IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0249032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The association of pregnancy control, emotions, and beliefs with pregnancy desires: A new perspective on pregnancy intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Meredith G Manze
  • Diana R Romero
  • Prabal De
  • Josette Hartnett
  • Lynn Roberts

Abstract

Context: Standard pregnancy intentions measures do not always align with how people approach pregnancy. Studies that have investigated beyond a binary framework found that those with “ambivalent” feelings towards pregnancy are less likely to use contraception consistently, but the reasons for this are unclear. We sought to gain a nuanced understanding of pregnancy desires, and how perceptions about pregnancy are associated with contraceptive use. Methods: We used non-probability quota sampling based on sex, age, and geographic region for a web-based survey of heterosexual men and women, aged 21–44 years, who could become pregnant/impregnate and were not currently pregnant (n = 1,477; 51% female). The survey was created using unique items informed by recent literature. Bivariate and multivariable analyses explored relationships between various perceptions about pregnancy with pregnancy desires categorized as: wanting a pregnancy, not wanting a pregnancy, and not trying but would be okay with a pregnancy. We conducted a sub-group analysis of those who were not trying but would be okay with a pregnancy (n = 460), using descriptive statistics to examine how consistent contraceptive use was associated with emotions and beliefs about avoiding pregnancy. Results: After adjustment, those who felt that pregnancy may not always be avoidable, but instead determined by fate/higher power, or a natural process that happens when it is meant to, were significantly more likely (aOR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.05–3.36; aOR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.29–3.76, respectively) to report not trying but being okay with pregnancy, whereas those with negative feelings about a pregnancy were less likely to feel okay about a pregnancy (aOR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.08–0.15), versus not wanting a pregnancy. In the sub-group analysis, those who felt pregnancy was determined by fate/higher power or a natural process were more likely to report not using contraception consistently (70%, 68%, respectively). Conclusions: Those who state they are not trying but would be okay with pregnancy may not use contraception consistently because of beliefs that pregnancy is predetermined. Our findings support less categorical and more multidimensional approaches to measuring fertility intentions, with important implications for reproductive health service provision.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0249032
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249032
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249032&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0249032?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. Carter, M.W. & Hock-Long, L. & Kraft, J.M. & Henry-Moss, D. & Hatfield-Timajchy, K. & Singer, M., 2012. "Strategies for managing the dual risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy among Puerto Rican and African American young adults," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(3), pages 449-456.
    2. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leigh Senderowicz & Nicole Maloney, 2022. "Supply‐Side Versus Demand‐Side Unmet Need: Implications for Family Planning Programs," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(3), pages 689-722, September.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    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:pone00:0249032. 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.