Abstract
Objectives
Very short interpregnancy intervals are associated with negative health outcomes for
mothers and children, and pregnancies with very short interpregnancy intervals are
more likely to be unintended than pregnancies that are more widely spaced. The objective
of this study was to improve understanding of women's motivations regarding pregnancy
spacing.
Methods
In 2017, we conducted 8 focus group discussions with 49 English- and Spanish-speaking
postpartum women in central North Carolina. The groups explored participants' preferences
for birth spacing and factors that influenced their decisions. We recorded, transcribed,
and coded the discussions and analyzed these data for core themes.
Results
Participants' ideas about when and whether to have more children were fluid—some had
specific ideas during pregnancy or after delivery that changed over time; others had
no definite plans. The primary reason for close birth spacing was to promote their
children's having a closer relationship. Reasons for wider spacing included recovery
from the previous pregnancy, challenges related to having 2 babies concurrently, and
desire to wait for more favorable life circumstances. Participants did not mention
health risks to children of short interpregnancy intervals and said that no health
care providers discussed these risks with them. They had mixed perspectives about
whether this information would influence their own child-spacing preferences but agreed
that it should be shared with women to promote informed decision-making.
Conclusion
This study adds to limited research regarding the factors that women consider when
determining pregnancy spacing. Better understanding of women's motivations can help
inform counseling to help women achieve their desired pregnancy spacing.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis.J Am Med Assoc. 2006; 295 (1809–23)
- Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196: 297-308
- Birth spacing and risk of autism and other neurodevelopmental disabilities: a systematic review.Pediatrics. 2016; 137e20153482
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 [Internet]. [cited 2020 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/family-planning/objectives.
- Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes in high- resource settings : An updated systematic review.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2018; 33 (June): 1-23
- Effect of interpregnancy interval on gestational diabetes : a retrospective matched cohort study.Ann Epidemiol. 2019; 39: 33-38
- Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes an analysis of successive pregnancies.Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129: 408-415
- Obstetric care consensus no. 8: interpregnancy care.Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133: e51-e72
- Short interpregnancy intervals in 2014 : differences by maternal demographic characteristics.NCHS Data Brief. 2016; 240: 1-8
- Unintended pregnancy and interpregnancy interval by maternal age, National Survey of Family Growth.Contraception. 2018; 98: 52-55
- Attitudes toward birth spacing among low-income, postpartum women: a qualitative analysis.Matern Child Health J. 2012; 16: 1440-1446
- Short interpregnancy intervals in the United States.Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 64-71
- The health belief model: a decade later.Heal Educ Behav. 1984; 11: 1-47
- Social norms and economic theory.J Econ Perspect. 1989; 3: 99-117
- Addressing potential pitfalls of reproductive life planning with patient-centered counseling.Am J Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2017; 216: 129-134
- ACOG Committee Opinion No. 736. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: e140-e150
- A novel approach to postpartum contraception: a pilot project of Pediatricians’ role during the well-baby visit.Contracept Reprod Med. 2016; 1: 7
- Acceptability of postpartum contraception counseling at the well baby visit.Matern Child Health J. 2018; 22: 1624-1631
- Effect of an internet-based program on weight loss for low-income postpartum women a randomized clinical trial.JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2017; 317: 2381-2391
- New mothers’ experiences with online postpartum forums.MCN Am J Matern Nurs. 2019; 44: 40-45
- Short message service communication improves exclusive breastfeeding and early postpartum contraception in a low- to middle-income country setting: a randomised trial.BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 125: 1620-1629
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 04, 2020
Accepted:
November 25,
2020
Received in revised form:
November 21,
2020
Received:
January 30,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
