IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0220774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among pregnant Australian women

Author

Listed:
  • Adina Y Lang
  • Jennifer A Hall
  • Jacqueline A Boyle
  • Cheryce L Harrison
  • Helena Teede
  • Lisa J Moran
  • Geraldine Barrett

Abstract

Introduction: Globally, over half of pregnancies in developed countries are unplanned. Identifying and understanding the prevalence and complexity surrounding pregnancy preparation among Australian women is vital to enable sensitive, responsive approaches to addressing preconception and long-term health improvements for these women with varying motivation levels. Aim: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of a comprehensive pregnancy planning/intention measure (London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy) in a population of pregnant women (over 18 years of age) in Australia. Methods: A psychometric evaluation, within a cross-sectional study comprising cognitive interviews (to assess comprehension and acceptability) and a field test. Pregnant women aged over 18 years were recruited in early pregnancy (approximately 12 weeks’ gestation). Reliability (internal consistency) was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, corrected item-total correlations and inter-item correlations, and stability via a test-retest. Construct validity was assessed using principal components analysis and hypothesis testing. Results: Six women participated in cognitive interviews and 317 in the field test. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy was acceptable and well comprehended. Reliability testing demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.81, all corrected item-total correlations >0.20, all inter-item correlations positive) and excellent stability (weighted kappa = 0.92). Validity testing confirmed the unidimensional structure of the measure and all hypotheses were confirmed. Conclusions: The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy is a valid and reliable measure of pregnancy planning/intention for the Australian population. Implementation of this measure into all maternity healthcare, research and policy settings will provide accurate population-level pregnancy planning estimates to inform, monitor and evaluate interventions to improve preconception health in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Adina Y Lang & Jennifer A Hall & Jacqueline A Boyle & Cheryce L Harrison & Helena Teede & Lisa J Moran & Geraldine Barrett, 2019. "Validation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among pregnant Australian women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220774
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220774
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220774&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0220774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eman Almaghaslah & Roger Rochat & Ghada Farhat, 2017. "Validation of a pregnancy planning measure for Arabic-speaking women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Corinne Rocca & Suneeta Krishnan & Geraldine Barrett & Mark Wilson, 2010. "Measuring pregnancy planning," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 23(11), pages 293-334.
    3. Joline Goossens & Sofie Verhaeghe & Ann Van Hecke & Geraldine Barrett & Ilse Delbaere & Dimitri Beeckman, 2018. "Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in women with pregnancies ending in birth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Diane Morof & Jody Steinauer & Sadia Haider & Sonia Liu & Philip Darney & Geraldine Barrett, 2012. "Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in a United States Population of Women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-7, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joline Goossens & Sofie Verhaeghe & Ann Van Hecke & Geraldine Barrett & Ilse Delbaere & Dimitri Beeckman, 2018. "Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in women with pregnancies ending in birth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Meredith G Manze & Diana R Romero & Prabal De & Josette Hartnett & Lynn Roberts, 2021. "The association of pregnancy control, emotions, and beliefs with pregnancy desires: A new perspective on pregnancy intentions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Diane Morof & Jody Steinauer & Sadia Haider & Sonia Liu & Philip Darney & Geraldine Barrett, 2012. "Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in a United States Population of Women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-7, April.
    4. Eman Almaghaslah & Roger Rochat & Ghada Farhat, 2017. "Validation of a pregnancy planning measure for Arabic-speaking women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.