Cite this article as: Kocak, Buyukkayaci

Duman, Hobek Akarsu. Attitudes toward

fertility and childbearing among female

University students. Univ Med 2023;42:

195 -205. doi: 10.18051/UnivMed.

2023.v42:195-205

May-August 2023
UNIVERSA MEDICINA

Vol.42- No.2

pISSN: 1907-3062 / eISSN: 2407-2230

Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing among

female University students

Derya Yüksel KOÇAK1 , Nuriye BÜYÜKKAYACI DUMAN1* ,

and Rukiye HOBEK AKARSU2

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been a significant decrease in childbearing rates

in many parts of the world. Young people who delay their marriage plans

for various reasons also indirectly delay their childbearing to advanced

ages. Postponed childbearing may lead to increased health risks for both

mother and child. This study aimed to determine attitude towards fertility

and childbearing in female university students.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study involved 259 female university students.

The data were collected with Attitudes Toward Fertility and

childbearing Scale (AFCS). Data were analyzed using t test and one-

way ANOVA.

RESULTS

In the study 92.7% of the students wanted to become a future mother.

The importance of fertility for the future mean score of the students

with low income level (21.56±8.14) was found to be lower than the

students with medium (25.80±6.51) and high income level

(25.29±4.37) (p<0.05). The importance of fertility for the future mean

score of only-child students (22.57±7.09) was lower than that of the

other students (25.82±6.45). The importance of fertility for the future

mean score of the students who did not have a date was also found to

be lower than the students who had a date (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the study, students with a low income level, who are an only child and

who do not have a date during the study care less about fertility for the

future. Also, students with a single-parent family, with siblings, and no

previous sexual intercourse identify childbearing more with female identity.

Keywords: Childbearing, attitudes, female university students, Turkey

1Hitit University, Faculty of Health

Sciences, Department of Nursing,

Corum, Turkey
2Bozok University, Faculty of Health

Sciences, Department of Nursing,

Yozgat, Turkey

*Correspondence:

Nuriye Buyukkayaci Duman,

Hitit University, Faculy of Health

Sciences, Department of Nursing,

Corum, Turkey, TR 19100

Phone: +905055015752

Email: nurfatihh@hotmail.com

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4246-3607

Date of first submission, March 24, 2023

Date of final revised submission, August 8,

2023

Date of acceptance, August 22, 2023

This open access article is distributed

under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0

International License

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18051/UnivMed.2023.v42:195-205

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6890-6755
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4246-3607
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3476-0740
https://univmed.org/ejurnal/index.php/medicina/article/view/1435

196

Kocak, Buyukkayaci Duman, Hobek Akarsu Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a significant
decrease in childbearing rates in many parts of
the world. From 1990 to 2019, the global
childbearing rate per woman declined from 3.2
to 2.5. This rate is estimated to fall down to 2.2 in
2050 and 1.9 in 2100.(1) As in the rest of the world,
childbearing rates also tend to decrease in Turkey,
from 2.7 children to 2.3 in the past 25 years.(2)

The decline in childbearing rates all over the world
is thought to be influenced by factors such as the
incr eased education level of women, the
widespread use of birth control, and delayed ages
of marriage and childbearing.(3) In Turkey,
childbearing rates differ depending on the region,
education level, and income level.(2)

The decision to b ear childr en is a
multifaceted process that is influenced not only
by individual, social, and economic factors but
also by socia l policies. (4 ) Techno logica l
advancements and economic changes have
affected people’s lifestyles all over the world. The
fact that women are more active in working life
and the spread of individualization with
globalization has disrupted the traditional family
structure.(5) Increased education, employment,
and career opportunities for women have
impacted motherhood and reproductive behaviors.
As women took on more active roles in business
life and began to move away from home life to
achieve their business goals, the number of
nuclear families of two has begun to increase.
Consequently, many European countries have
experienced a decrease in the number of births
and a rise in dela yed childbearing age.(6)

Postponing parenting for individual, social,
economic, and social reasons is not always a
conscious process, but it can also cause an
increase in the incidence of infertility.(4)

In Turkey, the acceptance of childbearing
and having an active sexual life is associated with
marriage. The median age of first marriage for
Turkish women in the 25-49 age group is 21.4
years. The age of first marriage stands higher in
western countries, urban women, and women

with higher education levels.(2) Young and
educated women delay their plans regarding
childbearing to advanced ages to continue their
education, achieve their career and business goals,
and achieve economic independence, thanks to
the developed contraceptive methods.(7) Young
people who delay their marriage plans for various
reasons also indirectly delay their childbearing to
advanced ages. (8 ) Most young people are
considering having children in the future, but cite
some reasons for delaying childbearing, such as
career goals.(9,10)

Considering the social status of women in
this way, it can be said that the most appropriate
age for giving birth is between 25-35 years, when
they have completed their education and gained
some skills in business life.(11) However, the
decreasing number and quality of ovarian follicles
with advanced maternal age cause loss of
reproductive potential, widespread use of assisted
reproductive techniques, and increased obstetric
morbidity and perinatal complications.(4,12) On the
other hand, studies on the subject show that young
women who consider postponing motherhood to
later dates do not have enough information about
the time of childbearing.(13)

In this context, from a cultural and social
point of view, it is very important to determine
the perspectives of young women on childbearing
and having children in conservative societies such
as Turkey, where the status of women is accepted
as equivalent to fertility, in terms of determining
fertility and reproductive policies in the future.(14,15)

When the national literature on the subject is
examined, it is seen that there are a limited
number of quantitative studies to determine the
fertility and childbearing behaviors and attitudes
of young women, mostly qualitative studies.(15,16)

Regarding the Attitudes Toward Fertility And
Childbearing Scale (AFCS) scale developed by
Söderberg et al.,(8) Persian and Japanese versions
have been published, and Turkish validity and
reliability studies have been conducted. The
information about the attitudes among university
students for timing of their parenthood is scanty.
A previous study among female students (n=300)

197

visiting a Student Health Centre in Sweden,
showed that female university students are not
very concerned about having children before they
get ‘too old’ and had an acceptable understanding
about fertility.(17) Another study in female
university students in Cameroon, showed that
most of the female students intend to have
children in the future, but their fertility awareness
knowledge was suboptimal.(18)

Considering the f act that a deeper
understanding of the attitudes towards fertility and
motherhood may help clarify the decision to have
children among young individuals in Turkish young
females, there is a great need for further study in
this area. Therefore the current study aimed to
determine the attitude towards fertility and
childbearing in female university students

METHODS

Research design
This cross-sectional study was carried out

with female university students studying at the
undergraduate department of a state university
between May and June 2019.

Research subjects
The study population consisted of 450 female

students continuing their education in the relevant
department of the university as of 2019. Since it
was impossible to reach the whole population in
terms of time, costs, and application, the sample
size was calculated using the simple random
sampling formula.

In the validity and reliability study of the
AFCS scale, it was calculated as 26.52±5.98 for
the future importance subscale, 28.06±8.25 for
the present obstacle subscale and 15.68±5.41 for
the femininity identity subscale.(19)

The sample size required for the future importance
subscale was:

The sample size for the present obstacle sub-
dimension was:

The sample size for the femininity identity sub-
dimension:

𝑛 =
𝑡𝛼

2
,∞

2 ∗ 𝑆2

𝑑2
=

1.962 ∗ 5.982

(26.52 ∗ 0.05)2
= 79

𝑛 =
𝑡𝛼

2
,∞

2 ∗ 𝑆2

𝑑2
=

1.962 ∗ 8.252

(28.06 ∗ 0.05)2
= 133

𝑛 =
𝑡𝛼

2
,∞

2 ∗ 𝑆2

𝑑2
=

1.962 ∗ 5.412

(15.68 ∗ 0.05)2
= 181

The Attitudes Tow ard Fertility And
Childbearing Scale (AFCS) used consists of 3
sub-dimensions, and there is only one study in
Turkey in which the validity and reliability of this
scale was tested.(19) Since the evaluation of the
AFCS scale was calculated for each sub-
dimension, the calculation of the sample size in
this study was made separately for each sub-
dimension. The effect sizes in the calculations
are 5% of the arithmetic mean. As a result of the
calculations, the sample sizes of the AFCS scale
wer e determined to be 79 for the future
importance sub-dimension, 133 for the current
barriers sub-dimension, and 181 for the identity
of women sub-dimension. It was understood that
the sample size to be selected in this study should
be at least 181. All students who met the inclusion
criteria and gave their written consent to
participate were included. The study was
completed with 259 students.

The inclusion criteria were: i). volunteering
to participate; ii).being a female university student
in the undergraduate program; and iii) single
student aged >18 years. The exclusion criteria
were: i) having experienced a previous pregnancy
or childbirth, and ii) having physical, mental, visual
or auditory disabilities that may prevent reading,
understanding, and answering the items in the
questionnaire to be filled by the participants.

Data collection
Female university students who did not meet

the inclusion criteria or did not agree to participate
after being rationally informed about the study
were excluded. Although the minimum sample
size was 181, the researchers distributed 300
questionnaires, considering possible losses. At the

Univ Med Vol. 42 No. 2

198

Kocak, Buyukkayaci Duman, Hobek Akarsu Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing

Data collection tools
During data colle c tion, a per sonal

information form was used, consisting of 12
questions about the sociodemogra phic
characteristics of the students, namely age, place
of birth, place of residence, monthly income,
perceived family income, student residence, being
an only child, family type (single-parent family),
education level of the mother and father, working
status of the mother, dating at the time of the
study, previous sexual intercourse, and desire to
have children in the future.

The attitudes tow ards f ertility and
childbearing scale (AFCS)

To determine the attitudes of female
university students towards fer tility and
childbearing, the Attitudes towards Fertility and
Childbearing Scale (AFCS) was used, which was
developed by Söderberg et al.(20) and tested for
Turkish reliability and validity by Damar.(19) The
AFCS was developed for nulliparous women
between the ages of 20-30 to determine attitudes
towards fertility and childbearing, and the second
version of the scale was revised in 2015.(20) It is
a 27-item five-point likert-type scale (1-strongly
disagree; 2- disagree; 3-neither agree nor
disagree; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree). Lower
scores indicate negative attitudes towards fertility
and childbearing. The scale consists of 3
subscales on the importance of fertility for the
future (8 items), seeing childbearing as a
hindrance at present (13 items), and the female
identity (6 items). Scores range between 8-40
points for the importance of fertility for the future
subscale, 13-65 points for the childbearing as a
hindrance at present subscale, and 6-30 points
for the female identity subscale. The Cronbach
alpha coefficients of the original scale and the
subscales range between 0.862 and 0.945. In the
Turkish reliability and validity study by Damar,(19)

the total Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale
was found to be 0.82, and the coefficients for
the subscales were 0.89 for childbearing as a
hindrance at present, 0.92 for importance of
fertility for the future, and 0.90 for female identity.

Characteristics n %

Age ( years)

≤19
20-22
≥23

70
160
29

27.0
61.8
11.2

Place of birth
City
District
Village

68
108
83

26.3
41.7
32.0

Place of residence
City
District
Village

81
127
51

31.3
49.0
19.7

Income level
Low
Middle
High

25
213
21

9.7
82.8
8.1

Student residence
Dormitory
With friends at student house
At home with my family

156
63
40

60.2
24.3
15.4

Being only child
Yes
No

37
222

14.3
85.7

Family type
Nuclear
Extended

200
59

77.2
22.8

Single-parent family
Yes
No

44
215

17.0
83.0

Education level of the mother
Literate or primary school graduate
Middle school-high school graduate
College-University

196
24
39

75.7
9.3

15.1
Education level of the father

Literate-Primary School Graduate
Middle school-high school graduate

84
118

32.4
45.6

Table 1. Distribution of student’s characteristics

(n=259)

end of the data collection 285 questionnaires were
received. After excluding incomplete and
incorrectly filled questionnaires, a total of 259
forms were left to be evaluated. A total of 26
questionnaires were not included in the analysis
due to insufficient or blank responses. The students
were reached during their breaks. Each of the
students completed their questionnaire in 15
minutes on average. Explanations about the study
were made by the researchers and written
informed consent was obtained from the students.

199

In our study, Cronbach alpha coefficients were
0.83 for the whole scale, 0.91 for the “future
importance” subscale, 0.84 for the childbearing
as a hindrance at present subscale and 0.81 for
the female identity subscale.

Data analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the

SPSS for Windows 22.0 software. In statistical
evaluation, percentage and mean values were
calculated. After e va lua ting the data for
conformity to a normal distribution, t test and
ANOVA were used. Mean scores were given
together with standard deviation (SD) (Mean±
SD) and p<0.05 was accepted as the statistical
significance level.

Ethics
Permission was obta ined from the

researcher who carried out the Turkish validity
study of the scale. Before data collection
informed consent was obtained from the students.
In order to conduct the study, approval was
obtained from the Hitit University Ethics
Committee (No. 2019-106).

RESULTS

In the study, 61.8% of the students were
aged between 20-22 years. We found that 26.3%
of the students were born in the city, 49% lived in
a district, and 82.8% had a moderate income level.
We also found that 60.2% of the students lived in
dormitories, 77.2% had extended families, 14.13%
were an only child, and 17% had a single-parent
family. In addition, 75.7% of the students had
mothers who were literate or primary school
graduates, 45.6% had fathers who were middle
or high school graduates, and 36.3% had working
mothers. Finally, 40.9% of the students stated that
they were dating at the time of the study, 10.8%
stated that they never had sexual intercourse, and
92.7% wanted to become a future mother (Table
1).

In the study, the students’ AFCS total mean
score was 73.37±11.49. When the distribution of

AFCS sub-dimension mean score is examined,
the importance of fertility for the future sub-
dimension score is 25.35±6.63, childbearing as a
hindrance at present sub-dimension score is
30.73±6.66, and female identity sub-dimension
score is 17.29±4.31.

In this study, when the distribution of
students’ AFCS total mean score and AFCS sub-
dimension mean score according to some
characteristics are examined, the importance of
fertility for the future sub-dimension mean score
(21.56±8.14) of the students with low income level
was found to be lower than for the students with
medium (25.80 ±6.51) and high income level
(25.29±4.37). This difference was found to be
statistically significant (p<0.05). In addition, the
importance of fertility for the future sub-dimension
mean score of the only-child stude nts
(22.57±7.09) is lower than that of the other
students (25.82±6.45). During the study, the
importance of fertility for the future sub-dimension
mean score of the students who did not have a
date was also found to be lower than for the
students who had a date. This difference was
also found to be statistically significant (p<0.05).
In other words, according to these findings, it can
be said that students with a low income level,
who are an only child, and who do not have a
date during the study, care less about fertility for
the future. The differences between the mean
scores of age, place of birth, place of residence,
student residence, family type, the state of having
single-parent family, education level of the mother,
education level of the father, working status of
the mother, and having prior sexual intercourse,
respectively, in the importance of fertility for the
future sub-dimension was found to be statistically
not significant ( p>0.05) (Table 2).

In the study, the childbearing as a hindrance
at present sub-dimension mean score of the
students whose mothers are working (32.11±5.66)
is higher than that of the students whose mothers
are not working (29.95±7.06) (p<0.05). In other
words, it can be said that students whose mothers
are working now see childbearing as an obstacle
in planning their lives. The differences between

Univ Med Vol. 42 No. 2

200

Kocak, Buyukkayaci Duman, Hobek Akarsu Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing

the mean scores of age, place of birth, place of
residence, income level, student residence, being
an only child, family type, the state of having
single-parent family, education level of the mother,
education level of the father, dating at the time of
the study, and having prior sexual intercourse,
respectivley, in the importance of fertility for the
future sub-dimension were found to be statistically
not significant ( p>0.05) (Table 2).

In the study, the female identity sub-
dimension mean score (19.09±3.65) of the
students with a single-parent family was found
to be higher than that of the other students
(16.92±4.35). The female identity sub-dimension
mean scores of the students with only one child
(15.92±4.99) were lower than the students who
did not have one child (17.52±4.15). In addition,
mean female identity sub-dimension scores of
stude nts who have not had prior sexual
intercourse are higher (17.52±4.23) than students
who have had prior sexual interc ourse
(15.39±4.53). This difference was found to be
statistically significant (p<0.05). In other words,
according to these findings, it can be said that
students who have a single-parent family, have
siblings, and have no previous sexual intercourse,
identify childbearing more with female identity
and consider being a mother important in terms
of female identity. The differences between mean
scores of age, place of birth, place of residence,
monthly income, perceived families’ income,
student residence, family type, education level of
the mother, education level of the father, working
status of the mother, dating at the time of the
study, respectively, in the desire to have children
in the future and female identity sub-dimension
mean score was found to be statistically not
significant (p>0.05) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

In our study AFCS total mean sc ore
(73.37±11.49) and AFCS sub-dimension total
mean scores (the importance of fertility for the
future (25.35±6.63), seeing childbearing as a
hindrance at present (30.73±6.66), the female

identity (17.29±4.31) of female students were
found to be higher. In the validity and reliability
study of the scale, it was calculated as being
26.52±5.98 for the future importance subscale,
28.06±8.25 for the present hindrance subscale
and 15.68±5.41 for the femininity identity
subscale.(19) Accordingly, it can be said that female
students participating in the study generally have
a positive attitude towards childbearing and having
children in the future. In addition, these findings
show that the participants associate childbearing
with female identity and consider motherhood as
a requirement of being a woman. In addition, the
high mean score of seeing childbearing as a
hindrance at present indicates that the female
students participating in the study currently
consider having a child as an obstacle in terms of
self-realization and career planning.

In our study almost all of the female students
in the study reported that they wanted to be
mothers in the future (92.7%). In similar studies
students thought that childbearing was important
and they wanted to have children in the
future.(10,21-23) In studies conducted in Turkey, the
majority of students stated that they would like to
have children in the future.(24,25)These finding
indicate that young women have a positive attitude
and desire towards having children in the future.
In our study, the differences in mean scores of
age, place of birth, place of residence, student
residence, family type, having a single-parent
family, education level of the mother, education
level of the father, working status of the mother,
and having prior sexual intercourse, respectively,
were not significant in the importance of fertility
for the future sub-domain. It was also determined
that students with low income, who are single
children and who do not have a date at the
moment, care less about having a child in the
future than other students. In many studies,
parallel to this study, the importance women
attribute to childbearing and having children in
the future is influenced by many socio-cultural
characteristics.(16,23,25) In some studies, similar to
the results of our study, it has been determined
that the thoughts of young nulliparous women

201

Characteristics

Attitudes to Fertility and childbearing Scale (AFCS) Sub-dimensions
Importance of

fertility for the future
Sub-dimension

Childbearing as a
hindrance at present

Sub-dimension

Female identity
Sub-dimension

p value

Age (years)
≤19
20-22
≥23

24.53±6.51
25.43±6.79
26.93±5.89

0.255 30.67±6.09
30.80±7.05
30.52±5.93

0.974 16.83±3.61
17.53±4.54
17.10±4.59

0.515

Place of birth
City
District
Village

24.81±6.32
25.71±6.77
25.33±6.74

0.680 31.09±6.42
30.83±6.68
30.31±6.87

0.762 16.72±4.38
17.75±4.35
17.16±4.18

0.288

Place of residence
City
District
Village

24.88±6.28
25.81±6.81
24.96±6.78

0.550 31.01±6.54
30.72±6.77
30.33±6.66

0.850 16.67±4.39
17.60±4.37
17.51±4.00

0.291

Monthly income
0-1000 TRY
1001 TRY - 2600 TRY
≥ 2601 TRY

25.04±6.81
26.71±6.54
26.36±4.68

0.323 30.75±6.48
30.77±6.78
30.50±8.34

0.985 17.21±4.46
17.84±3.93
17.27±3.33

0.751

Perceived family income
Low
Middle
High

21.56±8.14
25.80±6.51
25.29±4.37

0.010 28.92±6.84
30.90±6.61
31.24±6.96

0.351 15.76±5.72
17.45±4.18
17.52±3.47

0.175

Student residence
Dormitory
With friends at student house
At home with my family

25.08±6.65
25.03±7.10
26.93±5.69

0.265 30.28±6.64
31.06±7.07
32.00±6.01

0.312 17.33±4.32
17.11±4.75
17.43±3.57

0.924

Being only child
Yes
No

22.57±7.09
25.82±6.45

0.006 32.32±6.40
30.47±6.68

0.117 15.92±4.99
17.52±4.15

0.036

Family type
Nuclear
Extended

25.23±6.86
25.78±5.84

0.573 30.71±6.87
30.83±5.84

0.899 17.12±4.43
17.86±3.87

0.244

Single-parent family
Yes
No

25.07±6.51
25.41±6.67

0.757 30.73±6.25
30.73±6.75

0.995 19.09±3.65
16.92±4.35

Education level of the mother
Literate or primary school
Middle school-high school
College-University

25.34±6.62
24.88±7.29
25.69±6.43

0.893 30.84±6.68
30.17±5.10
30.73±6.66

0.885 17.40±4.32
16.67±3.41
17.13±4.81

0.713

Education level of the father
Literate-primary school
Middle school-high school
College-University

25.08±6.85
26.31±6.05
23.77±7.22

0.054 30.32±5.97
31.28±7.15
30.21±6.59

0.482 17.32±4.31
17.63±4.33
16.54±4.25

0.297

Working status of the mother
Working
Not working

24.54±6.61
25.81±6.62

0.139 32.11±5.66
29.95±7.06

0.012 16.61±4.00
17.68±4.44

0.054

Dating at the time of the study
Dating
Not dating

26.72±5.89
24.41±6.96

0.006 30.87±7.12
30.64±6.34

0.788 17.87±4.52
16.89±4.13

0.072

Prior sexual intercourse
Yes
No

23.82±6.13
25.54±6.68

0.197 29.68±6.06
30.86±6.73

0.376 15.39±4.53
17.52±4.23

0.013

Desiring to have children in the future
Yes
No

25.48±6.73
23.79±5.17

0.287 30.63±6.73
32.00±5.70

0.390 17.27±4.37
17.58±3.49

0.762

Table 2. Distribution of Fertility and childbearing Scale (AFCS) Subdimension mean scores

by student characteristics

Note: Data presented as mean ± SD; Independent-samples T-test or on-way ANOVA; TRY: Turkish Lira

Univ Med Vol. 42 No. 2

202

Kocak, Buyukkayaci Duman, Hobek Akarsu Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing

about childbearing and having children are not
affected by some characteristics such as family
type, the place where most of their life is spent,
parent education and past sexual experience.(24,25)

In other studies, it is stated that similar socio-
demographic characteristics are determinative in
the formation of young nulliparous women’s
thoughts on childbearing and having children.(26,27)

This is thought to be due to the socio-demographic
and cultural characteristics of the groups of
subjects in the studies.

In our study, the mean score of the sub-
dimension of seeing having children as an obstacle
was higher in students whose mothers were
employed than in students whose mothers were
not employed. Hickman et al.(10) reported that the
desire to have a good financial status affected
women’s childbearing decisions. In another study,
having a stable financial situation and good living
conditions were also found to be effective in
childbearing decisions.(28) Considering the care
costs of newborn babies, the economic burden
of raising children in Turkey, where social policies
are inade quate in this regard, may cause
individuals with low income levels to postpone
their future plans for childbearing and parenthood.
Inadequate social policies and financial resources
to cover the cost of childcare, such as childcare
services and low wages, make it difficult for
women to balance work and family duties. This
is another reason for the de cline in
childbearing.(29) It is highlighted that having a good
financial status, easy access to childcare, and
having a job that can be done while raising children
are all important in childbea ring
decisions.(10,20,30,31) The university students in our
sample have not yet completed their education
and therefore do not have a regular income, which
is indeed very important in childbearing and
parenting decisions.

In our study, students with siblings scored
higher in the future importance of childbearing
and the female identity subscales and those grown
up in single-parent families scored higher in the
female identity subscale. In similar studies it was

determined that having siblings affects attitudes
towards having children and childbearing in the
future (30,32) while in some studies no relationship
was found.(16,20) Considering the finding that
77.2% of our students had extended families,
those who are not a single child may have more
positive attitudes towards fertility and childbearing
regarding the spiritual influence and social support
of having siblings. Besides, since having children
means gaining status, respect, and social maturity
for women in Turkey, it is understood that students
with siblings attach more importance to fertility
and childbearing with regards to their female
identity. Students who grow up in single-parent
families might see it as an advantage to have an
extended family and have more children for their
female identity.

In our study, the mean scores of female
identity subscale scores of students who had not
had prior sexual intercourse were higher than
those of students who were not sexually active.
In addition female students who were dating at
the time of the study had higher scores from the
future importance of the childbearing subscale.
Chan et al.(9) reported that having a stable partner
to share responsibilities with is crucial in
childbearing decisions. Söderberg et al.(18) found
that women with a partner had more positive
attitudes in the future importance of childbearing
and female identity subscales. In many studies, it
was also reported that engaged and married
female students had more positive attitudes
towards parenthood and childbearing,(19) and that
not finding the right partner,(9) having a partner
with common characteristics,(28) having a stable
relationship, and sharing responsibilities with the
partner, were important in the decision to become
a parent.(9) This finding was seen as a natural
consequence of the dating female university
students tending to marriage and dreaming of
having children in the future. It was also found
that students who had prior sexual intercourse
had higher scores in the female identity subscale.
This suggests that female university students are
aware of the responsibilities of childbearing and

203

that they perceive motherhood and childbearing
as important. In our study, 89.2% of the students
stated that they had not had prior sexual
intercourse. In the study, the term sexual
intercourse refers to penile-vaginal penetration.
In Turkish society, it is not welcomed for women
to have sexual intercourse prior to marriage and
it is important to protect virginity. For this reason,
although the personal information of the students
included in the study was not questioned, their
concer ns a bout la be ling, exclusion and
confidentiality of data may have caused the girls
who had previously had sexual intercourse to not
answer this question correctly. In fact, it is thought
that the number of female students who have had
prior sexual intercourse is higher in the sample.
There are limitations in this study. The first is that
the data is based on self-report. Secondly, since
our study is cross-sectional, from our results a
causal relationship cannot be inferred. It is
suggested that the scale use nulliparous women,
older individuals, and different populations.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that female students
have a positive attitude towards childbearing and
having children. However, the female students
participating in the study currently consider having
a child as an obstacle in terms of self-realization
and career planning. In the future, it can be
recommended to conduct a cohort study with
female university students and including male
students from different regions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank the students who participated in
this study.

FUNDINGS

The author (s) received no financial support
for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest
associated with this article.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

DYK and RHA contributed to writing the
manuscript, DYK contributed to design and data
collection. RHA and DYK contributed to
analyzing the data. NBD contributed to revising
the manuscript. All authors have read and
approved the final manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs Population Division. World fertility
and family planning 2020: highlights. New York:
United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs Population Division; 2020.

2. Hacettepe University Population Studies
Institute. Turkey demographic and health survey
2017. Ankara: Hacettepe University; 2018.
Turkish.

3. United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs Population Division. World
population prospects: the 2012 revision:
highlights and advance tables. New York: United
Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs Population Division; 2013.

4. Pedro J, Brandão T, Schmidt L, Costa ME, Martins
MV. What do people know about fertility? A
systematic review on fertility awareness and its
associated factors. Ups J Med Sci 2018;123:71-
81. doi: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1480186.

5. Budgeon S. Individualized femininity and feminist
politics of choice. European J Women’s Studies
2015;22:303-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
135050681557660.

6. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, Te Velde E.
Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons
and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update
2011;17:848-60. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr026.

7. Delbaere I, Verbiest S, Tydén T. Knowledge about
the impact of age on fertility: a brief review. Ups J
Med Sci 2020;125:167-174. doi: 10.1080/03009734.
2019.1707913.

8. Söderberg M, Lundgren I, Christensson K,
Hildingsson I. Attitudes toward fertility and

Univ Med Vol. 42 No. 2

204

Kocak, Buyukkayaci Duman, Hobek Akarsu Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing

childbearing scale: an assessment of a new
instrument for women who are not yet mothers in
Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:197.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-197.

9. Chan CHY, Chan THY, Peterson BD, Lampic C,
Tam MYJ. Intentions and attitudes towards
parenthood and fertility awareness among
Chinese university students in Hong Kong: a
comparison with Western samples. Hum Reprod
2015;30:364-72. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu324.

10. Hickman LC, Fortin C, Goodman L, Liu X, Flyckt
R. Fertility and fertility preservation: knowledge,
awareness and attitudes of female graduate
students. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care
2018;23:130-8. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.
1455085.

11. Myrskylä M, Margolis R. Happiness: before and
after the kids. Demography 2014;51:1843-66. doi:
10.1007/s13524-014-0321-x.

12. Sørensen NO, Marcussen S, Backhausen MG, et
al. Fertility awareness and attitudes towards
parenthood among Danish university college
students. Reprod Health 2016;13:146. doi:
10.1186/s12978-016-0258-1.

13. Garcia D, Brazal S, Rodriguez A, Prat A, Vassena
R. Knowledge of age-related fertility decline in
women: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 2018;230:109-18. doi: 10.1016/
j.ejogrb.2018.09.030.

14. Arslan S, Okcu G, Coþkun A, Temiz F. Women’s
perception of pregnancy and the affecting
factors. HSP 2019;6:179-92. doi: 10.17681/hsp.
432333.

15. Gemicioðlu S, Þahin H, Emrah ER. Türkiye’de
Doðurganlýk Analizi: Gelecekteki Doðurganlýk
Tercihlerinin Önemi. Sosyoekonomi 2019;27:223-
34.

16. Aşci Ö, Gökdemir F, Altuntaş G. Views of nursing
students regarding having children and their
status of liking children. Int Refer J Nurs Res
2017;10:18-35. doi: 10.17371/UHD2017.2.02.

17. Tydén T, Svanberg AS, Karlström PO, Lihoff L,
Lampic C. Female university students’ attitudes
to future motherhood and their understanding
about fertility. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health
Care 2006;11:181-9. doi: 10.1080/
13625180600557803.

18. Akoku DA, Achombwom Vukugah T, Abena
Tihnje M, Bigweh Nzubepie I. Childbearing
intentions, fertility awareness knowledge and
contraceptive use among female university
students in Cameroon. PLoS ONE 2022;17:
e0276270. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0276270.

19. Damar E. The validity and reliability study of the
Turkish version of the attitudes toward fertility
and childbearing scale (AFCS). Manisa Celal
Bayar University. 2019.

20. Söderberg M, Christensson K, Lundgren I,
Hildingsson I. Women’s attitudes towards fertility
and childbearing–A study based on a national
sample of Swedish women validating the attitudes
to fertility and childbearing cale (AFCS). Sex
Reprod Healthc 2018;6:54-8. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.
2015.01.002.

21. Prior E, Lew R, Hammarberg K, Johnson L. Fertility
facts, figures and future plans: an online survey
of university students. Hum Fertil (Cam) 2018;
22:283-90. doi:10.1080/14647273.2018.1482569.

22. Stevenson EL, Gispanski L, Fields K, Cappadora
M, Hurt M. Knowledge and decision making about
future fertility and oocyte cryopreservation
among young women. Hum Fertil (Cam) 2021;24:
112-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2018.
1546411.

23. Alfaraj S, Aleraij S, Morad S, et al. Fertility
awareness, intentions concerning childbearing,
and attitudes toward parenthood among female
health professions students in Saudi Arabia. Int
J Health Sci (Qassim) 2019;13:34.

24. Asci O, Gökdemir F. Adaptation of attitudes
toward fertility and childbearing scale to
Turkish. Kocaeli Med J 2021;10:194-205. doi:
10.5505/ktd.2021.48902.

25. Pimal N, Gürsoy E. Üniversite Öðrencilerinin
Gelecekte Çocuk Sahibi Olmaya Ýliþkin
Düþünceleri ve Etkileyen Faktörler. Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Hemþirelik Fakültesi Elektronik
Dergisi 2020;13:148-59. https://doi.org/10.46483/
deuhfed.675721.

26. Koçyiðit OT. Ýnfertilite ve sosyo-kültürel etkileri.
Ýnsanbilim dergisi 2012;1:27-37.

27. Kostak MA. Hemþirelik ve ebelik öðrencilerinin
çocuk sevme durumlari, çocuk saðliði ve
hastaliklari hemþireliði dersinin çocuk sevme
durumlarina etkisi ve etkileyen faktörler.
Cumhuriyet Hemþirelik Dergisi 2013;2:50-6.

28. Eriksson C, Larsson M, Tydén T. Reflections on
having children in the future—interviews with
highly educated women and men without
children. Upsala J Med Sci 2012;117:328-35.
https://doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2012.654862.

29. Ciritel AA, De Rose A, Arezzo MF. Childbearing
intentions in a low fertility context: the case of
Romania. Genus 2019;75:1-25. doi: 10.1186/
s41118-018-0046-6.

30. Hurley EG, Ressler IB, Young S, et al. Postponing
childbearing and fertility preservation in young

205

professional women. South Med J 2018;111:187-
91. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000789.

31. Williamson LE, Lawson KL, Downe PJ, Pierson
RA. Informed reproductive decision-making: the
impact of providing fertility information on fertility
knowledge and intentions to delay childbearing. J

Obstet Gynaecol Canada 2014;36:400-5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30585-5.

32. Bektas M, Ayar D, Bektas Ý, Selekoglu Y,
Kudubes A, Altan S. Determining the factors that
influence nursing students’ affection for children.
J Pediatr Res 2015;2:37-41. doi: 10.4274/jpr.47966.

Univ Med Vol. 42 No. 2