A partner-specific critique of mistimed and unwanted fertility: Results from an analysis of the 2017-2019 United States National Survey of Family Growth.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-02 DOI:10.1363/psrh.12236
Sara Yeatman, Christie Sennott
{"title":"A partner-specific critique of mistimed and unwanted fertility: Results from an analysis of the 2017-2019 United States National Survey of Family Growth.","authors":"Sara Yeatman, Christie Sennott","doi":"10.1363/psrh.12236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Despite substantial critiques of retrospective measures of fertility intentions, researchers widely use the metrics of unwanted and mistimed pregnancies as tools for monitoring patterns and trends in reproductive health. However, in focusing exclusively on the timing and numeric elements of fertility these constructs ignore partner-specific desires, which may lead to considerable measurement error and threaten their validity.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We use data on births in the last 5 years from the 2017-2019 United States National Survey of Family Growth to compare responses to the standard retrospective measure of fertility intentions with responses to a partner-specific question that asks respondents about whether they had ever desired a child with that partner.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that women's responses to questions on retrospective fertility desires with and without reference to a particular partner vary in ways that suggest that women and researchers interpret these questions differently.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite a long history in fertility research, the standard approach to measuring mistimed and unwanted fertility is both conceptually and operationally flawed. In the context of complicated sexual and reproductive lives that do not start and end with a single partner, researchers should reevaluate the usefulness of the constructs of mistimed and unwanted fertility. We conclude by offering recommendations for analysts and survey designers as well as by calling for a move away from the terms entirely to focus instead on the pregnancies that women themselves view as most problematic.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10527745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12236","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Despite substantial critiques of retrospective measures of fertility intentions, researchers widely use the metrics of unwanted and mistimed pregnancies as tools for monitoring patterns and trends in reproductive health. However, in focusing exclusively on the timing and numeric elements of fertility these constructs ignore partner-specific desires, which may lead to considerable measurement error and threaten their validity.

Methodology: We use data on births in the last 5 years from the 2017-2019 United States National Survey of Family Growth to compare responses to the standard retrospective measure of fertility intentions with responses to a partner-specific question that asks respondents about whether they had ever desired a child with that partner.

Results: We find that women's responses to questions on retrospective fertility desires with and without reference to a particular partner vary in ways that suggest that women and researchers interpret these questions differently.

Discussion: Despite a long history in fertility research, the standard approach to measuring mistimed and unwanted fertility is both conceptually and operationally flawed. In the context of complicated sexual and reproductive lives that do not start and end with a single partner, researchers should reevaluate the usefulness of the constructs of mistimed and unwanted fertility. We conclude by offering recommendations for analysts and survey designers as well as by calling for a move away from the terms entirely to focus instead on the pregnancies that women themselves view as most problematic.

针对伴侣的对不合时宜和不想要的生育的批评:2017-2019年美国家庭增长全国调查的分析结果。
背景:尽管对生育意愿的回顾性测量提出了大量批评,但研究人员广泛使用意外怀孕和不合时宜怀孕的指标作为监测生殖健康模式和趋势的工具。然而,由于只关注生育的时间和数字因素,这些结构忽略了伴侣的特定欲望,这可能会导致相当大的测量误差,并威胁到它们的有效性。方法:我们使用最近5年的出生数据 从2017-2019年美国家庭成长全国调查开始,将对生育意愿标准回顾性测量的回答与对特定伴侣问题的回答进行比较,该问题询问受访者是否曾希望与该伴侣生孩子。结果:我们发现,女性对回顾性生育欲望问题的回答(包括和不包括特定伴侣)各不相同,这表明女性和研究人员对这些问题的解释不同。讨论:尽管生育研究有着悠久的历史,但衡量不合时宜和不想要的生育率的标准方法在概念和操作上都存在缺陷。在复杂的性生活和生殖生活并不是由一个伴侣开始和结束的背景下,研究人员应该重新评估不合时宜和不想要的生育结构的有用性。最后,我们为分析师和调查设计者提供了建议,并呼吁完全放弃这些术语,转而关注女性自己认为最有问题的怀孕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信