Exploring the Influence of Socio-Cultural Barriers on Reproductive Health Decision- Making Among Working Women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55737/trt/FL25.181Keywords:
Reproductive Health, Socio-Cultural Barriers, Working Women, Decision Making, Qualitative Research, Women AutonomyAbstract
The Socio-cultural influences are important in the reproductive health choice of working women that influence their autonomy, medical care access, and competency to take effective decisions. This qualitative research set out to examine the influence of socio-cultural barriers on reproductive health decision-making among working women and specifically the family expectations, cultural norms, work-related demands, and access to healthcare services. It was a qualitative research design, and the study gathered data using semi-structured and in-depth interviews with married working women with various educational, job, and socio-economic backgrounds. Researchers used convenience sampling of eligible women and thematic analysis to identify common patterns and themes in their reproductive health decision-making experiences. The results established that family norms especially, husband and in-law pressure had great impact on reproductive health choices. Although women were involved in the economy, their influence in decisions in the household was still not strong, and thus there was a lack of reproductive control. Social norms and cultural stigma around reproductive health enhanced silence and fear of being judged and waiting longer to seek healthcare services. Workplace inflexibility, fear of income loss, and limited reproductive health information restrict working women's decision-making. Socio-cultural, familial, and structural factors are interconnected, making reproductive health choices a collective, not solely individual, matter. The results indicate that the intervention should be context-specific, such as family and community awareness interventions, supportive work policies, and greater access to reproductive healthcare services, to promote the reproductive autonomy and well-being of women.
References
Bloom, S. S., Wypij, D., & Gupta, M. D. (2001). Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a North Indian city. Demography, 38(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2001.0001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Cleland, J., Bernstein, S., Ezeh, A., Faundes, A., Glasier, A., & Innis, J. (2006). Family planning: The unfinished agenda. The Lancet, 368(9549), 1810–1827. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69480-4
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
International Labour Organization. (2017). World employment and social outlook: Trends for women. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_557245
Jejeebhoy, S. J., & Sathar, Z. A. (2001). Women’s autonomy in India and Pakistan: The influence of religion and region. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00687.x
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125
Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1090009
Malhotra, A., & Schuler, S. R. (2005). Women’s empowerment as a variable in international development. In D. Narayan (Ed.), Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–88). World Bank.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Sathar, Z. A., & Kazi, S. (2000). Women’s autonomy, livelihood and fertility: A study of rural Punjab. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
Shaikh, B. T., & Hatcher, J. (2005). Health seeking behaviour and health service utilization in Pakistan: Challenging the policy makers. Journal of Public Health, 27(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdh207
United Nations Population Fund. (2019). State of world population: Unfinished business – The pursuit of rights and choices for all. UNFPA. https://www.unfpa.org/sowp-2019
World Health Organization. (2014). Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services: Guidance and recommendations. WHO.
World Health Organization. (2018). Reproductive health: Strategy to accelerate progress. WHO.
World Health Organization. (2019). Women’s health. WHO.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
Elson, D. (1999). Labor markets as gendered institutions: equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World development, 27(3), 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00147-8
Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 451.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
