4.2 Article

Critical insights on the demographic concept of birth spacing: locating Nef in family well-being, bodies, and relationships in Senegal

期刊

SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH MATTERS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 136-145

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1581533

关键词

birth spacing; family planning; Senegal; reproductive choices; family well-being

资金

  1. MSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Birth spacing has emerged since the early 1980s as a key concept to improve maternal and child health, triggering interest in birth spacing practices in low-income countries, and drawing attention to prevailing norms in favour of long birth intervals in West Africa. In Senegal, the Wolof concept of Nef, which means having children too closely spaced in time, is morally condemned and connotes a resulting series of negative implications for family well-being. While Nef and birth spacing intersect in key ways, including acknowledging the health benefits of longer birth intervals, they are not translations of each other, for each is embedded in distinct broader cultural and political assumptions about social relations. Most notably, proponents of the demographic concept of birth spacing assume that the practice of using contraception after childbearing to postpone births could contribute to empowering women socially. In Senegal, by contrast, preventing Nef (or short birth intervals) is also viewed as strengthening family well-being by allowing women to care more fully for their family. This paper draws on policy documents and interviews to explore women's and men's understanding of Nef, and in turn critically reflect on the demographic concept of birth spacing. Our findings reinforce the relevance of the concept of birth spacing to engage with women and men around family planning services in Senegal. Accounts of the Nef taboo in Senegal also show that social norms stigmatising short birth intervals can legitimise constraints faced by women on control of their body.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据