Will a government subsidy increase couples' further fertility intentions? A real-world study from a large-scale online survey in Eastern China.

IF 8.3 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Human reproduction open Pub Date : 2024-09-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoae055
Wen-Hong Dong, Xia Wang, Fan Yuan, Lei Wang, Tian-Miao Gu, Bing-Quan Zhu, Jie Shao
{"title":"Will a government subsidy increase couples' further fertility intentions? A real-world study from a large-scale online survey in Eastern China.","authors":"Wen-Hong Dong, Xia Wang, Fan Yuan, Lei Wang, Tian-Miao Gu, Bing-Quan Zhu, Jie Shao","doi":"10.1093/hropen/hoae055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study question: </strong>How many couples with at least one child under 3 years would like to have another one or more child(ren) in Eastern China and will an in-cash subsidy be conducive to couple's fertility intentions?</p><p><strong>Summary answer: </strong>In sum, only 15.1% of respondents had further fertility intentions (FFI) before learning about the subsidy, and the planned in-cash subsidy policy increased respondents' overall FFI by 8.5%.</p><p><strong>What is known already: </strong>Fertility has been declining globally and has reached a new low in China. The reasons why the Chinese three-child policy was under-realized, and how couples will react to a planned monthly ¥1000 (€141.2) subsidy policy, are not fully understood.</p><p><strong>Study design size duration: </strong>During January and February 2022, a cross-sectional online survey aiming to understand families' expenses of raising a child under 3 years old, and couples' FFI, was conducted. During the survey period, 272 510 respondents scanned the QR code. This study reports the findings pertaining to questions on respondents' sociodemographic characteristics, household factors, FFI, and changes in intention from negative to positive after learning about the planned in-cash subsidy. After exclusion, 144 893 eligible responses were included.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials setting methods: </strong>Respondents' FFI, the effect of a planned ¥1000/month*36 months' in-cash subsidy (€5083.2 in total) on people with a negative FFI before the subsidy, and potential reasons for persistent negative FFI after learning about the subsidy were collected through an anonymous online survey. Stepwise binary logistic regression models were used to select associated factors. The potential fertility rate change and government costs were estimated. A stratified analysis by current child number and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Main results and the role of chance: </strong>In sum, 15.7% (22 804/144 893) of respondents were male, 15.1% of respondents reported a positive FFI, and 10.0% (12 288/123 051) without an FFI at first changed their intention after learning about the planned in-cash subsidy policy. For those who still said 'no FFI', 46.5%, 20.6%, and 14.7% chose pressure on housing status, expenses on children's education, and lack of time or energy for caring for another child as their first reasons. FFI was strongest in participants receiving the most financial support from their parents, i.e. grandparents (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.63-1.84 for the >¥100 000/year group), and weakest in those already having two children (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.22-0.24). For those with no FFI before learning about the subsidy policy, respondents with the highest house loan/rent (>¥120 000/year, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.18-1.36) were more likely to change their FFI from 'No' to 'Yes', and those with the highest household income (>¥300 000/year, OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60-0.71) were least susceptible to the policy. In our study population, about 1843 more births every year and an additional 0.3 children per woman were projected under a conservative estimation. Annual estimated cost at the provincial scale would be ¥817.7 (€115.5) million, about 1.02‰ of the total General Public Budget Revenue in 2022. The findings were generally robust in the stratified analysis and sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Limitations reasons for caution: </strong>Selection bias and information errors may exist in the online survey responses. The large sample size and detailed further analysis were used to minimize such biases.</p><p><strong>Wider implications of the findings: </strong>Fertility intentions in Eastern China are rather low. Policymakers should focus more on financial and childcare burdens for a better realization of the three-child policy, including housing, education and childcare services. An in-cash subsidy, which has never been used in China previously, shows promising potential for increasing FFI. However, the application of such policy should be in line with local conditions for better cost-effectiveness regarding fertility-boosting and fiscal sustainability for the government in the long run.</p><p><strong>Study funding/competing interests: </strong>This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2019YFC0840702). The authors declare no conflict of interests.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>N/A.</p>","PeriodicalId":73264,"journal":{"name":"Human reproduction open","volume":"2024 4","pages":"hoae055"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11484797/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human reproduction open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoae055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study question: How many couples with at least one child under 3 years would like to have another one or more child(ren) in Eastern China and will an in-cash subsidy be conducive to couple's fertility intentions?

Summary answer: In sum, only 15.1% of respondents had further fertility intentions (FFI) before learning about the subsidy, and the planned in-cash subsidy policy increased respondents' overall FFI by 8.5%.

What is known already: Fertility has been declining globally and has reached a new low in China. The reasons why the Chinese three-child policy was under-realized, and how couples will react to a planned monthly ¥1000 (€141.2) subsidy policy, are not fully understood.

Study design size duration: During January and February 2022, a cross-sectional online survey aiming to understand families' expenses of raising a child under 3 years old, and couples' FFI, was conducted. During the survey period, 272 510 respondents scanned the QR code. This study reports the findings pertaining to questions on respondents' sociodemographic characteristics, household factors, FFI, and changes in intention from negative to positive after learning about the planned in-cash subsidy. After exclusion, 144 893 eligible responses were included.

Participants/materials setting methods: Respondents' FFI, the effect of a planned ¥1000/month*36 months' in-cash subsidy (€5083.2 in total) on people with a negative FFI before the subsidy, and potential reasons for persistent negative FFI after learning about the subsidy were collected through an anonymous online survey. Stepwise binary logistic regression models were used to select associated factors. The potential fertility rate change and government costs were estimated. A stratified analysis by current child number and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.

Main results and the role of chance: In sum, 15.7% (22 804/144 893) of respondents were male, 15.1% of respondents reported a positive FFI, and 10.0% (12 288/123 051) without an FFI at first changed their intention after learning about the planned in-cash subsidy policy. For those who still said 'no FFI', 46.5%, 20.6%, and 14.7% chose pressure on housing status, expenses on children's education, and lack of time or energy for caring for another child as their first reasons. FFI was strongest in participants receiving the most financial support from their parents, i.e. grandparents (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.63-1.84 for the >¥100 000/year group), and weakest in those already having two children (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.22-0.24). For those with no FFI before learning about the subsidy policy, respondents with the highest house loan/rent (>¥120 000/year, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.18-1.36) were more likely to change their FFI from 'No' to 'Yes', and those with the highest household income (>¥300 000/year, OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60-0.71) were least susceptible to the policy. In our study population, about 1843 more births every year and an additional 0.3 children per woman were projected under a conservative estimation. Annual estimated cost at the provincial scale would be ¥817.7 (€115.5) million, about 1.02‰ of the total General Public Budget Revenue in 2022. The findings were generally robust in the stratified analysis and sensitivity analysis.

Limitations reasons for caution: Selection bias and information errors may exist in the online survey responses. The large sample size and detailed further analysis were used to minimize such biases.

Wider implications of the findings: Fertility intentions in Eastern China are rather low. Policymakers should focus more on financial and childcare burdens for a better realization of the three-child policy, including housing, education and childcare services. An in-cash subsidy, which has never been used in China previously, shows promising potential for increasing FFI. However, the application of such policy should be in line with local conditions for better cost-effectiveness regarding fertility-boosting and fiscal sustainability for the government in the long run.

Study funding/competing interests: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2019YFC0840702). The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Trial registration number: N/A.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政府补贴会增加夫妇的进一步生育意愿吗?一项来自华东地区大规模在线调查的真实世界研究。
研究问题:华东地区至少有一个 3 岁以下子女的夫妇中,有多少人希望再生育一个或多个子女?总之,在了解补贴政策之前,只有 15.1%的受访者有进一步生育意愿(FFI),而计划中的现金补贴政策使受访者的总体生育意愿提高了 8.5%:已知:全球生育率一直在下降,而中国的生育率已降至新低。中国三胎政策未得到充分实现的原因,以及夫妇对计划中的每月 1000 元(141.2 欧元)补贴政策的反应尚不完全清楚:2022 年 1 月至 2 月期间,开展了一项横断面在线调查,旨在了解养育 3 岁以下儿童的家庭支出以及夫妇的家庭收入情况。调查期间,272 510 名受访者扫描了二维码。本研究报告汇报了有关受访者的社会人口特征、家庭因素、家庭财务指标以及在了解计划中的现金补贴后意向从消极到积极的变化等问题的调查结果。经排除后,共纳入 144 893 份符合条件的问卷:通过匿名在线调查收集受访者的 FFI、计划中的 1000 日元/月*36 个月现金补贴(总计 5083.2 欧元)对补贴前 FFI 为负的人的影响,以及了解补贴后 FFI 持续为负的潜在原因。采用逐步二元逻辑回归模型选择相关因素。对潜在生育率变化和政府成本进行了估算。此外,还按当前子女人数进行了分层分析和敏感性分析:总之,15.7%(22 804/144 893)的受访者为男性,15.1%的受访者表示 "无生育意愿",10.0%(12 288/123 051)的受访者表示 "无生育意愿"。在仍表示 "没有家庭财务状况指数 "的参与者中,分别有 46.5%、20.6%和 14.7%选择了住房压力、子女教育支出和没有时间或精力照顾另一个孩子作为首要原因。从父母(即祖父母)那里获得最多经济支持的参与者的 FFI 指数最高(OR = 1.73,95% CI = 1.63-1.84,>10 万日元/年组),而已经有两个孩子的参与者的 FFI 指数最低(OR = 0.23,95% CI = 0.22-0.24)。对于那些在了解补贴政策之前没有 FFI 的受访者而言,房屋贷款/租金最高(>12 万日元/年,OR = 1.27,95% CI = 1.18-1.36)的受访者更有可能将其 FFI 从 "否 "改为 "是",而家庭收入最高(>30 万日元/年,OR = 0.65,95% CI = 0.60-0.71)的受访者最不容易受到该政策的影响。在我们的研究人群中,根据保守估计,每年大约会多出 1843 名新生儿,每名妇女会多出 0.3 个孩子。全省范围内的年度成本估计为 8.177 亿日元(1.155 亿欧元),约占 2022 年一般公共预算总收入的 1.02‰。分层分析和敏感性分析的结果总体上是可靠的:在线调查回答可能存在选择偏差和信息误差。大样本量和详细的进一步分析可最大限度地减少这些偏差:华东地区的生育意愿相当低。为更好地落实三孩政策,政策制定者应更多地关注经济负担和育儿负担,包括住房、教育和育儿服务。以前从未在中国使用过的现金补贴显示出增加生育意愿的潜力。然而,这种政策的应用应符合当地的实际情况,以提高生育率的成本效益和政府财政的长期可持续性:本研究得到了国家重点研发计划(2019YFC0840702)的支持。作者声明无利益冲突。试验注册号:不详。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Membrane-bound receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) is a stable biomarker of low-quality sperm. Women may not benefit from repeated frozen embryo transfers: a retrospective analysis of the cumulative live birth rate of 43 972 women. Sperm and leukocyte telomere length are related to sperm quality parameters in healthy men from the Led-Fertyl study. Reply: Emerging evidence of endometrial compaction in predicting ART outcomes. Emerging evidence of endometrial compaction in predicting ART outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1