Pregnancy intention data completeness, quality and utility in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.
Assessment
Desired family size
Fertility
Low birthweight
Measurement
Neonatal mortality
Pregnancy intention
Retrospective reporting
Stillbirth
Survey
Journal
Population health metrics
ISSN: 1478-7954
Titre abrégé: Popul Health Metr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101178411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 02 2021
08 02 2021
Historique:
entrez:
9
2
2021
pubmed:
10
2
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An estimated 40% of pregnancies globally are unintended. Measurement of pregnancy intention in low- and middle-income countries relies heavily on surveys, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), yet few studies have evaluated survey questions. We examined questions for measuring pregnancy intention, which are already in the DHS, and additional questions and investigated associations with maternity care utilisation and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The EN-INDEPTH study surveyed 69,176 women of reproductive age in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Uganda and Bangladesh (2017-2018). We investigated responses to survey questions regarding pregnancy intention in two ways: (i) pregnancy-specific intention and (ii) desired-versus-actual family size. We assessed data completeness for each and level of agreement between the two questions, and with future fertility desire. We analysed associations between pregnancy intention and number and timing of antenatal care visits, place of delivery, and stillbirth, neonatal death and low birthweight. Missing data were <2% in all questions. Responses to pregnancy-specific questions were more consistent with future fertility desire than desired-versus-actual family size responses. Using the pregnancy-specific questions, 7.4% of women who reported their last pregnancy as unwanted reported wanting more children in the future, compared with 45.1% of women in the corresponding desired family size category. Women reporting unintended pregnancies were less likely to attend 4+ antenatal care visits (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83), have their first visit during the first trimester (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.79), and report stillbirths (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73) or neonatal deaths (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), compared with women reporting intended pregnancies. We found no associations for desired-versus-actual family size intention. We found the pregnancy-specific intention questions to be a much more reliable assessment of pregnancy intention than the desired-versus-actual family size questions, despite a reluctance to report pregnancies as unwanted rather than mistimed. The additional questions were useful and may complement current DHS questions, although these are not the only possibilities. As women with unintended pregnancies were more likely to miss timely and frequent antenatal care, implementation research is required to improve coverage and quality of care for those women.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
An estimated 40% of pregnancies globally are unintended. Measurement of pregnancy intention in low- and middle-income countries relies heavily on surveys, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), yet few studies have evaluated survey questions. We examined questions for measuring pregnancy intention, which are already in the DHS, and additional questions and investigated associations with maternity care utilisation and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
METHODS
The EN-INDEPTH study surveyed 69,176 women of reproductive age in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Uganda and Bangladesh (2017-2018). We investigated responses to survey questions regarding pregnancy intention in two ways: (i) pregnancy-specific intention and (ii) desired-versus-actual family size. We assessed data completeness for each and level of agreement between the two questions, and with future fertility desire. We analysed associations between pregnancy intention and number and timing of antenatal care visits, place of delivery, and stillbirth, neonatal death and low birthweight.
RESULTS
Missing data were <2% in all questions. Responses to pregnancy-specific questions were more consistent with future fertility desire than desired-versus-actual family size responses. Using the pregnancy-specific questions, 7.4% of women who reported their last pregnancy as unwanted reported wanting more children in the future, compared with 45.1% of women in the corresponding desired family size category. Women reporting unintended pregnancies were less likely to attend 4+ antenatal care visits (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83), have their first visit during the first trimester (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.79), and report stillbirths (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73) or neonatal deaths (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), compared with women reporting intended pregnancies. We found no associations for desired-versus-actual family size intention.
CONCLUSIONS
We found the pregnancy-specific intention questions to be a much more reliable assessment of pregnancy intention than the desired-versus-actual family size questions, despite a reluctance to report pregnancies as unwanted rather than mistimed. The additional questions were useful and may complement current DHS questions, although these are not the only possibilities. As women with unintended pregnancies were more likely to miss timely and frequent antenatal care, implementation research is required to improve coverage and quality of care for those women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33557851
doi: 10.1186/s12963-020-00227-y
pii: 10.1186/s12963-020-00227-y
pmc: PMC7869206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6Investigateurs
Peter Byass
(P)
Joy E Lawn
(JE)
Peter Waiswa
(P)
Hannah Blencowe
(H)
Judith Yargawa
(J)
Joseph Akuze
(J)
Ane B Fisker
(AB)
Justiniano S D Martins
(JSD)
Amabelia Rodrigues
(A)
Sanne M Thysen
(SM)
Gashaw Andargie Biks
(GA)
Solomon Mokonnen Abebe
(SM)
Tadesse Awoke Ayele
(TA)
Telake Azale Bisetegn
(TA)
Tadess Guadu Delele
(TG)
Kassahun Alemu Gelaye
(KA)
Bisrat Misganaw Geremew
(BM)
Lemma Derseh Gezie
(LD)
Tesfahun Melese
(T)
Mezgebu Yitayal Mengistu
(MY)
Adane Kebede Tesega
(AK)
Temesgen Azmeraw Yitayew
(TA)
Simon Kasasa
(S)
Edward Galigawango
(E)
Collins Gyezaho
(C)
Judith Kaija
(J)
Dan Kajungu
(D)
Tryphena Nareeba
(T)
Davis Natukwatsa
(D)
Valerie Tusubira
(V)
Yeetey A K Enuameh
(YAK)
Kwaku P Asante
(KP)
Francis Dzabeng
(F)
Seeba Amenga Etego
(SA)
Alexander A Manu
(AA)
Grace Manu
(G)
Obed Ernest Nettey
(OE)
Sam K Newton
(SK)
Seth Owusu-Agyei
(S)
Charlotte Tawiah
(C)
Charles Zandoh
(C)
Nurul Alam
(N)
Nafisa Delwar
(N)
M Moinuddin Haider
(MM)
Md Ali Imam
(MA)
Kaiser Mahmud
(K)
Angela Baschieri
(A)
Simon Cousens
(S)
Vladimir S Gordeev
(VS)
Victoria Ponce Hardy
(VP)
Doris Kwesiga
(D)
Kazuyo Machiyama
(K)
Références
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Apr;6(4):e380-e389
pubmed: 29519649
Popul Stud (Camb). 2020 Mar;74(1):1-21
pubmed: 31694465
Reprod Health. 2017 Feb 9;14(1):23
pubmed: 28183308
Midwifery. 2019 Jan;68:30-38
pubmed: 30343263
J Glob Health. 2019 Jun;9(1):010901
pubmed: 30820319
Demography. 2015 Feb;52(1):83-111
pubmed: 25573169
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Mar;21(3):467-474
pubmed: 27491527
Matern Child Health J. 2011 Feb;15(2):205-16
pubmed: 20012348
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e555-e566
pubmed: 32199123
Popul Stud (Camb). 2003;57(1):77-93
pubmed: 12745811
Popul Stud (Camb). 2017 Jul;71(2):187-209
pubmed: 28440109
Demogr Res. 2010 Aug 6;23:293-334
pubmed: 21170147
Popul Stud (Camb). 2012 Nov;66(3):223-39
pubmed: 22783949
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Feb;4(2):e98-e108
pubmed: 26795602
Contraception. 2013 Oct;88(4):553-60
pubmed: 23706906
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Nov 05;13:200
pubmed: 24188251
Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Jun;45(2):277-99
pubmed: 24931080
Reprod Health. 2013 Sep 16;10:50
pubmed: 24034506
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2013 Sep 08;13:36
pubmed: 24011335
Stud Fam Plann. 2016 Sep;47(3):252-63
pubmed: 27595238
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0205487
pubmed: 30335769
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Feb 1;136(3):374-9
pubmed: 7352527
Demography. 2007 Nov;44(4):729-45
pubmed: 18232208
Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):604-616
pubmed: 26794073
Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):587-603
pubmed: 26794078
BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8
pubmed: 17947786
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Mar;109(3):678-86
pubmed: 17329520
Matern Child Health J. 2019 Sep;23(9):1177-1186
pubmed: 31218607
Stud Fam Plann. 2008 Mar;39(1):18-38
pubmed: 18540521
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Feb 1;90(2):139G-149G
pubmed: 22423165
Matern Child Health J. 2013 Apr;17(3):493-500
pubmed: 22527770
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Jul-Aug;34(4):198-205
pubmed: 12214910
Afr J Reprod Health. 2019 Sep;23(3):79-95
pubmed: 31782634
Afr J Reprod Health. 2019 Dec;23(4):81-91
pubmed: 32227743
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Nov;71(10):1764-72
pubmed: 20541305
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012 Oct;3(3):107-12
pubmed: 22980735
Demography. 2016 Jun;53(3):805-34
pubmed: 27150965
Popul Stud (Camb). 2006 Nov;60(3):243-56
pubmed: 17060052
Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2003 Dec;29(4):158-66
pubmed: 14665424
Matern Child Health J. 2015 Jul;19(7):1593-600
pubmed: 25636647
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 16;11(6):e0157760
pubmed: 27309727
Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Sep;45(3):301-14
pubmed: 25207494
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Mar;21(3):670-704
pubmed: 28093686