Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:50:14.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compensatory payments and vasectomy acceptance in urban Sri Lanka

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

V. de Silva ,
S. Thapa ,
L. R. Wilkens ,
M. G. Farr ,
K. Jayasinghe  and
J. E. McMahan
V. de Silva
Affiliation:
Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka
S. Thapa
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
L. R. Wilkens
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
M. G. Farr
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
K. Jayasinghe
Affiliation:
Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka
J. E. McMahan
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper examines the effects of different levels of payment on the acceptance of vasectomy in urban Sri Lanka. Data from 496 vasectomized men are analysed by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, post-operative problems encountered and attitudes towards vasectomy by amount of payment. The findings show that higher levels of payments have significantly enhanced the adoption of vasectomy, particularly among the low economic status group. The time of vasectomy in relation to the youngest child's age was influenced by the payment scheme. Higher monetary payments have not induced men to become sterilized who would be considered ineligible for the operation. A high level of satisfaction with the decision to have a vasectomy, regardless of payment level, was found. There was no systematic influence of payment levels on post-operative problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 143 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.)

References

Abeywickrema, D. & de Silva, V. (1983) Effects of Incentives on Vasectomy Acceptors. Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo.Google Scholar
Alam, I. & Cleland, J. (1981) Illustrative Analysis: Recent Fertility Trends in Sri Lanka. WFS Scientific Report No. 25. International Statistical Institute, Voorburg.Google Scholar
Ariyadasa, E. (1982) Factors that determine the decision to accept surgical contraception. In: Voluntary Surgical Contraception: A Review of Progress in Sri Lanka, pp. 126–131. Edited by Jayawikramarajah, P. T. & Corea, S. M.. Sri Lanka Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Colombo.Google Scholar
Atkins, B. S. & Jezowski, T. W. (1983) Report on the First International Conference on Vasectomy. Stud, Fam. Plann. 14, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuca, R. & Pierce, C. S. (1977) Experiments in Family Planning: Lessons from the Developing World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
David, H. P. (1987) Incentives and disincentives in family planning programs. In: Organizing for Effective Family Planning Programs, pp. 521–542. Edited by Lapham, R. J. & Simmons, G. B.. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Family Health Bureau (1979–1986) Annual Report on Family Planning Acceptors, Sri Lanka, 1978–85. Family Health Bureau, Ministry of Health, Colombo.Google Scholar
Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka (1979–1985) Annual Report. Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo.Google Scholar
Gaminiratne, K. H. W. (1983) Contraceptive use. In: Sri Lanka Contraceptive Prevalence Survey Report, 1982, pp. 64–81. Department of Census and Statistics, Colombo.Google Scholar
Hartman, B. & Standing, H. (1986) Food, Saris and Sterilization. Third World Publications, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Hollerback, P. E. & Nortman, D. L. (1986) The Determinants and Demographic Impact of Sterilization. Asia Regional Analysis: Korea, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Kothari, D. K. (1975) Incentives for family limitations and sterilization in India. In: Policy Sciences and Population. Edited by Ilchman, W. F.. Lexington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, S. (1972) Kerala's pioneering experiment in massive vasectomy camps. Stud. Fam. Plann. 3, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Plan Implementation (1985) Sri Lanka Voluntary Sterilization. Population Division, Ministry of Plan Implementation, Colombo.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. D. (1983) The vasectomy decision-making process. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nortman, D. (1980) Sterilization and the birth rate. Stud. Fam. Plann. 11, 286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, C. (1980) Incentives and disincentives in population programmes. In: The Role of Incentives in Family Planning Programmes. UNFPA, New York.Google Scholar
Park, C., Cho, L. & Palmore, J. A. (1977) The Euiryong experiment: a Korean innovation in household contraceptive distribution. Stud. Fam. Plann. 8, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perera, S. (1983) Fertility. In: Sri Lanka Contraceptive Prevalence Survey Report 1982, pp. 31–52. Department of Census and Statistics, Colombo.Google Scholar
Philliber, S. G. & Philliber, W. W. (1985) Social and psychological perspectives on voluntary sterilization review. Stud. Fam. Plann. 16, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, T. (1980) Illustrative Analysis: Fertility Preferences in Sri Lanka. WFS Scientific Report No. 9. International Statistical Institute, Voorburg.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, K., Retherford, R. D. & Sivasubramanium, S. (1984) Fertility Estimates for Sri Lanka: Derived from the 1981 Census. Aitken Spence, Colombo.Google Scholar
Repetto, R. (1968) A case study of the Madras vasectomy program. Stud. Fam. Plann. 1, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1971) Incentives in the diffusion of family planning innovations. Stud. Fam. Plann. 2, 241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, E. M. (1973) Communication Strategies far Family Planning. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A., Hong, S. & Huber, D. H. (1985) Voluntary Sterilization: An International Fact Book. Association for Voluntary Sterilization, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. A. & Huber, D. H. (1983) Acceptance and prevalence of vasectomy in developing countries. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santiso, R. G., Bertrand, J. T. & Pineda, M. A. (1983) Vasectomy m Guatemala: a comparison of men and women. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 73.Google Scholar
Satia, J. K. & Maru, R. (1986) Incentives and disincentives in the Indian Family Welfare Program. Stud. Fam. Plann. 17, 136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, K. & Kachirayan, M. (1968) Vasectomy follow-up study: findings and implications. Bull. Gandhigram Inst. Hlth. Fam. Plann. 3, 12.Google Scholar
Thapa, S., Abeywickrema, D. & Wilkens, L. R. (1987) Effects of compensatory payments on vasectomy in urban Sri Lanka: a comparison of two economic groups. Stud. Fam. Plann. 18,352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (1984) Recent Levels and Trends of Contraceptive Use as Assessed in 1983. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
Veatch, R. M. (1977) Governmental population incentives: ethical issues at stake. Stud. Fam. Plann. 8, 100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, W. (1982) The effect of incentives on the demographic quality of women accepting voluntary sterilization in Batticaloa. In: Voluntary Surgical Contraception: A Review of Progress in Sri Lanka, pp. 185–192. Edited by Jayawikramarajah, P. T. & Corea, S. M.. Sri Lanka Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Colombo.Google Scholar
Wolfers, H. (1970) Psychological aspects of vasectomy. Br. med. J. 4, 297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed