Fri, Aug 6, 2021
Volume 19, Issue 6 (November - December 2020)                   Payesh 2020, 19(6): 645-672 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.ACECR.IBCRC.REC.1397.019

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sadighi J, Tavousi M, Montazeri A, Mozafari Kermani R, Eslami M, Rostami R et al . Fertility indicators and its correlates among women in Iran. Payesh. 2020; 19 (6) :645-672
1- Health Metrics Research Center, Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2- Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (1202 Views)
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the fertility indicators in Iran. 
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study and included Iranian women of reproductive-age. The data were collected using a questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS18.
Results: In all 10547 women included in the study. The mean live birth was 1.96 and it was increased as age of both women and husbands were increased; and it was decreased as age at marriage, age at birth of the first child, and education were increased. Live birth was more in low-income women and in rural areas. The frequency of stillbirth was 4.8% and increased as age of both women and husbands were increased. The stillbirth decreased as age at marriage, the age at birth of the first child, and education were increased. There was no relationship between stillbirth and women’s occupation, occupation of husbands, and religion. The stillbirth was more in low-income women and in rural areas. The frequency of abortion was 18.2% and increased with age of women, age of husbands, and age at birth of the first child. Abortion decreased with increased age at marriage and education. Abortion was more common in low-income women. Abortion had no relationship with women’s occupation, religion, and urban/rural residency. The frequency of the cesarean section was 42.1%. Cesarean increased with increased age of women and husbands, age at marriage, age at birth of the first child, and education. Delivery by cesarean had no relationship with occupation of husbands. The cesarean decreased with decreased income and was higher in urban areas.
Conclusion: Investigating the trend of fertility indicators can play important role in identifying problems, planning for required services, and optimal allocation of resources. The findings from this study will complement the information that is needed by policy-makers.
Full-Text [PDF 1834 kb]   (504 Downloads)    
type of study: Research | Subject: Medical
Received: 2020/11/28 | Accepted: 2020/11/28 | ePublished ahead of print: 2020/12/9 | Published: 2020/12/20

1. World Health Organization. Reproductive health. Available from:
2. World health statistics 2017: monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Available from:
3. Asefzadeh S, Alijanzadeh M, Nasiri asl M. Correlation between Human Development Index and maternal mortality rate. Payesh. 2013; 12: 559-566 [Persian]
4. Sixth 5-year socio-economic and cultural development plan act of Islamic Republic of Iran and permanent notes law of development plans. Available From: [Persian]
5. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Health profile 2015. Islamic Republic of Iran. Available from:
6. Kamiabi F, Torkestani F, Abedini M, Hajimaghsoudi S, Rastegari A, Hejazi S, Baneshi MR, Haghdoost AA. Analysis of the maternal mortality in Iran, 2007-2012. Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. 2015; 22: 650-668 [Persian]
7. World Bank. Data bank. World fertility rate. Available from:
8. World Bank Group. World development indicators database, Islamic Republic of Iran. Available from:
9. Statistical Center of Iran. Fertility rate. Available from: [Persian]
10. Saadati M. Factors affecting children ever born for 15-49 year-old women in Semnan using poisson regression. Health System Research. 2015; 11: 627-637 [Persian]
11. World Health Organization. Available from:
12. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Jassir FB, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2016; 4: e98-e108 [DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00275-2]
13. Series from the Lancet Journals. Ending preventable stillbirths. Available from:
14. World Health Organization. Available from:
15. Rahgozar M, Mohammad K, Ramezani Tehrani F. Trend of stillbirth rate in lranian women aged 15-49 years during four decades form 1957 to 1996. Hakim Research Journal. 2001; 4: 85-92 [Persian]
16. Esmaeilnasab N, Majdzadeh SR, Nadim A. An epidemiological study on stillbirth, neonatal mortality and their determinant factors, Kurdistan province (west of Iran) in 1998. Hakim Research Journal. 2002; 4: 272-277 [Persian]
17. Pasha H, Faramarzi M, Bakhtiari A, Hajian K. Stillbirth and some related factors, Babol, 1998. Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences. 2000; 2: 17-21 [Persian]
18. Hajian-Tilaki K, Esmaielzadeh S, Sadeghian G. Trend of stillbirth rates and the associated risk factors in Babol, Northern Iran. Oman Medical Journal. 2014; 29:18-23 [DOI:10.5001/omj.2014.05]
19. Nankali A, Hematti M, Mahdavi Z. Study of the factors associated with stillbirth in pregnant women admitted in Imam Reza teaching hospital in Kermanshah (2011-2014). Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2017; 20:1-9 [Persian]
20. World Health Organization. Preventing unsafe abortion. 2019. Available from:
21. Moradinazar M, Najafi F, Nazar ZM, Hamzeh B, Pasdar Y, Shakiba E. Lifetime Prevalence of Abortion and Risk Factors in Women: Evidence from a Cohort Study. Journal of Pregnancy. 2020; 2020: 4871494 [DOI:10.1155/2020/4871494]
22. Zamanian M, Zolala F, Haghdoost AA, Baneshi MR. Estimating the annual abortion rate in Kerman, Iran: comparison of direct, network scale-up, and single sample count methods. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility. 2019; 13: 209-214
23. Chinichian M, Holakoic Nainie K, Rafaie Shirpak Kh. Voluntary abortion in Iran: a qualitative study. Payesh. 2007; 6: 219-232 [Persian]
24. Ranji A. Induced abortion in Iran: prevalence, reasons, and consequences. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health. 2012; 57: 482-488 [DOI:10.1111/j.1542-2011.2012.00159.x]
25. Motaghi Z, Poorolajal J, Keramat A, Shariati M, Yunesian M, Masoumi SZ. Induced Abortion Rate in Iran: A Meta-analysis. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2013; 16: 594-598
26. Erfani A, Shojaei J. New Evidence On Induced Abortion In Tehran, Iran: Rates, Causes, And Changes. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2018; 21: 64-77 [Persian]
27. Mahdavi SA, Jafari A, Azimi K, Dehghanizadeh N, Barzegar A. Therapeutic abortion in Iran: an epidemiologic study of legal abortion in 2 years. BMC Research Notes. 2020; 13:261 [DOI:10.1186/s13104-020-05098-y]
28. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Available from:
29. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gu¨lmezoglu AM and the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates: a commentary. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2016; 123: 667-670 [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13526]
30. World Health Organization. Available from:
31. Setudezadeh F, Yousefinezhadi T. The increasing prevalence of cesarean in Iran: How the rate of cesareans could be controlled?. Obstetrics and Gynecology International Journal. 2018; 9: 532-535 [DOI:10.15406/ogij.2018.09.00402]
32. Dadipoor S, Madani AH, Alavi A, Roozbeh N, Safari Moradabadi A. A survey of the growing trend of caesarian section in Iran and the World: a review article. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2016; 19: 8-17 [Persian]
33. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M, Asl Amin Abad R. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran: systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2014; 43: 545-555
34. Rafiei M, Saei Ghare M, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, Vafaee R. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (Yazd). 2018; 16: 221-234 [DOI:10.29252/ijrm.16.4.221]
35. Jafarzadeh A, Hadavi M, Hasanshahi G, et al. Cesarean or cesarean epidemic?. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2019; 22: 663-670
36. Khabiri R, Khosravi A, Elahi E, Khodayari Moez E, Rashidian A. Maternal health care based on iran multiple indicator demographic and health survey (IrMIDHS-2010). Hakim Research Journal. 2014; 17: 67-77 [Persian]
37. Alimohammadzade K, Mohebi SF, Labaf T. Systematic review of research papers in the recent three decades on the reasons of cesarean section and population health management strategies in Iran. Women's Strategic Studies (ketabe zanan). 2013; 16: 7-57 [Persian]
38. Maroufizadeh S, Bagheri Lankarani N, Almasi Hashiani A, Amini P, Esmaeilzadeh A, Navid B, Mohammadi M, Omani Samani R. Prevalence of cesarean section and its related factors among primiparas in Tehran province, Iran, in 2015. Journal of Isfahan Medical School (IUMS). 2017; 35: 303-309 [Persian]
39. Vafaee R, Hosseini F, Ghobadi Dashdebi K, Momen-Bellah-Fard MJ, Ghalandari M, Gharlipour Z, Tavassoli E. Assessing the factors influencing delivery method selection in pregnant women referred to public hospitals in Shiraz. Advances in Nursing and Midwifery. 2013; 23: 13-18 [Persian]
40. Moslehi S, Kazemnejad A, Mohaddesi H, Karimi H. Determination of a 12-year trend of cesarean surgery and vaginal delivery in West Azerbaijan province of Iran and its prediction until 2018. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2018; 21: 71-79 [Persian]
41. Hassanzadeh Talouki H, Faraji Lamoki H, Khatty Dizaabadi F, Yazdani Charati J. Comparing the factors associated with selecting normal vaginal delivery or caesarian section in nulliparous women. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2019; 29: 53-63 [Persian]
42. Jouhari SH, Bayati S, PoorAsad Kheirabadi F, Moradi E. Cesarean section rate and its cause in Fasa in the year 2011. Journal of Fasa University of Medical Sciences. 2014; 4: 295-300 [Persian]
43. Dehghan A, Mirjalili MR, Zare Mehrjardi MH, Raghebian M, Samiye Zargar A, Kazemeini SK. Study of epidemiology of caesarean sections performed in academic and non-academic hospitals in Yazd between 2013 and 2014. Journal of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. 2017: 24: 810-817 [Persian]
44. Ghadimi MR, Rasouli M, Motahar S, Lajevardi Z, Imani A, Chobsaz A, Razeghian S. Affecting factors the choice of delivery and attitude of pregnant women admitted to the civil hospitals, the Social Security Organization in 2013. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. 2014: 21: 310-319 [Persian]
45. Khayyatian N, Nasiri S. Prevalence of cesarean section and its causes in governmental obstetric hospitals of Kashan-2014. Journal of Health and Care. 2016; 18: 28-36 [Persian]
46. Lotfi R, Ramezani Tehrani F, Torkestani F, Rostami M, Abedini M, Sajedinejad S. Health system management and strategies to decrease elective cesarean section: a qualitative study. Payesh. 2015; 14: 59-71 [Persian]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2021 All Rights Reserved | Payesh (Health Monitor)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb