect of Women's Education on Fertility in Low-Fertility China. Eur J Popul. 2022;38(1):125-61. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
