Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) among a nationally representative sample of pregnant and postpartum women Ethiopia

Q2 Medicine
Celia Karp , Caroline Moreau , Solomon Shiferaw , Assefa Seme , Mahari Yihdego , Linnea A. Zimmerman
{"title":"Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) among a nationally representative sample of pregnant and postpartum women Ethiopia","authors":"Celia Karp ,&nbsp;Caroline Moreau ,&nbsp;Solomon Shiferaw ,&nbsp;Assefa Seme ,&nbsp;Mahari Yihdego ,&nbsp;Linnea A. Zimmerman","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2023.100094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Rigorous measurement of pregnancy preferences is needed to address reproductive health needs. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP), developed in the UK, has been adapted for low-income countries. Psychometric properties of LMUP items remain uncertain in contexts with limited access to and use of health services.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>This cross-sectional study examines the six-item LMUP’s psychometric properties among a nationally representative sample of 2855 pregnant and postpartum women in Ethiopia. Principal components analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) estimated psychometric properties. Hypothesis testing examined associations between the LMUP and other measurement approaches of pregnancy preferences using descriptive statistics and linear regression.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The six-item LMUP had acceptable reliability (α = 0.77); two behavioral items (contraception, preconception care) were poorly correlated with the total scale. A four-item measure demonstrated higher reliability (α = 0.90). Construct validity via PCA and CFA indicated the four-item LMUP’s unidimensionality and good model fit; all hypotheses related to the four-item LMUP and other measurement approaches were met.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Measurement of women’s pregnancy planning in Ethiopia may be improved through use of a four-item version of the LMUP scale. This measurement approach can inform family planning services to better align with women’s reproductive goals.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Improved pregnancy preference measures are needed to understand reproductive health needs. A four-item version of the LMUP is highly reliable in Ethiopia, offering a robust and concise metric for assessing women’s orientations toward a current or recent pregnancy and tailoring care to support them in achieving their reproductive goals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100094"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10176025/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151623000060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives

Rigorous measurement of pregnancy preferences is needed to address reproductive health needs. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP), developed in the UK, has been adapted for low-income countries. Psychometric properties of LMUP items remain uncertain in contexts with limited access to and use of health services.

Study design

This cross-sectional study examines the six-item LMUP’s psychometric properties among a nationally representative sample of 2855 pregnant and postpartum women in Ethiopia. Principal components analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) estimated psychometric properties. Hypothesis testing examined associations between the LMUP and other measurement approaches of pregnancy preferences using descriptive statistics and linear regression.

Results

The six-item LMUP had acceptable reliability (α = 0.77); two behavioral items (contraception, preconception care) were poorly correlated with the total scale. A four-item measure demonstrated higher reliability (α = 0.90). Construct validity via PCA and CFA indicated the four-item LMUP’s unidimensionality and good model fit; all hypotheses related to the four-item LMUP and other measurement approaches were met.

Conclusions

Measurement of women’s pregnancy planning in Ethiopia may be improved through use of a four-item version of the LMUP scale. This measurement approach can inform family planning services to better align with women’s reproductive goals.

Implications

Improved pregnancy preference measures are needed to understand reproductive health needs. A four-item version of the LMUP is highly reliable in Ethiopia, offering a robust and concise metric for assessing women’s orientations toward a current or recent pregnancy and tailoring care to support them in achieving their reproductive goals.

Abstract Image

在埃塞俄比亚孕妇和产后妇女的全国代表性样本中评估伦敦计划外怀孕措施(LMUP)
目的需要严格测量妊娠偏好,以满足生殖健康需求。英国制定的伦敦计划外妊娠测量(LMUP)已针对低收入国家进行了调整。在获得和使用卫生服务有限的情况下,LMUP项目的心理测量特性仍然不确定。研究设计这项横断面研究在埃塞俄比亚2855名孕妇和产后妇女的全国代表性样本中检验了六项LMUP的心理测量特性。主成分分析(PCA)和验证性因素分析(CFA)估计了心理测量特性。假设检验使用描述性统计和线性回归检验了LMUP和其他妊娠偏好测量方法之间的相关性。结果六项LMUP具有可接受的信度(α=0.77);两个行为项目(避孕、孕前护理)与总量表的相关性很差。四项测量显示出较高的信度(α=0.90)。通过PCA和CFA的结构有效性表明四项LMUP的单维度性和良好的模型拟合性;符合与四项LMUP和其他测量方法相关的所有假设。结论通过使用LMUP量表的四项版本,可以改善埃塞俄比亚妇女计划生育的测量。这种衡量方法可以为计划生育服务提供信息,以便更好地与妇女的生殖目标保持一致。含义需要改进妊娠偏好措施,以了解生殖健康需求。LMUP的四项版本在埃塞俄比亚非常可靠,为评估女性当前或近期怀孕的倾向提供了一个有力而简洁的指标,并为她们实现生育目标提供了量身定制的护理。
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
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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