SynthesisBMC public health2025
Gender equity and sustainable development through the lens of fertility intentions among highly educated women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeclining fertility rates have raised concerns about potential population crises in many nations. While previous studies have established the link between female education and fertility intentions, no global meta-analysis has examined the fertility intentions of highly educated women.
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, and APA PsycExtra for studies published between January 2000 and December 2022, without language restrictions. Eligible studies included cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control, intervention, and qualitative studies that reported fertility intentions or influencing factors among females with at least a post-secondary education. We excluded abstracts, conference proceedings, letters, commentaries, editorials, reviews, and preprints. The pooled proportion of fertility intentions was estimated through a random-effects meta-analysis. We analyzed factors that influence fertility intentions using a data-based convergent synthesis design.
resultsOut of the initial 4,804 studies identified, 35 studies were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis of fertility intentions included 17,292 highly educated women from 19 countries. The pooled proportion of highly educated women who did not expect children in the future was 12.2% (95% CI 8.4-16.7%), with substantial variation across regions, from 5.1% (2.6-8.3%) in the European Region to 22.9% (13.6-33.7%) in the Western Pacific Region. Factors associated with fertility intentions included not only the pursuit of a career and education (individual-level), the need for stable relationships and family support (family-level), but also (un)supportive environments (community-level), labor market and childcare services (institutional-level), and social norms and national policies (structural-level).
conclusionRegional disparities in fertility intentions among highly educated women reflect underlying differences in social welfare systems, labor market structures, and gender norms. Policies aimed at supporting fertility in this group should move beyond a narrow focus on individual preferences and instead address the broader contextual factors that shape reproductive decision-making. Creating a supportive environment for parenting, through equitable leave entitlements, accessible childcare, and family-friendly employment policies, may contribute to fostering informed fertility choices among highly educated women.
trial registrationCRD42023404366.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.