Read this comprehensive essay about Tribal Family, It’s Characteristic, Classification, Functions and Kinship System.
The family is the basic unit in all human societies, though its nature may be different. The basis of every human society whether primitive or modern is the family. It is found, in one form or other, in all cultures and among all groups of people.
Image Courtesy : 4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ic2GiPJ_c6g/Ul82xaEPxmI/DSCF5622.JPG
According to Burgess and Locke, “Family is a group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood or adoption consisting a single household, interacting and intercommunicating with each other in their respective roles of husband and wife, mother and father, son and daughter, brother and sister and creating and maintaining a common culture”.
Characteristic of Tribal Family:
(i) A family has a limited size.
(ii) The relationship between the members of the family is of permanent nature.
(iii) Husband and wife are permanent sexual partners.
(iv) At least one member of the family has to be bread earner for all the members.
(v) Members have a common habitation.
(vi) Members have a common nomenclature.
(vii) Family is centre of education for the children.
Tribal societies have a simple social organisation. The society is organised on the basis of kinship.
Classification of the Family:
Tribal families have been classified on the following important basis.
1. On the Basis of Marriage
(a) Monogamous Family:
This family is composed of one husband and one wife. This type of family is very common among the tribes.
(b) Polygynous Family:
A polygynous family is a type of family in which one man marries more than one wife. Polygynous families are prevalent over most of tribal India. This type of families are found among the Nagas and Gonds and among all the tribes in Orissa.
(c) Polyandrous Family:
It is composed of one woman and more than one husband. Polyandrous family is of two types – (i) Fraternal Polyandry, (ii) Non-fraternal Polyandry. In fraternal polyandry husbands of a woman are brothers. The Khasas practise this type of family. In non-fraternal polyandry husbands of a woman are not related to each other.
2. On the Basis of Structure:
(a) Nuclear Family:
It consists of both couple and their unmarried children. These families are found among the Khasi, Juang, Santhal and Bhuinya.
(b) Joint Family:
It is composed of closely related kins or any two or more nuclear families. It may be matrilocal or patrilocal. This type of families are found among several tribes of India.
(c) Extended Family:
When the nuclear family is extended by the addition of closely related kin, it is called the extended family. It is composed of aunts, grandparents, grand children etc. Therefore, the size of an extended family is very large. These families are prevalent among the Santhal, Ho. Juang etc.
3. On the Basis of Residence
(a) Patrilocal Family:
When the couple after marriage moves to live with the husband’s family the family is called patrilocal family. This type of family is quite common among the Oraon, Ho and Kharia tribe.
(b) Matrilocal Family:
In this type of family the husband goes and lives in the house of the wife after their marriage. The matrilocal family is found among Khasi, for example.
4. On the Basis of Authority
(a) Patriarchal Family:
In this type of family, the father enjoys supreme power. Patriarchal family is a common form of family in majority of tribes in India.
(b) Matriarchal Family:
When authority is vested with the mother or any of the female members of the household it is called matriarchal family. An example is the Khasi tribe.
(c) Avunculocal Family:
When the sources of authority is neither father nor mother but uncle it s called avaunculocal units.
5. On the Basis of Ancestry and Property Inheritance
(a) Patrilineal Family:
When descent is traced through the father and inheritance of property takes, place along the male line of descent, such a family is called patrilineal family. This type of family is common among a number of tribes.
(b) Matrilineal Family:
The family in which descent is traced through the mother and in which females inherit property is called a matrilineal family. The Garo and the Khasi families of Assam may be cited as examples of this type of family.
6. On the Basis of Blood Relationship
(a) Consanguineous Family:
This type of family is formed if a nucleus of blood relatives is surrounded by a fringe of spouses. In other words, primary families together with blood relations constitute the consanguineous family.
It is composed of members who are related by birth. Marriage does not break up in this type of family and membership in the family tends to persist even after marriage. This kind of family is found among the Khasis of Assam.
(b) Conjugal Family:
This kind of family is composed of husband, wife and their children along with their affinal kins. In this family, the emphasis is on the conjugal bond. Conjugal family is prevalent among the most of the tribes in India. The family of Kharia of Orissa and Chotnagpur may be cited as an example.
Functions of Family:
Family among the tribes, as in any society, -is a functional unit. It performs certain functions for its member as well as the society. The functions of family may be discussed under two main categories – basic functions and traditional functions.
1. Basic Functions:
(i) Biological Functions:
These functions include the satisfaction of sexual needs, reproduction etc. These are considered as essential functions.
(ii) Psychological Functions:
These functions include the protection and rearing of children, safety and security of wife etc. Family is not only the birth place but also the place of protection and care of children.
2. Traditional Functions
(i) Economic Functions:
It includes fulfillment of economic needs such as food, cloth and shelter of its members. A member or some members of the family arrange for livelihood of the whole family. They also create and take care of the family property.
(ii) Social Functions:
These functions include socialisation of children for the development of personality and their education. Through the process of socialisation the members learn their culture. The family moulds the behaviour of members according to culture. Thus, family is an important agency through which culture is transmitted to the present generation.
(iii) Religious and Cultural Functions:
The family provides religious training to its members. Children learn about their customs, traditions, taboos, art, music and dancing from the family.
(iv) Health Related Functions:
The family looks after the health of its members. It also gives them the knowledge about tribal system of medicine mostly based on herbs. However, they have faith in magic, witchcraft, sorcery etc. for cure of disease. Because they believe that diseases are caused by the bad spirits.
(v) Organisational Functions:
The tribal family happens to be the principal unit in the village organisation. Each family contributes money, labour and personnel for the participation in the welfare of the village.
Finally it helps in the effective exploitation of the environment which is necessary for the satisfaction of man’s more intimate needs like hunger.
People in all parts of the world and in all the societies, irrespective of their technological level, are bound together in groups by various kinds of bonds. The most universal and the most basic of these bonds is that which is based on reproduction, an inherent human drive, and is called kinship. But social recognition is seen to override biological fact in the affairs of kinship, especially among the primitive societies all over the world.
The tribes of India are divided into lineage’s. While most of the tribes are divided into patrilineal lineages, Khasi and Garo of Meghalaya have matrilineal lineages.
Like other people of India, the tribal population too recognises both types of kinship viz, consanguineous kinship.
While consanguineous kinship includes all the kin’s related through blood or biological ties, affinal kins consist of those recognised through marriage. But an interesting and significant fact, as mentioned earlier, is that the consanguineous kinship among them does not recognised only biological ties. The case of Todas of Nilgiri Hills following fraternal polyandry may be cited as an instance.
Paternity is established among them through a social ceremony known as bow and arrow ceremony in which the particular brother who presents the common wife a bow and arrow before a congregation, is recognised as the father of the child and until another brother makes the ceremonial presentation all children born to her of several brothers are regarded as the children of that brother who last performed the ceremony.
The most profound impact of kinship ties on the social life may be felt through kinship usages found in every society. Kinship usage’s among the tribes of India present very interesting and significant spectacle.
Such types of behavioural pattern, verbal and non-verbal, explain many complex intricacies of kinship system.
It has been found among many tribes that many sets of kins avoid each other. The avoidance between daughter-in-laws and parents-in-law is quite common. Likewise, though less universally and also less rigorously, a son-in-law’s relations with his parents-in-laws found to be cramped by certain restrictions. Among the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the elder brother does not talk with his younger brother’s wife. Radcliffe-Brown has given one of the most plausible of contemporary explanations.
He points out that avoidance is a social fact and must, therefore, have a social explanation. He says that whenever people come in contact with each other, the possibilities of cooperation as well as conflict are always equally present. But there are certain kinds of kinship where hostility is regarded as against social norms. The best way to prevent such hostility from becoming manifest is to put restriction on the growth of intimacy; and hence the kinship usage’s of avoidance. Freud’s psychoanalytical explanation is based on sexual attraction and the need to prevent sexual intimacy between various kinds of relatives.
Another kinship usage which is just reverse of the avoidance relationship is an extreme degree of familiarity expressed through joking relationships. Such joking may amount to exchange of abuse, obscene and vulgar reference to sex, ridicule and so on. Apart from joking relationship between sister-in-law and brother-in-law and between a wife and her husband” brother, such relationships have also been reported between grandparents and grandchildren among the organs and the Baigas.
The Hotribe of Chotanagpur also indulge in a variety of joking relationships. Majumdar opines that joking relationships may be indicative of equality and mutual reciprocity.
They may also be indicative of equality and mutual reciprocity. They may also be indicative of a potential sexual relationship. Thus is explained the joking relationship between a man and his wife’s younger sister.
In each case the two may be potential mates. A joking relationship, when not mutual, assumes the role of social control. It becomes indicative of correction through ridicule.
Avunculate the amitate, as known in anthropological parlance, are two other kinship usages prevalent among the Indian tribes. Among the Khasis, Garos, Nairs, and a couple of other societies the maternal uncle enjoys a preeminent place in the life and affection of his nephews and nieces as a matter of convention. He has special obligations towards them which exceed those of their father and transmits his property to his nephew.
The kinship usage is called avunculate. Obviously, this is a common usage among matrilineal societies. A special role, similar to that outlined in case of the maternal uncle, for one’s father’ sister is designated as amitate. This is explicable in patrilineal tribes.
Among the Khasi, Toda, Ho, Oraon, and a host of other tribes, a queer practice has been reported, called covuada, on the basis of a similar practice known among the Trobriand Islanders by the same name in their local dialect.
The practice consists in “making a husband lead the life of an invalid along with his wife whenever she gives birth to a child. He refrains from active life, goes on sick diet and observes certain taboos” (Majumdar, 1967). Thus, the Khasi husband, like his wife cannot cross a stream or wash clothes until the spirits tribes, this practice is extended to the extent of putting up the poor husband in an adjacent hut to his wife’s where she intends to deliver the child, is made to cry and scream in agony like his wife and made to ape the action of his wife. Malinowski believed covuade to be a cementing bond of married life and a social mechanism designed to secure paternal affection.
Other anthropologists have sought to give a psycho-analytical explanation. They have attributed this usage to the husband’s desire to lighten the wife’s discomforts, in the absence or lack of proper modern medical care, by a process of participation through identification. Some scholars have attributed this practice to the matriarchal and matrilineal mode of social organisation but the prevalence of this practice till recent past, among some patriarchal and patrilineal societies like the Ho, Oraon, etc, negates this assertion.
The Family and Family Structure Classification Redefined for the Current Times
Department of Community Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Rahul Sharma, Department of Community Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi-110 095, India. E-mail: moc.liamg@renrocyduts
Author information ►Copyright and License information ►
Copyright : © Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The family is a basic unit of study in many medical and social science disciplines. Definitions of family have varied from country to country, and also within country. Because of this and the changing realities of the current times, there is a felt need for redefining the family and the common family structure types, for the purpose of study of the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. A redefinition of a “family” has been proposed and various nuances of the definition are also discussed in detail. A classification scheme for the various types of family has also been put forward. A few exceptional case scenarios have been envisaged and their classification as per the new scheme is discussed, in a bid to clarify the classification scheme further. The proposed scheme should prove to be of use across various countries and cultures, for broadly classifying the family structure. The unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure.
Keywords: Classification, definition, family, family structure, types of family
The family as an integrated and functional unit of society has for a considerable period of time captured the attention and imagination of researchers. While the family itself is a matter of study, equally important for research is its role as a factor influencing and affecting the development, behavior, and well-being of the individual. The family is a basic unit of study in many social science disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, social psychiatry, and social work. It is also a unit of study in the medical sciences especially in understanding the epidemiology and the natural history of diseases. It also forms the basic unit for family medicine. Census definitions of family have varied from country to country and also from census to census within country. The word household has often been used as a replacement for family. Using the definition as “all people living in one household” may be erroneous, as on one hand it may include people who do not share kinship, and on other hand may exclude those kin members who are temporarily away. This type of definition fails to identify units that function as families in an economic, social or emotional sense but do not usually reside in the same household. Although the literature often focuses on family living arrangements, family membership includes obligations across and between generations, no matter where family members are living.
The UNESCO report stated that a family is a kinship unit and that even when its members do not share a common household, the unit may exist as a social reality. This definition may be too broad to serve the purpose of identification of a family unit for the purpose of assessment as a factor in variables such as health. Just to give an example, a family in a developing country has a son living in the USA, happily married there with a wife, and he sends across some money to the other family members back home occasionally and visits the country once in many years. Should he still be counted as a member of the original family? Does this person (and his wife) share the same risks to their immediate health as the other family members back in the shared household? Would this individual and his dependants in the new surroundings have access to the same kind of health care options as the other family members living in the country of birth? And would the offspring of this person born in the foreign country experience the same sociocultural and environmental exposures, as (s)he would have come into contact with growing up in the country of origin?
Trask observed that while in the past, locale mattered, today social relationships are maintained over great distances with ease. Global communications such as the internet, e-mail, and satellite linkups are facilitating these relationships over space and time. Still, keeping in mind the previous pertinent questions that are raised if we want to consider the “family” as a factor influencing and interacting with other variable characteristics (such as health, environment, social behavior, etc.), the scales are still tilted toward defining the family as people ordinarily sharing a common living area. The meaning of the term “family” also depends on whether it is being interpreted in a social, biological, cultural, or statistical sense. It is important to identify a family unit and the members constituting the unit, for the purpose of studying their health, for example.
Need for Redefining
Desai (1994), as cited in Sonawat defined the family as a unit of two or more persons united by marriage, blood, adoption, or consensual union, in general consulting a single household, interacting and communicating with each other. While the definition is mostly fine, the interacting and communicating with each other may be a difficult thing to elicit or determine. An existing textbook of the medical specialty of community medicine makes it more objective by defining the interdependence part as “individuals living together and eating from a common kitchen.” It considers and defines three types of families: Nuclear, joint, and three generation families. However, practical experience in community has shown that these categories are not mutually exhaustive.
There are several new social dynamics and realities emerging with time. For example, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes and provides protection to female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage with a male partner. Family research provides insight into the structure of society and the changes taking place in the types, composition, and growth of families. Families can be classified in several different dimensions, for example, by marriage type (monogamous, polygamous), by location (patrilocal, matrilocal, and avunculocal), authority (patriarchy, matriarchy), and by kin composition (nuclear, joint). In the present new classification, only the kin composition has been taken into account. Adjectives can be added to define the family as per marriage type or by locus of residence or authority.
In a social sense people may see themselves as being members of several families, as members of families with their parents and siblings and also members of families that they have formed themselves. However, in the current proposed classification for the purpose of family, the view is that an individual will in usual circumstance belong to one family only in a given role.
Because of the multitude of definitions of “family” and the changing realities of the current times, there is a felt need for redefining the family and the common types, for the purpose of study of the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. The following definition of a “family” is hence proposed:
“People related by marriage, birth, consanguinity or legal adoption, who share a common kitchen and financial resources on a regular basis.”
Nuances of the Definition
The family will comprise of people ordinarily living in the same house, unless work, study, imprisonment, confinement, foreign sojourn, or any other exigencies compel a member to temporarily live away from the shared house. Members who have been disowned legally will cease to be members of the family. Members living away from the physical premises of the shared house, who are not expected to return back to living in the house in the future, will also cease to be considered as members of this family, even though they may be sharing financial resources.
Common kitchen does not only mean just sharing of a physical infrastructure of a kitchen, but also sharing of common cooked meals in the kitchen. In such families where sets of members share the kitchen together but do not share financial resources, and those where sets of members share financial resources but do not share the kitchen together, the different sets of members should be counted as different families. Regarding common financial resources of the family, it is the sharing that is more important than contributing. An unmarried relative may be there who is not earning and thus not contributing economically to the family purse, but will be counted toward the family if (s)he is sharing the family financial resources.
The term “on a regular basis” in the definition, is left open-ended deliberately. In some families, people may have had tiffs and stopped sharing food together for a period of time that may be few days, few weeks, or few months. After what period of time do we say that they stop comprising a single family? Similar dilemma is there for a time period cutoff regarding nonsharing of financial resources. And a very important aspect in this decision would be future intent, that is, whether the constituents think the differences are irrevocable or they think the possibility of getting together is there, whatever may be the period of nonsharing thus far. In case of any doubt, it is best left to a subjective assessment of the individual family unit at hand. The researcher may directly ask the constituents whether they still consider themselves as belonging to a single common family or not. It has been noted earlier that family membership and obligations are subjective and can only be fully understood from the perspective of the family concerned.
A student who goes to reside in any other city for few years of education and stays in a hostel, with guardians, or in a private accommodation, does not cease to be a part of the original family for those years, only because (s)he is not sharing the family's common kitchen. However, to be counted as a member of the original family, (s)he must continue to share in or receive money or other things of monetary value from the financial resource pool of the family. One important caveat would be that the individual must have the intent of returning to the original family in the future, unless compelled by needs of higher studies or job.
Another case may be of a young adult member of the family who has gone abroad for work, or who went abroad for higher education and ends up finding a vocation there. Such a person may visit back on rare occasions to his or her family of origin, but is reasonably expecting to be staying put in the new location for the foreseeable future. Such a member would not then be exposed to the risk factors or the protective social factors common to the other members sharing a residence. So this person should be counted as belonging to a separate new family, irrespective of whether (s)he has married and irrespective of sharing of financial resources with the original family back home.
Biologically unrelated individuals living together in an institutional setting, for example, hostel, boarding school, working women's hostel, and so on, or living together in a single house, will be counted as belonging to their family of origin or as separate family units (single individual families) as the case may be depending on their future intent. They will not be combined or considered together to form new family units. A person imprisoned for a known period of time does not cease to be a member of the original family (unless legally disowned by the head of the family, or by the next head of the family if (s)he happens to be the head). This is because the person is expected to have the intent of returning to the original family unit as soon as the period of confinement is over.
Classification Scheme for Family Structure
A new classification scheme for the various types of family structure is being proposed, keeping in mind the redefined “family.” The various types of family under the proposed classification scheme are detailed in the Table 1. The first step was to define the various types of family possible, which will cover the myriad variations possible in the current times. Then came the question of coming up with suitable terms to label the categories of family types, and it was thought of to come up with a uniform terminology scheme-based on the classic terms.
The proposed classification of types of family
The word “nuclear” was picked upon, that represents a married couple as forming the “nucleus” of a family, as per existing classifications of family structure. Continuing with the word “nucleus,” terms from the atomic world were explored to extend the analogies to the family structure types. For example, a proton would be an incomplete nucleus, a solitary existence. Electrons would be something outside the nucleus, that is, a married couple (nucleus) is not there. An atom would be having a single nucleus only and possibly multiple electrons. Two nuclei cannot be there in an atom, it would have to be a molecule. So the presence of two married couples makes a family “molecular.” It may be clarified here that terms from physics were chosen here just for the nomenclature of the proposed family types. This was done as the word “nuclear” was already being used. Use of these terms borrowed from physics is expected to aid in easier appreciation and recall of the various family types.
The classic term of “joint family” has been retained to define the complex sharing of resources by multiple couples. However, the traditional “joint family” has also been redefined and has two different meanings depending on the number of generations present. Generally across various cultures, obligations to siblings are usually weaker than to parents. This is the reason why the proposed definition of joint family considers different number of couples, depending on the number of generations involved. Two married brothers (or two sisters) living together with their respective families would qualify to be termed as a joint family.
It is a difficult task to categorize families according to any theoretical type or to generalize across or within cultures. An endeavor has been made to try to redefine the family as well as the types of family to keep up with the changing times. However, as per practical experience, the community throws up scenarios which may test any theoretical model of classification. Keeping this in mind, an exercise was done to contemplate a few exceptional case scenarios and discuss their classification as per the new model, in a bid to clarify the classification scheme further [Table 2].
Discussion of a few case scenarios and examples of classification as per the new scheme
Changing Family Dynamics in the Current Times
A paper on the structure of families in New Zealand over time has observed that the family is constantly changing and diversifying there. Same-sex couples have been included in the data, but they can be identified as subsets of couple-only and two parent families. Certain types of family that are becoming more prevalent there include one-parent families and couple-only families. As per the new classification, these types of families can be identified as II-Electron and III-Nuclear family, respectively. The situation of a family with a married couple only and no children can be termed as a “nuclear couple family”, but it should be classified as a subtype of the nuclear family only and not as a separate type. Similarly, the sole-parent family can be identified as a subtype of an electron family (type II).
Unlike a previous definition given by Desai, as cited in Sonawat, “relationship by consensual union” has not been taken as one of the criteria for defining the family, in the basic definition proposed. As mentioned earlier, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes “domestic relationships in the nature of marriage,” but the legal and social positions are still evolving. However, in view of the social realities, a classification for families based upon such nuclear relationships has been put forward with the use of qualifier “quasi-” (type VII). Elliott and Gray have also discussed the gray zone caused by remarriage families (or “blended families” as they term it) in classification of families. There may be differences in both the emotional and financial support given to children between “natural” and “new” parents. Also, for many children, both their natural parents may play a very real part in their lives even if they do not live in the same household. These are emerging social realities in the Indian context too. But, counting an individual (e.g., the separated “natural” father/mother) in more than one family may lead to factual mismatches and also create lot of confusion. It is best to consider the remarriage family too as within the frame of the seven types of family set in the new classification, and to label them as a subtype “remarriage family” if required.
Importance of the Changing Family Dynamics for Health
Health has been shown to have multifactorial causation. The family surroundings affect the health of an individual in several ways. Members of a family can be expected to share the risk factors for their health that may arise from various social characteristics of their shared housing, neighborhood, community, society, and culture. They would also share the positive factors contributing toward good health. All the members of a family living together who share the financial resources of the family unit would also share the risks of ill-health and costs of health care as well as the protection offered by availability of money with the family to tide over health-related issues.
Living in a family would also mean usually exposure to similar dietary behaviors and health-related lifestyles, among the family members. Another important aspect shared would be the healthcare-seeking pattern and preference. The changing dynamics of family composition can have important impact on the protective as well as risk factors influencing health. Thus, an updated definition and classification scheme for types of families serves an important purpose for the practitioners of various medical and social science disciplines in the current times.
It is to be expected that the changing societal arrangements in the current times will be a huge challenge for any model of classification of family structure. On top of that is the challenge to keep the possible classification groups to the minimum possible, so that analysis of the family structure as a factor in health and other outcomes, in future studies, does not become an inordinately complex exercise. This is a proposed redefinition of “family” and a proposed scheme of classification of family structure, to try to match the pace of change of current societies. While the objective was mainly to redefine keeping the Indian cultural environment in mind, the sheer heterogeneity of the Indian population in terms of sociocultural milieu is immense. The current proposed scheme should generally suffice for use in other countries and cultures, for broadly classifying the family structure. The intricacies and unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure defined in the present article.
Source of Support: Nil
Conflict of Interest: None declared
1. Sooryamoorthy R. The Indian family: Needs for a revisit. J Comp Fam Stud. 2012;43:1–11.
2. Sonawat R. Understanding families in India: A reflection of societal changes. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 2001;17:177–86.
3. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO; 1992. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and Pacific. The changing family in Asia: Bangladesh, India, Japan, Philippines and Thailand.
4. Hodgson RM, Birks KS. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, Massey University; 2002. Statistics New Zealand's definition of family, its implications for the accuracy of data and effectiveness of policy targeting. Student paper no. 4.
5. Elliott S, Gray A. New Zealand: New Zealand Immigration Service; 2000. Immigration Research Programme: Family Structures. A report for the New Zealand Immigration Service.
6. Trask BS. New York: Springer; 2010. Globalization and families: Accelerated systemic social change.
7. Park K. 22nd ed. Jabalpur: Banarsidas Bhanot; 2013. Park's text book of Preventive and Social Medicine.
8. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Gazette of India. No. 43 of 2005. [Last accessed on 2013 Aug 19]. Available at: www.wcd.nic.in/wdvact.pdf .
Articles from Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications