» Articles » PMID: 32096094

Intentionally or Ambivalently Risking a Short Interpregnancy Interval: Reproductive-Readiness Factors in Women's Postpartum Non-Use of Contraception

Overview
Journal Demography
Specialty Public Health
Date 2020 Feb 26
PMID 32096094
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A focus of research on short interpregnancy intervals (IPI) has been on young disadvantaged women whose births are likely to be unintended. Later initiation of family formation in the United States and other high-income countries points to the need to also consider a woman's attributes indicative of readiness for purposefully accelerated family formation achieved through short IPIs. We test for whether factors indicating "reproductive readiness"-including being married, being older, and having just had a first birth or a birth later than desired-predict a woman's non-use of contraception in the postpartum months. We also test for whether this contraceptive non-use results explicitly from wanting to become pregnant again. The data come from the 2012-2015 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, representing women who recently gave birth in any of 35 U.S. states and New York City (N = 120,111). We find that these reproductive-readiness factors are highly predictive of women's postpartum non-use of contraception because of a stated desire to become pregnant and are moderately predictive of contraceptive non-use without an explicit pregnancy intention. We conclude that planning for, or ambivalently risking, a short IPI is a frequent family-formation strategy for women whose family formation has been delayed. This is likely to become increasingly common as family formation in the United States is initiated later in the reproductive life course.

Citing Articles

Postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive adoption after a statewide initiative.

Gifford K, McColl R, McDuffie M, Boudreaux M Health Serv Res. 2024; 59(3):e14300.

PMID: 38491794 PMC: 11063091. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.14300.

References
1.
Klebanoff M . Interpregnancy Interval and Pregnancy Outcomes: Causal or Not?. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129(3):405-407. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001913. View

2.
DaVanzo J, Hale L, Razzaque A, Rahman M . The effects of pregnancy spacing on infant and child mortality in Matlab, Bangladesh: how they vary by the type of pregnancy outcome that began the interval. Popul Stud (Camb). 2008; 62(2):131-54. DOI: 10.1080/00324720802022089. View

3.
Miller W, Barber J, Gatny H . The effects of ambivalent fertility desires on pregnancy risk in young women in the USA. Popul Stud (Camb). 2012; 67(1):25-38. PMC: 3570750. DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2012.738823. View

4.
White K, Teal S, Potter J . Contraception after delivery and short interpregnancy intervals among women in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125(6):1471-1477. PMC: 4443868. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000841. View

5.
Ball S, Pereira G, Jacoby P, de Klerk N, Stanley F . Re-evaluation of link between interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes: retrospective cohort study matching two intervals per mother. BMJ. 2014; 349:g4333. PMC: 4137882. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g4333. View