Results: It was specified that 28.6% condom, and 21.4% tubal ligation of X generation, 63% condom and, 13.5% withdrawal of Y generation was used and there was a significant difference between the groups p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The study is aimed to investigate the use and reveal differences of family planning methods of X and Y generations by using social media.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Research data was collected via social media through internet based survey software, including totally of 642 persons, who are in X and Y generations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: It was specified that 28.6% condom, and 21.4% tubal ligation of X generation, 63% condom and, 13.5% withdrawal of Y generation was used and there was a significant difference between the groups p
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:family planning · X and Y generations · social media
Abstract
Purpose: The study is aimed to investigate the use and reveal differences of family planning methods of X and Y generations by using social media. Methods: Research data was collected via social media through internet based survey software, including totally of 642 persons, who are in X and Y generations. In the collection of research data, was used the questionnaire about the socio-demographic characteristics and the use of ‘Family Planning Method’ for the individuals. Results: It was specified that 28.6% condom, and 21.4% tubal ligation of X generation, 63% condom and, 13.5% withdrawal of Y generation was used and there was a significant difference between the groups p
OZTURK, R., GUNER, O., GUMUSSOY, S., KAVLAK, O. (2020). Investigating Generation Differences in The Use of Family Planning Method: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 335–341. https://ajindex.com/articles/163524
Maree Holtshausen T, Styrdom J. Generation Y consumers: behavioural patterns of selected South African students. Bus Rev Cambridge 2006;5:314–318
NAS Recruitment Communications. Recruiting & Managing the Generations; 2006. http://www.zuniversity.org/pdf/ RecruitingManagingTheGenerationsWhitePaper.pdf 3. Özvarış ŞB. Health education and health development, 1st ed. Ankara: Hacettepe Public Health Foundation; 2001
Turkey’s Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS). Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. Ankara, Turkey; 2018. http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2018/rapor/TNSA2018_ana_ Rapor.pdf 5. TUİK. Information Technology Usage Survey 2018. http://www.tuik. gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24862 6. Blank D, Neto GH, Grando E, et al. Web-based survey on students’ conceptions of ‘accident’. Inform Health Soc Care 2009;34:189–208. [CrossRef] 7. Ponto J. Understanding and evaluating survey research. J Adv Pract Oncol 2015;6:168–171. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC4601897/ 8. Oltuluoğlu H, Başer M. The evalution of birth control methods and causes of mehhod preference among married women in Malatya. J Inonu University Medical Faculty 2012;19:167–174. [CrossRef] 9. Gür Çalışkan B, Doğan B, Güngör Olçum G. The effect of age and educational status on the family planning method choice of women living in a rural area. TAHUD 2014;18:189–194. [CrossRef] 10. Öner C, Güneri MC, Kars B, Çatak B, Telatar B. Awareness of women and related factors on emergency contraception. Nobel Med 2016;12;20–25. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/303124263_Awareness_of_women_and_related_factors_ on_emergency_contraception 11. Fan X. Statistical significance and effect size in education research: Two sides of a coin. J Educ Res 2001;94;275–283. [CrossRef] 12. Özsoy S, Ozsoy G. Effect size reporting in educational research. Element Educ Online 2013;12:334–346. https://app.trdizin.gov.tr/ documentViewer/viewer.xhtml?ext=pdf&path=iszyC6h_XyiCkvth yLGCVRTchtIskUQfVwjAQNJNHl4tlkWzY9NapXmT9830RsmZTE7ApZkecYWC9UqPys_gjnTsNvETc-0GlyYb2rKgMc= 13. Aksu H, Akdolun Balkaya NB, Özsoy S, Demirsoy G. Women’s knowledge and opinions of least frequently used contraceptives. KASHED 2015;2;59–57.
Aydın S. Reproductive health for men. Van Med J 2007;7117–119.
Rahnama P, Hidarnia A, Shokravi FA, Kazemnejad A, Oakley D, Montazeri A. Why Iranian ma