Open Journal Systems

Using panel data to examine pregnancy attitudes over time

Heini Väisänen, Rachel K. Jones

Abstract

There is a lack of research examining changes in women’s fertility attitudes over relatively short periods of time. The aim of this study was to determine whether and how women’s attempts to get pregnant and their desire to avoid pregnancy changed over six months’ time as well as which characteristics and circumstances were associated with these changes. Using multinomial regression, we analyzed two panels of data from a sample of approximately 3,000 U.S. adult women gathered within six months apart. Only 4% of the women were trying to get pregnant at both time points, but six percent went from trying to not or vice versa. Two-thirds reported a strong desire to avoid pregnancy at both points, but 9% transitioned from strong to not strong and an additional 7% transitioned from not strong to strong. Women who transitioned to a more serious romantic relationship were at increased risk of transitioning to trying to become pregnant and, not surprisingly, to a weaker pregnancy avoidance. Some of the variables we tested, including changes in employment status and race/ethnicity, were asso-ciated with one outcome but not the other. The results highlight the importance of taking a ho-listic perspective of women’s lives when studying pregnancy intentions and in reproductive health care services such as contraceptive counseling. Context matters and it may change rapidly.

Keywords

fertility intentions; pregnancy avoidance; pregnancy planning; panel data

Full Text:

PDF

References

Becker G S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family (Enlarged ed.). Cambridge, Mass, London: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Berrington A and Pattaro S. (2014). Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: A life course perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, 21, 10–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.12.0037.

Chibber K S, Biggs M A, Roberts S C M, et al. (2014). The role of intimate partners in women’s reasons for seeking abortion. Women’s Health Issues: Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 24(1): e131–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.10.007.

Finer L B and Henshaw S K. (2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(2): 90–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-2393.2006.tb00065.x6.

Finer L B and Zolna M R. (2014). Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S1): S43–S48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.3014162.

Frost J J, Singh S and Finer L B.(2007). Factors associated with contraceptive use and nonuse, United States, 2004. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(2): 90–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1363/3909007.

Gatny H, Kusunoki Y and Barber J. (2014). Pregnancy scares and subsequent unintended pregnancy. Demographic Research, 31(40): 1229–1242.

Hartnett C S. (2014). White-Hispanic differences in meeting lifetime fertility intentions in the US. Demo-graphic Research, 30, 1245–1276.

Heaton T B, Jacobson C K and Holland K.(1999). Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2): 531–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/35376711.

Johnson-Hanks J A, Bachrach C A, Morgan S P, et al. (2011). Understanding Family Change and Varia-tion: Toward a Theory of Conjunctural Action. Springer Science & Business Media.

Jones J, Mosher W and Daniels K. (2012). Current contraceptive use in the United States, 2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995.Washington DC: National Center for Health Statistics. Re-trieved from http://198.246.124.22/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf

Jones R K, Tapales A, Lindberg L D, et al. (2015). Using longitudinal data to understand changes In consistent contraceptive use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 47(3): 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1363/47e4615.

Kreyenfeld M. (2010). Uncertainties in female employment careers and the postponement of parenthood in Germany. European Sociological Review, 26(3): 351–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp02623.

McQuillan J, Greil A L and Shreffler K M. (2011). Pregnancy intentions among women who do not try: Focusing on women who are okay either way. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(2): 178–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-010-0604-9.

McQuillan J, Greil A L, Shreffler, K M, et al. (2015). The importance of motherhood and fertility inten-tions among US women. Sociological Perspectives, 58(1): 20–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07311214145343933.

Miller W B, Rodgers J L and Pasta D J. (2010). Fertility motivations of youth predict later fertility out-comes: A prospective analysis of National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Data. Biodemography and Social Biology, 56(1): 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485561003709131.

Moreau C, Hall K, Trussell J, et al. (2013). Effect of prospectively measured pregnancy intentions on the consistency of contraceptive use among young women in Michigan. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 28(3): 642–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des421.

Morgan S P. (1982). Parity-specific fertility intentions and uncertainty: The United States, 1970 to 1976. Demography, 19(3): 315–334.

Morgan S P and Rackin H. (2010). The correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 36(1): 91–118.

Reed F W and Mcbroom W H. (1995). The impact of marriage on fertility intentions and related values. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 25(1): 91–8.

Santelli J S, Rochat R, Hatfield-Timajchy K, et al. (2003). The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(2): 94–101.

White L and McQuillan J. (2006). No longer intending: The relationship between relinquished fertility intentions and distress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2): 478–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00266.x.

Williams R. (2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and mar-ginal effects. The Stata Journal, 12(2): 308–331.


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18063/IJPS.2015.01.007
(2003 Abstract Views, 1794 PDF Downloads)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2015 Heini Väisänen, Rachel K. Jones

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.