A. D. Sarvarova, S. S. Tupitsyn, L. S. Tupitsyna. The Dynamic of the Fertility Age Model in the Two Regions of Russia

UDК 314.12(470.345)

DOI: 10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.924-944

Abstract

Introduction. The increase of the age of mothers at the birth of children is observed in the modern period. The speed of this process in different regions of Russia and the world is different. The aim of this research is to estimate the average age of mothers and the number of children born by one woman in Tyumen and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in 2017–2018.

Materials and Methods. The archival documents from medical institutions about 676 women who registered for pregnancy have been analyzed. For temporary comparison for the period from 1985 to 2003, we use the data presented in a previously published monograph. The standard methods of statistics, spatial and temporal analysis are used, which have made it possible to identify the dynamics of the age model of fertility.

Results. The authors have determine that the distribution of women by age at the birth of children is the same in two Russian cities. A group of women aged 26 to 33 years is represented with 55% frequency. The average age of women in labor from two cities is the same. In Tyumen is 30.1 ± 0.63, in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is 29.5 ± 0.38. The article provides evidence that in the previous period, the proportion of women in labor aged 18 to 25 years was 60%. In both cities, the distribution of women by the number of births is the same, 83% gave birth twice. 14% of children were born in third births. In the previous time interval, 65% of children were born in first birth. During this period it has been defined that the average number of births in the city of Tyumen is less than in the rural areas of the south of the Tyumen region, and less than among the indigenous women in the north of the region (Khanty and Mansi).

Discussion and Conclusion. In the studied period, the dynamic of increase of the age of women in labor is obvious. One of the reasons for this trend is the increase count of mothers giving birth again. The financial support from the state makes possible to implement the two-child and large family model in Russia. But it should be aware of the increased risk of biological problems in the group of older women. It is advisable to discuss the negative consequences of delayed motherhood, for example, through the education system. The material of the article is useful, first of all, for future parents.

Keywords: mother’s age, number of children in the family, distribution of women in labor by age, Tyumen region, Kamchatka, consequences of delayed motherhood

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that there is not conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments. The authors express their gratitude and deep appreciation to Vladimir Nikolaevich Arkhangelsky, Cand. Sci (Economics), Head of the Department of Theoretical Problems of Reproduction and Population Policy of the Center for the Study of Population Problems of the Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University for the author’s calculations according to Rosstat data.

For citation: Sarvarova A.D., Tupitsyn S.S., Tupitsyna L.S. The Dynamic of the Fertility Age Model in the Two Regions of Russia. Regionology. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2022;30(4):924–944. doi: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.924-944

REFERENCES

1. Beaujouan E., Toulemon L. European Countries with Delayed Childbearing are not Those with Lower Fertility. Journal of Population Sciences. 2021;77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00108-0

2. Arkhangel’skii V.N., Kalachikova O.N. Maternal Age at First Birth: Dynamics, Regional Differences, Determination. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2020;13(5):200–217. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2020.5.71.12

3. Shadrikov A.V. Reproductive Attitudes of Young Rural Women in the Republic of Tatarstan. Regionology. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2019;27(1):122–137. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.106.027.201901.122-137

4. Kazenin K.I., Kozlov V.A. Childbearing age in Dagestan: Significance of the Ethnic Factor Under the Conditions of Modernization. Population. 2017;20(1):46–58. Available at: https://www.jour.fnisc.ru/index.php/population/article/view/6521 (accessed 02.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

5. Khrzhanovskaya A.A. The Role of Organized Religion in Reproductive Behavior of the Population in Modern Russia: Empirical Estimates by the Regions. World of Economics and Management. 2019;19(4):127–139. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.25205/2542-0429-2019-19-4-127-139

6. McMahon С.A., Boivin J., Gibson F.L., et al. Age at First Birth, Mode of Conception and Psychological Wellbeing in Pregnancy: Findings from the Parental Age and Transition to Parenthood Australia (PATPA) Study. Human Reproduction. 2011;26(6):1389–1398 doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der076

7. Hopcroft R.L. Husband’s Income, Wife’s Income, and Number of Biological Children in the U.S. Biodemography and Social Biology. 2022;67(1):71–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2022.2037070

8. Zhuravleva T.L., Gavrilova Ya.A. Analysis of Fertility Determinants in Russia: What do RLMS Data Say? HSE Economic Journal. 2017;21(1):145–187. Available at: https://ej.hse.ru/2017-21-1/204563899.html (accessed 02.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

9. Marphatia A.A., Saville N.M, Amable G.S., et al. How Much Education Is Needed to Delay Women’s Age at Marriage and First Pregnancy? Frontiers in Public Health. 2019;7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00396

10. Budu E., Chattu V.K., Ahinkorah B.O., et al. Early Age at First Childbirth and Skilled Birth Attendance During Delivery Among Young Women in Sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2021;21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04280-9

11. Ahinkorah B.O., Kang M., Perry L., Brooks F., Hayen A. Prevalence of First Adolescent Pregnancy and its Associated Factors in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multi-Country Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246308

12. Gokova O.V. Kiseleva A.M. Demographic Development Management in Russia, France and Germany: A Comparative Study of Reproductive Attitudes and Attitudes Toward the Institution of Marriage. Management Issues. 2016;(2):68–74. Available at: https://editorial.journal-management.com/file/F1CE6629-384D-49DB-8120-9EC29B54F2E9 (accessed 02.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

13. Ipatova A., Tyndik A. Reproductive Age: 30 Years Old in Preferences and Biographies. Universe of Russia. 2015;24(4):123–148. Available at: https://mirros.hse.ru/article/view/4921 (accessed 03.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

14. Zemlyanova E.V., Chumarina V.Z. Births’ Postponement by Women in Russia within Modern Socio-Economic Context. Social Aspects of Population Health. 2018;(6). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21045/2071-5021-2018-64-6-9

15. Attali E., Yogev Ya. The Impact of Advanced Maternal Age on Pregnancy Outcome. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021;70:2–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.06.006

16. Correa-de-Araujo R., Yoon S.S. Clinical Outcomes in High-Risk Pregnancies Due to Advanced Maternal Age Published. Journal of Women’s Health. 2021;30(2):160–167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8860

17. Simchen M.J., Yinon Y., Moran O., Schiff E., Sivan E. Pregnancy Outcome After Age 50. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006;108(5):1084–1088. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000240139.46018.bd

18. Zasloff E., Schytt E., Waldenström U. First Time Mothers’ Pregnancy and Birth Experiences Varying by Age. Acta Obstetetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2007;86(11):1328–1336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340701657209

19. Gilbert W., Nesbit T., Danielsen B. Childbearing Beyond Age 40: Pregnancy Outcome in 24,032 Cases. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;93(1):9–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00382-2

20. Morais Fernandes F., Oliveira Santos E., Barbosa I.R. Age of First Pregnancy in Brazil: Data from the National Health Survey. Journal of Human Growth and Development. 2019;29(3):304–312. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.v29.9523

21. Sedgh G., Finer L., Bankole A., Eilers M., Singh S. Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth, and Abortion Rates Across Countries: Levels and Recent Trends. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015;56(2):223–230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.007

22. Rasheed S., Abdelmonem A., Amin M. Adolescent Pregnancy in Upper Egypt. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2010;112(1):21–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.08.006

23. Amstislavsky S.Ya., Brusentsev E.Yu., Petrova O.M., Naprimerova V.A., Levinson A.L. Development and Ageing of the Mammalian Reproductive System. Ontogenez. 2020;51(1):51–63. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0475145020010073

24. Zenkina V.G., Solodkova O.A., Bozhko G.G., Agibalova A.A., Zenkin I.S. Molecular Mechanisms of Oogenesis. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2021;20(2):139–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2021-2-139-147

25. Demikova N.S., Podolnaya M.A., Lapina A.S., Volodin N.N., Asanov A.Yu. Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) Incidence Dynamics in the Regions of the Russian Federation in 2011–2017. Pediatria. 2019;98(2):43–48. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.24110/0031-403X-2019-98-2-42-48

26. Kostritsov А.S., Demidenko L.A., Gorda M.V. Dynamics of the Incidence of the Down Syndrome in the Republic of the Crimea. Tavricheskiy Mediko-Biologicheskiy Vestnik. 2020;23(4):27–32. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46470730 (accessed 03.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

27. Demikova N.S., Podolnaya M.А., Lapina A.S. Mother’s Age as a Risk Factor of Birth Defects. Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 2020;65(2):34–39. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.21508/1027-4065-2020-65-2-34-39

28. Kenzhebaeva K.A., Kabyeva S.M., Zhumakanova K.S., Galiyevtf G.K., Zhangabulova R.M. Risk Factors for Congenital Heart Diseases of Newborns in a Number of Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Medicine and Ecology. 2018;(2):49–54. URL: https://medecol.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/35 (accessed 28.06.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

29. Sergeeva E.V., Nee A., Shumatova T.A., Bykova O.G., Prikhodchenko N.G., Zernova E.S. Assessment of Antenatal Risk Factors for the Formation of Congenital Defects of the Development of the Urinary System in Children. Medical Council. 2022;(1):281–287. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.21518/2079-701X-2022-16-1-281-287

30. Dudareva Yu.A, Shipilov A.A. Efficacy of Prenatal Diagnostic in Mothers of Children with Chromosomal Aberrations Diagnosed Postnatally. Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health. 2021;4(1):42–45. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.32364/2618-8430-2021-4-1-42-45

31. Mikhaltsov N.N., Morozov M.Y. About the Problem of a Dialogue between Theology and Medical Deontology. The Works of the Belgorod Theological Seminary. 2017;(7):38–42. URL: http://bel-seminaria.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Sbornik_6_Trudy-BPS.pdf (accessed 03.07.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

32. Sychev A.A. The Problem of Abortion in Orthodox Canon Law. Social Norms and Practices. 2022;(1)40–53. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.24412/2713-1033-2022-1-40-53

33. Akhilgova Z.S., Volkov V.G., Granatovich N.N. Evaluation of the Frequency and Structure of Abortions in the Region of Central Russia. V.F. Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;6(3):140–144. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.18821/2313-8726-2019-6-3-140-144

Submitted 10.08.2022; approved after reviewing 03.10.2022; accepted for publication 11.10.2022.

About the authors:

Alena D. Sarvarova, Master Student of Biology of the Vitus Bering Kamchatka State University (4 Pogranichnaya St., Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 683031, Russian Federation) ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9373-6425, kadtsynalena@gmail.com

Sergey S. Tupitsyn, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology and Evolutionary Ecology of Animals, Tyumen State University (6 Volodarskiy St., Tyumen 625003, Russian Federation), Cand. Sci. (Biology), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5986-3669, s.s.tupicyn@utmn.ru

Lyudmila S. Tupitsyna, Associate Professor, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Tyumen State University (6 Volodarskiy St., Tyumen 625003, Russian Federation), Cand. Sci. (Biology), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9544-3418, l.s.tupicyna@utmn.ru

Contribution of the authors:

A. D. Sarvarova – collection and primary analysis of data.

S. S. Tupitsyn – literature review; preparation of graphic materials; critical analysis and text revision.

L. S. Tupitsyna – scientific guidance; determination of research objectives; critical analysis of the research results.

The authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

To download article