A study of gender preference, knowledge and attitude regarding prenatal diagnostic techniques act among pregnant women in an urban slum of Bengaluru
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20150483Keywords:
Sex Ratio, PNDT act, Female Feticide, Gender preferenceAbstract
Background: Preference for a son continues to be a prevalent norm even in modern India which is evident from the recent census report. The most alarming aspect is a further fall in child sex ratio (0-6 years) from 927 in 2001 to 914 in 2011. Sex selective abortion is the major factor responsible for this unfavorable trend. The objective was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of pregnant women regarding Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act and gender preference.
Methods:A cross-sectional study was carried out in100 pregnant women attending the antenatal clinics of Sulthanpalaya Urban health center, Bangalore. A pre-designed and pre-tested questionnaire was used to get information. Data was analyzed by using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0.
Results: In this study 53% showed preference for a male child. Only 37% were aware about the decline in sex ratio and 59% knew that PNDT act existed and sex determination was legally wrong. Over all 41% had poor knowledge. Whereas 43% had average and 16% had good knowledge and 74% had the right attitude in this study. Good knowledge about PNDT act had significant influence on the attitude of the people (p< 0.05).
Conclusion: The falling ratio of girl child is a matter of grave concern. Effective implementation of the PNDT Act in addition to spreading awareness about this act among people is the need of the hour. Moreover, it is necessary to gear efforts against the cultural, economic and religious roots of this social malady by woman empowerment.
References
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India. Census of India, Govt of India; 2011. Available from: http://www. censusindia.gov.in/ [Last accessed on 2015 may 23]
Bardia A, Paul E, Kapoor SK, Anand K. Declining sex ratio: Role of society, technology and government regulation in Faridabad district, Haryana. Natl Med J India. 2004;17:207-11.
Puri S, Bhatia V, Swami HM. Gender preference and awareness regarding sex determination among married women in slums of Chandigarh. Indian J Community Med. 2007;1:60-2.
Vadera BN, Joshi UK, Unadakat SV, Yadav BS, Yadav S. Study on Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding gender preference and female feticide among pregnant women. Indian J Community Med. 2007;32:300-1.
Mutharayappa R, Arnold F, Roy TK. Son preference and its impact on fertility in India, National family health subject reports no. 3, Mumbai: International Institute for population sciences.
Malhi P, Raina G, Malhotra D. Preference for the sex of children and its implications for reproductive behaviour in Urban Himachal Pradesh 1999;23-9.
Malhi P. Influence of gender preference for children on fertility behaviour: A comparative study of men and women in Haryana 1995;53-7.
Suwarna M, Vaishali G, Sudeepa D. Study about awareness regarding pre-natal sex determination and gender preference among antenatal women in rural Bangalore. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. 2013;4:222-6.
Ghose S, Sarkar S. Knowledge and attitude of Prenatal Diagnostics techniques Act among the antenatal women- a hospital based study. J Community Med. 2009;5:1–6.
Shrivastava S, Kariwal P, Kapilasrami MC. A community based study on awareness and perception on gender discrimination and sex preference among married women (in reproductive age group) in a rural population of district Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Nat J Commun Med. 2011;2:273–6.
Khatri M, Acharya R, Sharma G. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) Related to Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act Among the Antenatal Women in Bikaner. 2011;1:121.
Kansal R, Khan AM, Bansal R, Parashar P. A hospital based study on knowledge, attitude and practice of pregnant women on gender preference, prenatal sex determination and female foeticide. Indian J Public Health. 2010;54:209–12.
