Table 1 Socio demographic data of respondents
From: Psychosocial implications of tubal ligation in a rural health district: A phenomenological study
Participants | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 39 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 35 | 38 | 40 | 36 | 38 | 39 | 38 | 38 | 37 | 37 |
Marital status | M | M | W | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M |
Study level | O | S | P | P | P | P | S | S | P | S | S | S | S | S | S |
Years of marriage | 19 | 19 | 22 | 24 | 25 | 16 | 15 | 25 | 17 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 17 |
Parity | 9 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 5 |
Gender ratio (m/f) of living children | 1/3 | 4/3 | 3/3 | 3/1 | 4/2 | 5/1 | 3/3 | 6/4 | 4/1 | 2/2 | 3/5 | 4/1 | 2/5 | 1/1 | 3/2 |
Years after tubal ligation | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
Religion | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr | Pr |
Socioeconomic level | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | II | II | II | II | II | II | II |
Decision-maker for tubal sterilization | Wi | Wi | Me | Me | Me | Me | Me | Me | Me | H | Wi | Wi | Wi | H | H |