https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4161-5146
Figures
Abstract
Background and Aims
Like many other countries, Iran is facing a declining population growth rate. While previous research has primarily focused on childless individuals or parents of only one child, limited attention has been paid to families who, despite already having two or more children, continue to desire larger families. This study examines childbearing motivations among Iranian parents with two or more planned children.
Methods
This explorative qualitative study was conducted in 2023 across three provinces in Iran. A total of 46 participants were purposively selected. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was used to identify core themes related to childbearing motivations.
Results
Participants’ desire to have more children was shaped by six major themes: family altruism, value–attitude motivation, real happiness, resilience development, institutional support, and multifaceted balance. These themes reflect a dynamic interplay of emotional, cultural, and practical considerations in shaping fertility intentions.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that both personal and societal factors contribute to parents’ motivation for having more children. Institutional support also emerged as an important influence in the decision to pursue larger families. Understanding these motivations can inform policies aimed at encouraging childbearing among younger generations and help guide the development of integrated strategies and educational initiatives. Future quantitative research is recommended to assess the relative importance of each identified theme.
Citation: Mesbah M, Ghahramani S, Amani R, Rahmanipour E, Ghorbani M, Sadati AK, et al. (2025) Desire for childbearing in the view of Iranian parents: A qualitative study. PLoS One 20(8): e0330658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330658
Editor: Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Addis Ababa University, ETHIOPIA
Received: January 6, 2025; Accepted: August 4, 2025; Published: August 22, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Mesbah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Understanding global population dynamics is essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality), as these are closely linked to fertility trends, maternal health, and evolving gender roles in parenting [1]. Globally, the annual population growth rate has declined significantly—from 2.1% in the late 1960s to 0.8% in 2021 [2]. Similarly, Iran has experienced a dramatic decrease, with population growth falling from 5.3% in 1982 to 0.8% in 2021, primarily due to reduced fertility rates [3].
Replacement-level fertility—approximately 2.1 children per woman—is needed to maintain population stability in the absence of migration and mortality. Persistently low fertility rates below this level carry profound consequences: population aging, higher dependency ratios, reduced labor forces, and increased strain on health, pension, and social support systems [4,5]. These trends are apparent across East Asia; for example, South Korea’s fertility rate hit a historic low of 0.81 in 2021 [6], while Singapore’s total fertility rate (TFR) fell to 1.10 in 2020 and 1.04 in 2022 [7,8]. Japan’s TFR also dropped from 2.06 in 1970 to 1.29 in 2020 [6]. These patterns highlight the urgency of integrating fertility concerns into long-term planning for economic development, innovation, and sustainability.
In Iran, fertility has become a policy focus amid growing concern about demographic shifts and an aging population. Studies have documented fertility decline across all provinces and social strata, revealing increasing convergence in reproductive behavior nationwide [9]. Notably, sub-replacement fertility has become widespread, with some regions experiencing extremely low birth rates [10].
To inform policymaking at both public and Ministry of Health levels, it is crucial to understand the factors that influence reproductive behavior in Iran. Identifying the motivations of parents who have planned to expand their families offers an important counter-narrative to prevailing low-fertility trends. While most prior studies have focused on retrospective justifications among nulliparous individuals or parents with only one child, this study centers on those who have actively planned to have more children. This distinct perspective highlights proactive motivations for higher fertility and provides a more nuanced understanding of population dynamics in a low-fertility context.
Qualitative research provides the necessary depth to examine participants’ subjective perceptions, values, and intentions, capturing the complex array of beliefs and meanings associated with fertility decisions [11]. While existing literature is largely quantitative and often centered on single or childless individuals with limited interest in marriage or family life [12–14], some studies have explored voluntary childlessness or single-child decisions in various cultural settings, driven by personal, social, or economic factors [15–18]. Other investigations have examined how psychological, relational, and policy-related constraints shape fertility behavior in low-fertility societies [19–22].
However, few studies have focused specifically on Iranian parents who already have children and still desire more. To fill this gap, this study asks: What factors influence childbearing decisions among parents with two or more planned children? The research explores the motivations and perspectives of these parents across three provinces in Iran.
Methods
Study design
This explorative qualitative study was conducted using a thematic analysis approach between November 2022 and July 2023 in Iran. The research involved 46 participants across three provinces: 16 from Rasht (Gilan), 13 from Shiraz (Fars), and 17 from Mashhad (Khorasan Razavi). These cities were selected to capture Iran’s geographic, ethnic, economic, and cultural diversity, reflecting varied fertility contexts—low (Rasht), medium (Shiraz), and high (Mashhad) TFR.
Rasht, located in northern Iran, was among the first areas to experience sub-replacement fertility, shaped by early industrialization, widespread female education, and delayed marriage [23,24]. Shiraz represents a demographic transition zone characterized by moderate fertility, a mixture of traditional and modern norms, economic heterogeneity, and relatively high female education levels [25]. Mashhad, a major eastern metropolis and religious center, maintains higher fertility and stronger traditional family norms, providing a contrasting socio-demographic landscape and enhancing the transferability of findings [26].
Participants were stratified by gender and represented a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Economic status was assessed based on self-reported household income relative to expenditure, a culturally appropriate method in the Iranian context where direct income reporting may be unreliable [27,28]. Participants were categorized into: (1) income greater than expenditure (high status), (2) income equal to expenditure (middle status), and (3) income less than expenditure (low status). Eligible participants included women aged 15–49 with three or more children, those currently pregnant with a third child, or those planning or expressing a desire to have a third child, including cases where twins or triplets resulted in a total of three children. Their husbands were also included if they met the criteria. Individuals without informed consent were excluded. Recruitment continued from November to December 2022 until data saturation was achieved, ensuring thematic and interpretive adequacy. Data collection and preliminary analysis were conducted concurrently from December 2022 to April 2023 in an iterative manner, with final theme refinement and manuscript preparation occurring from May to July 2023. To enhance reflexivity, team discussions and reflective journaling addressed researcher positionality, power dynamics, and potential biases during data collection and analysis [29].
Sampling and data collection
Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted in private and culturally appropriate locations to encourage candid responses. Interviews began with general questions such as “What motivated your desire to have children?” and “What factors influenced your decision to plan for more than two children?” Follow-up probing questions were used to explore participants’ responses in greater depth. Each interview lasted approximately 20–40 minutes and was complemented by field notes recorded immediately afterward.
Saturation was monitored iteratively and considered achieved when three consecutive interviews yielded no new codes or themes [30]. Three researchers independently reviewed transcripts and held consensus meetings to ensure consistency and comprehensive interpretation. The final sample size of 46 exceeded the minimum threshold for thematic analysis due to the inclusion of diverse participant profiles across provinces [31].
Data analysis
Inductive thematic analysis was performed, with codes generated directly from the data. The process followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps: familiarization, initial coding, theme searching, sub-theme development, thematic refinement, and final report production [32]. Open coding and a constant comparative method were used to refine categories and themes, supported by memo writing and documentation to minimize bias [33–35]. The research team had experience in qualitative research, and the SRQR checklist was used to enhance quality [36].
Trustworthiness
To ensure rigor, Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) trustworthiness criteria were employed [37]. Peer debriefings supported analytic consistency. Member checking was conducted with selected participants to confirm accuracy of thematic interpretations. Feedback from experts and peers was incorporated, and an audit trail documenting coding revisions was maintained.
Ethical considerations
Before interviews began, participants received full information about the study’s purpose, their rights, and the reasons for audio recording. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Audio recordings were only made with permission; otherwise, notes were taken. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committees of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (ID: IR.SUMS.REC.1401.721).
Results
This study included a diverse group of participants whose demographic characteristics helped contextualize their motivations for childbearing. Female participants had a mean age of 35.60 ± 7.41 years, while male participants were slightly older, with a mean age of 42.75 ± 6.69 years. All male participants were employed full-time. In contrast, only 23.3% of female participants were employed, with the highest rate in Mashhad (41.7%) and the lowest in Shiraz (10%). Regarding family size, the majority of participants had three children (36.96%), with 17.39% having four or more. This variety ensured that both current and prospective experiences of parenting three or more children were represented. These demographic details are summarized in Table 1.
Six overarching themes were identified through thematic analysis, each encompassing related categories and subcategories. These themes include: (1) Family Altruism, (2) Value–Attitude Motivation, (3) Real Happiness, (4) Resilience Development, (5) Institutional Support, and (6) Multifaceted Balance. A brief summary of each theme is provided below to support interpretation of participants’ motivations. Fig 1 illustrates the hierarchical structure of themes, categories, and subcategories, which is also summarized in S1 Table. S2 Table presents representative open codes for each subcategory.
- 1. Family Altruism: Participants described strong intergenerational and spousal support as key to making childrearing manageable and future childbearing desirable. Grandparents, spouses, and older siblings provided emotional, financial, and caregiving assistance, creating a cooperative family environment that reduced the burden of parenting.
“Without the help of our families, we wouldn’t have even tried, because a child needs care, upbringing, and attention — and my mother really helped me a lot.” (Participant reflections from Rasht (R1,6,7); Shiraz (S1,11,12); Mashhad (M1,7,8,9,12)).
- 2. Value–Attitude Motivation: Cultural upbringing, personal values, and religious beliefs shaped positive attitudes toward having more children. Many participants associated larger families with companionship, purpose, and spiritual fulfilment, reflecting internalized motivations beyond societal expectations.
“I brought them into this world, I guide their upbringing, but ultimately, there’s a higher power protecting them.” (Participant reflections from Rasht (R2,4); Shiraz (S6); Mashhad (M6,10,15)).
- 3. Real Happiness: Emotional gratification from parenting—including joy, identity, and family bonding—was a major motivator for continued childbearing. Participants found daily family life enriching and emphasized how children strengthened marital and sibling relationships.
“My spouse grew up in a lively, bustling environment, with everyone gathering on weekends. That’s why they wanted to create the same atmosphere in our own family.” (Participant reflections from Rasht (R7,8,12); Shiraz (S10,12); Mashhad (M7,9,10)).
- 4. Resilience Development: Childbearing was linked to enhanced emotional and social resilience. Parents viewed children as sources of companionship, psychological growth, future support, and civic contribution, suggesting that fertility decisions were grounded in both personal development and collective responsibility.
“When families get older, they realize that if they’d had more children, they’d be better off now.” (Participant reflections from Rasht (R4,13,14), Shiraz (S2,7)).
- 5. Institutional Support: Access to quality childcare, supportive workplaces, and equitable family policies significantly influenced childbearing decisions. Institutional resources enabled work-life balance, maternal employment, and shared parenting, mitigating structural barriers to family expansion.
“She had 9 months of maternity leave, and those 9 months really helped us.” (Participant reflections from Rasht (R9); Mashhad (M16)).
- 6. Multifaceted Balance: Participants evaluated emotional readiness, financial stability, and lifestyle compatibility before deciding on further childbearing. Successful balance was supported by shared caregiving, flexible employment, and values that emphasized cooperation and simplicity in family life.
“I mostly felt that I became more understanding, more capable — like, behaviorally, I could connect better with my child. Back then, I was much younger and more immature. I think the best age to start having kids is from 20, because your mind is more ready for raising children.” (Her first child was at age 14.) (Participant reflections from Rasht (R6,12); Shiraz (S8,9,10)).
Discussion
This study examined the perspectives of Iranian parents with two or more children on planned childbearing. Six themes emerged: Family Altruism, Value–Attitude Motivation, Real Happiness, Resilience Development, Institutional Support, and Multifaceted Balance. These factors reflect emotional, cultural, psychological, and structural influences shaping fertility intentions.
Participants emphasized how support from extended family—especially spouses, grandparents, and older siblings—made parenting less burdensome and larger families more achievable. Grandparents provided childcare, housing, and financial help, echoing studies on intergenerational support reducing fertility barriers [38,39]. Spousal cooperation, particularly fathers’ emotional and financial involvement, fostered marital stability and reinforced shared parenting, consistent with literature linking male involvement to fertility desires [40,41]. Unlike childless individuals who cited fear and uncertainty [13], mothers here showed a readiness for sacrifice, suggesting maternal experience coupled with family support fosters resilience and receptivity to further childbearing. Older siblings’ caregiving further eased parenting demands, reinforcing household functioning and emotional development [42–45]. Recent research highlights how family structure and involvement, particularly among households with multiple children, naturally limits screen exposure in toddlers and encourages social interaction [46,47]. This aligns with our finding that intergenerational and sibling support systems enhance resilience and reduce reliance on passive caregiving tools like screens. These findings point to the importance of strengthening familial ecosystems in fertility-supportive strategies.
Planned childbearing was often grounded in childhood experiences, cultural values, and faith. Participants raised in large families desired similar environments, while those from smaller households recalled loneliness, emphasizing sibling companionship—findings aligned with the Theory of Planned Behavior and studies on social learning [13,14,48,49]. Faith-based beliefs, including trust in divine provision and religious authority, helped alleviate anxieties around financial or health concerns, consistent with research from Islamic and Western contexts [13,48,50]. Internally, many saw parenting as a source of contentment and purpose, despite challenges. Mothers in particular framed motherhood as identity-affirming, diverging from studies citing health concerns as deterrents among childless adults [13]. Some resisted societal judgment, showing self-directed values that nuance the TPB’s emphasis on normative pressure [51]. As our participants noted, personal values and beliefs significantly influence parenting choices. This resonates with ecological research showing that media outcomes depend heavily on contextual factors, including family values, media supervision, and socioeconomic environment [46,47]. Fertility interventions may be more effective when aligning with cultural values and personal meaning rather than relying solely on external incentives.
Parenting brought emotional fulfillment and family cohesion, motivating further childbearing. Participants highlighted the joy from everyday family interactions, marital enrichment, and sibling bonding—findings consistent with other qualitative studies [13,52]. Children were seen as enhancing spousal relationships and life satisfaction, contradicting literature emphasizing financial or social deterrents [52]. Mothers often described parenting as identity-building [53], and increased parenting literacy boosted confidence in family expansion. Rather than fearing modern challenges, participants expressed adaptive optimism, contrasting with studies that view societal pressures as barriers [52]. Spousal agreement also reinforced emotional foundations for family growth, echoing research linking joint decision-making to fertility desires [52,54]. Some described older children requesting siblings or offering care—an intra-family influence rarely captured in current literature. This dynamic supports developmental theories and highlights how real happiness from parenting reflects a lasting emotional investment rather than a compensatory desire [55,56]. Policies promoting emotional well-being and interpersonal satisfaction may reinforce fertility intentions.
Childbearing was viewed as enhancing emotional and social resilience through reduced loneliness, psychological enrichment, future security, and social contribution. Some cited emotional isolation in early marriage as prompting a desire for a more vibrant family life, aligning with studies on the psychological costs of singleton upbringing [14,57,58]. Parents valued sibling companionship for fostering emotional growth and long-term well-being, reflecting a generational shift toward emotional priorities in family planning [59,60]. Practical expectations were also evident; parents hoped siblings would care for each other and support aging parents—a motive consistent with findings on intergenerational reciprocity [61–63]. A few expressed civic motivations, seeing childbearing as a contribution to demographic sustainability and cultural continuity, echoing prior findings [13,52]. These insights suggest that fertility may be driven by both personal resilience and a future-oriented sense of duty, pointing to the need for policies that reinforce family solidarity and social cohesion.
External resources—especially quality childcare and supportive workplace policies—significantly shaped childbearing decisions. Accessible kindergartens and schools reduced parenting stress and supported children’s development, in line with studies linking early education infrastructure to fertility plans [64]. Reliable childcare enabled maternal employment and dual-earner households, reinforcing findings on the role of institutional support in gender equity and workforce participation [65]. Parents valued maternity leave and job flexibility, which facilitated bonding and caregiving without career compromise—consistent with other evidence [64]. Some reported greater paternal caregiving, reflecting cultural shifts that may complement policy initiatives. The need for institutional childcare options, as mentioned by participants, is further underscored by recent WHO and AAP guidelines on screen media. Where institutional support is lacking, screen time often replaces structured child-rearing, reinforcing the demand for policy interventions [46,47]. Thus, institutional support remains pivotal in reducing structural barriers and supporting family growth, especially when paired with evolving gender norms.
Participants weighed emotional readiness, financial security, and lifestyle coherence when considering further childbearing. Many emphasized that managing expectations, sustaining work-life balance, and ensuring material stability were central to these decisions, echoing earlier findings [66]. Some parents noted that children in larger families often adopt cooperative behaviors and modest expectations, easing pressures linked to consumer demands. Flexible work arrangements and shared caregiving were commonly used strategies to maintain parental presence, supporting Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) theory of inter-role conflict [67] and related studies on workplace flexibility and reproductive confidence [68]. Parents also valued close sibling bonds, often preferring minimal age gaps to encourage emotional closeness and social development. While some acknowledged risks of delayed childbearing [69], several noted that greater emotional maturity improved parenting quality, aligning with literature on optimal childbearing age [70,71]. Gender balance was valued, particularly in ethnic or tribal communities, though without strong gender bias [72]. Homeownership signaled stability, reinforcing findings that economic security and autonomy promote positive fertility intentions [73]. Policies that support financial stability, housing access, and flexible work options may help families realize their ideal size while maintaining emotional and economic balance.
Conclusion
This study offers a nuanced understanding of planned childbearing among Iranian parents with two or more children, revealing that fertility intentions are shaped not solely by economic calculations but through a complex interplay of emotional, cultural, psychological, and structural factors. The six identified themes—Family Altruism, Value–Attitude Motivation, Real Happiness, Resilience Development, Institutional Support, and Multifaceted Balance—highlight the critical roles of intergenerational support, cultural identity, emotional fulfillment, adaptive resilience, and enabling environments in reproductive decision-making. These findings challenge deficit-based narratives about fertility decline by showing that many parents maintain a desire for family expansion when supported by meaningful relationships, personal values, and responsive institutions. To foster planned childbearing, policies must move beyond financial incentives and address the full spectrum of parental needs—strengthening family networks, aligning fertility interventions with cultural values, promoting emotional well-being, and ensuring access to flexible, equitable social infrastructure. Such a holistic approach can empower families to achieve their desired size while sustaining personal and societal well-being.
Strengths and limitations
A key strength of this study is its focus on parents with two or more planned children—an underexplored group in prior research, which often emphasized fertility decline or childlessness. This perspective offers valuable insight into the positive drivers of continued childbearing in Iran. The study also benefits from purposeful sampling across three provinces—Rasht, Shiraz, and Mashhad—which were selected to capture a broad range of fertility rates and cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic diversity. While this enhances the representativeness of the findings, expanding sampling to additional provinces would further improve transferability across Iran’s full demographic spectrum. Additionally, future quantitative research is needed to assess the strength of associations and enhance the applicability of these qualitative findings. Socioeconomic status was assessed using a self-reported income–expenditure measure. In the Iranian context, direct income reporting is often unreliable due to sensitivity and low response rates. Therefore, we used a validated, culturally appropriate proxy measure alongside education and occupation data to improve accuracy, though it remains less precise than objective SES tools. Future studies may benefit from using more comprehensive socioeconomic indicators.
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT-4o to improve the structure and grammar of the text. All content was subsequently reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final version of the manuscript.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Perception of parents who have two or more children and express a desire to have additional offspring.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330658.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Perceptions of parents with two or more children regarding the desire for additional offspring: themes, categories, and representative open codes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330658.s002
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Gu D, Andreev K, Dupre ME. Major Trends in Population Growth Around the World. China CDC Wkly. 2021;3(28):604–13. pmid:34594946
- 2.
TW B. Population growth (annual %). The World Bank; 2021.
- 3.
TW B. Population growth (annual %) - Iran, Islamic Rep.: The World Bank. 2021.
- 4. Gietel-Basten S, Rotkirch A, Sobotka T. Changing the perspective on low birth rates: why simplistic solutions won’t work. BMJ. 2022;379:e072670. pmid:36379520
- 5. Spears D, Vyas S, Weston G, Geruso M. Long-term population projections: Scenarios of low or rebounding fertility. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0298190. pmid:38574050
- 6. Tan J, Cui Q, Uchikoshi F. The increasing importance of changes in nuptiality: policy mismatch and fertility decline in low-fertility Asian societies. Chin Soc Rev. 2025, p. 1–30.
- 7. Suga K. Lowest-Low fertility in Singapore: Current state and prospects. Low Fertility in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore: Population Policies and Their Effectiveness. 2020, p. 39–66.
- 8.
Statista. Singapore: Fertility rate from 2012 to 2022. 2022.
- 9. Bagi M, Sadeghi R, Hatami A. Fertility intentions in Iran: Determinants and limitations. Strat Stud Cult. 2022;1(4):59–80.
- 10.
Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, McDonald P. National and provincial-level fertility trends in Iran, 1972-2000. The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction. 2005, p. 43–65.
- 11. Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(6):436–40. pmid:25548401
- 12. Bagi M. Childlessness and one-child intentions among recently married couples in Iran. J Iran Inst Health Sci Res. 2022;21(1):69–79.
- 13. Mynarska M, Rytel J. Fertility Desires of Childless Poles: Which Childbearing Motives Matter for Men and Women? J Fam Issu. 2019;41(1):7–32.
- 14. Akbarian Moghaddam Y, Moradi M, Vahedian Shahroodi M, Ghavami V. Effectiveness of the Education Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior on Childbearing Intention in Single-child Women. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2021;31(2):135–45.
- 15. Bicharova M, Lebedeva I, Topchiev M. Childfree in Russia: motivations and social conflicts. Man in India. 2017;97(7):23–33.
- 16. Mynarska M, Brzozowska Z. Things to Gain, Things to Lose: Perceived Costs and Benefits of Children and Intention to Remain Childless in Poland. Soc Incl. 2022;10(3).
- 17. Khodakarami B, Naseritazehgeshlag M, Parsa P, Mohammadi U. Effect of group counseling on attitude about “child as a pillar of life” in women referring to Hamadancity comprehensive health centers. Avicenna J Nurs Midwifery care. 2020;28(1):27–35.
- 18.
Brini E. With or without you. Intentions, constraints and consequences of childlessness in European countries. University of Trento; 2019.
- 19. Safari-Faramani R, Haghdoost AA, Baneshi MR, Dehnavieh R. Exploring the perception of childbearing barriers in a low fertility subgroup of Iran: a qualitative study. Electron Phys. 2018;10(6):6927–34. pmid:30034660
- 20. Alexander BB, Rubinstein RL, Goodman M, Luborsky M. A path not taken: a cultural analysis of regrets and childlessness in the lives of older women. Gerontologist. 1992;32(5):618–26. pmid:1427273
- 21. Šprocha B. Growing Childlessness and One‐Child Families in Slovakia in the Shadow of Fragile Pronatalism. Soc Incl. 2022;10(3).
- 22. Gouni O, Jarašiūnaitė-Fedosejeva G, Kömürcü Akik B, Holopainen A, Calleja-Agius J. Childlessness: Concept Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1464. pmid:35162484
- 23.
Lutz W, Skirbekk V, Testa MR. The low-fertility trap hypothesis: Forces that may lead to further postponement and fewer births in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2006, p. 167–92.
- 24. Barati T, Kanani MA, Ebadollahi-Chanzanagh H. Cultural capital and fertility: A study among married women aged 15-49 in the city of Rasht. J Popul Assoc Iran. 2021;16(31):159–91.
- 25. Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, McDonald P, Hosseini-Chavoshi M. The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction. Springer Netherlands; 2009.
- 26. Aradmehr M. Socio-demographic and religious factors affecting fertility rate among childbearing women in Easter Iran: A population-based study. Reprod Health. 2019;7(1):1553–9.
- 27. Lankarani KB, Ghahramani S, Moradi N, Shahraki HR, Lotfi F, Honarvar B. Willingness-to-Pay for One Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Population-Based Study from Iran. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(6):837–46. pmid:30123949
- 28. Ghahramani S, Sepehrpoor M, Kazerooni AR, Jahromi AT, Khoshsoroor D, Barzegar D, et al. Estimating willingness to pay for diabetes complications. Prim Care Diabetes. 2022;16(6):829–36. pmid:36253327
- 29. Ide Y, Beddoe L. Challenging perspectives: Reflexivity as a critical approach to qualitative social work research. Qualit Soc Work. 2023;23(4):725–40.
- 30. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114523. pmid:34785096
- 31. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
- 32. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 33. Wuetherick B. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. CJUCE. 2010;36(2).
- 34. Chametzky B. Coding in Classic Grounded Theory: I’ve Done an Interview; Now What? Soc Mind. 2016;06(04):163–72.
- 35. Glaser BG. Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory. Int J Qualit Method. 2002;1(2):23–38.
- 36. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51. pmid:24979285
- 37.
Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1994. p. 105.
- 38. Berger LM, Font SA. The Role of the Family and Family-Centered Programs and Policies. Future Child. 2015;25(1):155–76.
- 39. Tan J. Cross-national differences in the association between intergenerational support and fertility in East Asia. Int J Comparat Soc. 2023;64(5):528–50.
- 40. Benzies K, Tough S, Tofflemire K, Frick C, Faber A, Newburn-Cook C. Factors influencing women’s decisions about timing of motherhood. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35(5):625–33. pmid:16958718
- 41.
Kotte M, Ludwig V. Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: The role of contagion. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2011; p. 207–26.
- 42. Cicirelli V. Sibling relationships across the life span: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
- 43. Connidis IA, Davies L. Confidants and companions in later life: the place of family and friends. J Gerontol. 1990;45(4):S141-9. pmid:2365975
- 44. Eriksen S, Gerstel N. A Labor of Love or Labor Itself. Journal of Family Issues. 2002;23(7):836–56.
- 45. O’Bryant SL. Sibling Support and Older Widows’ Well-Being. J Marriage Fam. 1988;50(1):173.
- 46. Baladaniya M, Korat AS. The Impact of Digital Technology Use on Child Development: A Comprehensive Literature Review. J Pediatr Res Rev Rep. 2024, p. 1–9.
- 47. Baladaniya M. Digital Technology, Gaming, and Social Media: Understanding Addiction and Behaviour Problems in Children and Teenagers. J Drug Addi Ther. 2023, p. 1–6.
- 48. Behjati-Ardakani Z, Navabakhsh M, Hosseini SH. Sociological Study on the Transformation of Fertility and Childbearing Concept in Iran. J Reprod Infertil. 2017;18(1):153–61. pmid:28377894
- 49. Trent K, Spitze GD. Growing up without siblings and adult sociability behaviors. J Fam Issues. 2011;32(9):1178–204. pmid:22180694
- 50. Cranney S. The association between belief in God and fertility desires in Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2015;47(2):83–9. pmid:25682844
- 51. Khadivzadeh T, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Bahrami M, Taghipour A, Abbasi Shavazi J. The influence of social network on couples’ intention to have the first child. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11(3):209–18. pmid:24639748
- 52. Moeini B, Erfani A, Barati M, Doosti-Irani A, Hosseini H, Soheylizad M. Understanding the rationales behind childbearing: A qualitative study based on extended theory of planned behavior. J Educ Health Promot. 2022;11:119. pmid:35677275
- 53. Behboudi-Gandevani S, Ziaei S, Farahani FK, Jasper M. The Perspectives of Iranian Women on Delayed Childbearing: A Qualitative Study. J Nurs Res. 2015;23(4):313–21. pmid:26562463
- 54. Ahinkorah BO, Seidu A-A, Armah-Ansah EK, Budu E, Ameyaw EK, Agbaglo E, et al. Drivers of desire for more children among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for fertility control. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):778. pmid:33317476
- 55.
Adler A. Individual psychology. An introduction to theories of personality. Psychology Press; 2014. p. 83–105.
- 56. McHale SM, Updegraff KA, Whiteman SD. Sibling Relationships and Influences in Childhood and Adolescence. J Marriage Fam. 2012;74(5):913–30. pmid:24653527
- 57. Khalajabadi Farahani F, Saraie H. Intention for single child among women and men on the threshold of marriage in Tehran: Levels and determinants. Iranian Population Studies. 2013;1(1):61–85.
- 58. Lee K, Vasileiou K, Barnett J. “Lonely within the mother”: An exploratory study of first-time mothers’ experiences of loneliness. J Health Psychol. 2019;24(10):1334–44. pmid:28795604
- 59. Rijken AJ, Thomson E. Partners’ relationship quality and childbearing. Soc Sci Res. 2011;40(2):485–97.
- 60. Huczewska I, Mynarska M. From parentification to parenthood: caregiving responsibilities in childhood and childbearing desire in young adulthood. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2025;43(1):4–18. pmid:37265431
- 61. Kane D, Li K. Fertility cultures and childbearing desire after the Two-Child Policy: evidence from southwest China. J Fam Stud. 2021;29(2):576–94.
- 62. Deindl C, Brandt M. Financial support and practical help between older parents and their middle-aged children in Europe. Age Soc. 2010;31(4):645–62.
- 63. Park S-M, Cho S. Factors associated with second childbirth intention: focusing on value of children in Korean married women. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2011;29(3):292–304.
- 64. Haghdoost AA, Safari-Faramani R, Baneshi MR, Dehnavieh R, Dehghan M. Exploring perceptions of policymakers about main strategies to enhance fertility rate: A qualitative study in Iran. Electron Physician. 2017;9(10):5568–77. pmid:29238499
- 65. Musick K, Meier A, Flood S. How parents fare: Mothers’ and fathers’ subjective well-being in time with children. Am Sociol Rev. 2016;81(5):1069–95.
- 66. Price J. Parent-child quality time: Does birth order matter? J Human Resources. 2008;43(1):240–65.
- 67. Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. Acad Manag Rev. 1985;10(1):76.
- 68. Kelly EL, Moen P, Tranby E. Changing Workplaces to Reduce Work-Family Conflict: Schedule Control in a White-Collar Organization. Am Sociol Rev. 2011;76(2):265–90. pmid:21580799
- 69. Barclay K, Myrskylä M. Advanced Maternal Age and Offspring Outcomes: Reproductive Aging and Counterbalancing Period Trends. Popul Dev Rev. 2016;42(1):69–94.
- 70. Mirowsky J. Age at first birth, health, and mortality. J Health Soc Behav. 2005;46(1):32–50. pmid:15869119
- 71. Hassan MAM, Killick SR. Effect of male age on fertility: evidence for the decline in male fertility with increasing age. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(Suppl 3):1520–7. pmid:12801554
- 72. Clark S. Son preference and sex composition of children: Evidence from India. Demography. 2000;37(1):95–108.
- 73. Rohe WM, Stewart LS. Homeownership and neighborhood stability. Housing Policy Debate. 1996;7(1):37–81.