On the Stability of Reported Pregnancy Intentions from Pregnancy to 1 Year Postnatally: Impact of Choice of Measure, Timing of Assessment, Women's Characteristics and Outcome of Pregnancy

Overview

Journal Matern Child Health J

Specialty Health Services

Date 2019 Jun 21

PMID 31218607

Citations 9

Authors

J A Hall

J Stephenson

G Barrett

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Retrospective, cross-sectional estimates of pregnancy intention, as used in the Demographic Health Survey (DHS), are the global norm. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) is a newer, psychometrically validated measure which may be more reliable. This paper assesses the reliability of the LMUP and the DHS question over the first postnatal year and explores the effects of maternal characteristics or pregnancy outcome on reported pregnancy intention.

Methods: We compared the test-retest reliability of the LMUP (using the AC coefficient) and DHS question (using the weighted Kappa) over the first postnatal year using data from Malawian women. We investigated the effect of maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcome using t-tests, Chi squared or Fisher's exact tests, and calculated odds ratios to estimate effect size.

Results: The DHS question was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of unplanned pregnancies from 1-to-12 months postnatally; the LMUP was not. The LMUP had moderate to substantial reliability (0.51-0.66); the DHS had moderate reliability (0.56-0.58). The LMUP's stability was not related to any of the factors examined; the stability of the DHS varied by marital status (p = 0.033), number of children (p = 0.048) and postnatal depression (p < 0.001). Both underestimated unintended pregnancy postnatally vis-à-vis the LMUP in pregnancy.

Conclusions For Practice: The LMUP is a more reliable measure of pregnancy intention than the DHS in the first postnatal year and does not vary by maternal characteristics or pregnancy outcome. The LMUP should become the gold-standard for measuring pregnancy intention and should be collected in pregnancy or at the first postnatal opportunity.

Citing Articles

Revising the definition of "demand satisfied for modern methods of family planning:" A cross-sectional study to explore incorporating person-centered constructs of demand, choice, and satisfaction.

Gausman J, Saggurti N, Adanu R, Bandoh D, Berrueta M, Chakraborty S PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0316725.

PMID: 39761254 PMC: 11703005. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316725.

A Multidimensional and Longitudinal Exploratory Study of the Stability of Pregnancy Contexts in the United States.

Markowitz M, Lundsberg L, Gariepy A Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2024; 5(1):211-222.

PMID: 38516649 PMC: 10956533. DOI: 10.1089/whr.2024.0008.

Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) among a nationally representative sample of pregnant and postpartum women Ethiopia.

Karp C, Moreau C, Shiferaw S, Seme A, Yihdego M, Zimmerman L Contracept X. 2023; 5:100094.

PMID: 37188150 PMC: 10176025. DOI: 10.1016/j.conx.2023.100094.

Evaluation of the Hindi version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among pregnant and postnatal women in urban India.

Das S, Hall J, Barrett G, Osrin D, Kapadia S, Jayaraman A BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):602.

PMID: 34481471 PMC: 8418001. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04075-y.

Evaluating the Chichewa version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in Malawi: a validation update.

Hall J, Stephenson J, Barrett G BMC Res Notes. 2021; 14(1):231.

PMID: 34112219 PMC: 8194220. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-021-05645-1.

References

Hall J, Barrett G, Mbwana N, Copas A, Malata A, Stephenson J . Understanding pregnancy planning in a low-income country setting: validation of the London measure of unplanned pregnancy in Malawi. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13:200. PMC: 4228283. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-200. View

Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Alkema L, Sedgh G . Global, regional, and subregional trends in unintended pregnancy and its outcomes from 1990 to 2014: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet Glob Health. 2018; 6(4):e380-e389. PMC: 6055480. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30029-9. View

Roshanaei S, Shaghaghi A, Jafarabadi M, Kousha A . Measuring unintended pregnancies in postpartum Iranian women: validation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. East Mediterr Health J. 2015; 21(8):572-8. DOI: 10.26719/2015.21.8.572. View

Gwet K . Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2008; 61(Pt 1):29-48. DOI: 10.1348/000711006X126600. View

Stewart R, Kauye F, Umar E, Vokhiwa M, Bunn J, Fitzgerald M . Validation of a Chichewa version of the self-reporting questionnaire (SRQ) as a brief screening measure for maternal depressive disorder in Malawi, Africa. J Affect Disord. 2008; 112(1-3):126-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.04.001. View

Bachrach C, Newcomer S . Intended pregnancies and unintended pregnancies: distinct categories or opposite ends of a continuum?. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000; 31(5):251-2. View

Borges A, Barrett G, Santos O, Castro Nascimento N, Cavalhieri F, Fujimori E . Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in Brazilian Portuguese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:244. PMC: 4997749. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-1037-2. View

Almaghaslah E, Rochat R, Farhat G . Validation of a pregnancy planning measure for Arabic-speaking women. PLoS One. 2017; 12(10):e0185433. PMC: 5653179. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185433. View

Guzzo K, Hayford S . Revisiting retrospective reporting of first-birth intendedness. Matern Child Health J. 2014; 18(9):2141-7. PMC: 4190084. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-014-1462-7. View

10.

Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S . The stability of pregnancy intentions and pregnancy-related maternal behaviors. Matern Child Health J. 2000; 4(3):171-8. DOI: 10.1023/a:1009571313297. View

11.

Yeatman S, Sennott C . The sensitivity of measures of unwanted and unintended pregnancy using retrospective and prospective reporting: evidence from Malawi. Matern Child Health J. 2015; 19(7):1593-600. PMC: 4476926. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-015-1669-2. View

12.

Stanford J, Hobbs R, JAMESON P, DeWitt M, Fischer R . Defining dimensions of pregnancy intendedness. Matern Child Health J. 2000; 4(3):183-9. DOI: 10.1023/a:1009575514205. View

13.

Hall J, Benton L, Copas A, Stephenson J . Pregnancy Intention and Pregnancy Outcome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Matern Child Health J. 2017; 21(3):670-704. PMC: 5357274. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-016-2237-0. View

14.

Rocca C, Krishnan S, Barrett G, Wilson M . Measuring pregnancy planning: An assessment of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among urban, south Indian women. Demogr Res. 2010; 23:293-334. PMC: 3001625. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.11. View

15.

Feinstein A, Cicchetti D . High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6):543-9. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l. View

16.

Cicchetti D, Feinstein A . High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6):551-8. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-m. View

17.

Santelli J, Rochat R, Hatfield-Timajchy K, Gilbert B, Curtis K, Cabral R . The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2003; 35(2):94-101. DOI: 10.1363/3509403. View

18.

Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S . On the validity of retrospective assessments of pregnancy intention. Demography. 2002; 39(1):199-213. DOI: 10.1353/dem.2002.0006. View

19.

Barrett G, Wellings K . What is a 'planned' pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(4):545-57. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00187-3. View

20.

Morof D, Steinauer J, Haider S, Liu S, Darney P, Barrett G . Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in a United States population of women. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4):e35381. PMC: 3334919. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035381. View