Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31234860›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2019

Fecundity and human birth seasonality in Sweden: a register-based study.

Johan Dahlberg, Gunnar Andersson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Influence of sociodemographic factors in birth seasonality in Spain.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johan DahlbergDepartment of Sociology, Stockholm University Demography Unit, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden. johan.dahlberg@sociology.su.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4952-3959
Gunnar AnderssonDepartment of Sociology, Stockholm University Demography Unit, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.
Stockholm University · SE

Funding

Research on Microdata in the Social and Medical Sciences (SIMSAM) 340-2013-5164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well-established that couples' fecundities vary widely. Each couple has a relatively constant monthly probability of conceiving, which can vary from zero to quite high. This underlying probability is usually expressed as the time (number of menstrual cycles) the couple requires to conceive. Couples with high fecundity will, on average, need fewer cycles than couples with low fecundity. It is also well-documented that almost all human populations exhibit seasonal variation in births. Most European countries show seasonal variation that usually peak in the spring and are the lowest during the last quarter of the year. The increasingly strong pattern of depressed birth rates in November and December is likely explained by the December-January cut-off threshold for Swedish pupils' school entry and their parents increasing awareness of the negative effects on school outcomes for children who are juniors in the school-entry cohort they belong to. To actively plan births for a specific time of the year, couples need to have some knowledge of the time required for them to conceive.

methodsWe use the duration between marriage of childless couples and first birth as a proxy measure of couples' fecundity. Based on this time-to-pregnancy measure we study to what extent couples' capacity to conceive affects the seasonality of their second births. We hypothesize that in a society with highly controlled fertility and a strong norm of having at least two children, sub-fertile couples will on average show less seasonal variation in second births. Sub-fertile couples, requiring more time to conceive the first time, will be less likely to try to target a desired birth month for their second child because doing so could jeopardize fulfilling their desired family size. We apply multinomial logistic regressions on 81,998 Swedish couples who married while being childless and subsequently gave birth to at least two children between 1990 and 2012, to investigate fecundity's role in seasonal variation in second births.

resultsWe found that seasonal variation in second births was strongly associated with couples' observed fecundity, measured as the duration between marriage formation and first birth. Our results support the hypothesis that sub-fertile couples, requiring more time to conceive the first time, show less seasonal variation in second births. The seasonal variations in second order births among couples with normal fecundity shows some similarities to traditional patterns as seen in agricultural and industrial societies of the past, with high numbers of births during the spring, and low numbers during the last quarter of the year. However, two important differences are notable. The characteristic Christmas peak in September has vanished, and the low birth rates in November and December come out much stronger than in the past.

conclusionsThe birth seasonality among couples with normal fecundity are what we would expect if couples actively plan their births according to the cut-off date for Swedish pupils' school entry. We argue that our findings support the notion that scheduled childbirth is a reality in contemporary sociality.

Indexed as

FertilitySeasonsAdultBirth RateFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansInfertilityParturitionPregnancyRegistriesSwedenBirth monthFecundabilityFertilityHuman birth seasonalityRegister-based studySecond birthsSub-fertilityTime-to-pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID31234860
PMCPMC6591847
OpenAlexW2951526010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.