ArticlePloS one2019
Validation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among pregnant Australian women.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Prevalence and Determinants of Unintended Pregnancies among Currently Pregnant, Ever-married Women in Rural and Urban Aligarh: A Community-based Study.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of the Italian Version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy Amongst Postnatal Women.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pregnancy intention, preconception health, health behaviours, and information and health advice seeking among expectant male partners.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Implementation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in routine antenatal care: A mixed-methods evaluation in three London NHS Trusts.European journal of midwifery · 2024Article
- Australian women's information-seeking preferences and needs in preparation for pregnancy.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) among a nationally representative sample of pregnant and postpartum women Ethiopia.Contraception: X · 2023Article
- Unplanned pregnancy and the association with maternal health and pregnancy outcomes: A Swedish cohort study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Planning is not equivalent to preparing, how Dutch women perceive their pregnancy planning in relation to preconceptional lifestyle behaviour change - a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Amharic version of the London measure of unplanned pregnancy in Ethiopia.PloS one · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Hindi version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among pregnant and postnatal women in urban India.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Chichewa version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in Malawi: a validation update.BMC research notes · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlobally, over half of pregnancies in developed countries are unplanned. Identifying and understanding the prevalence and complexity surrounding pregnancy preparation among Australian women is vital to enable sensitive, responsive approaches to addressing preconception and long-term health improvements for these women with varying motivation levels.
aimThis study evaluated the reliability and validity of a comprehensive pregnancy planning/intention measure (London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy) in a population of pregnant women (over 18 years of age) in Australia.
methodsA psychometric evaluation, within a cross-sectional study comprising cognitive interviews (to assess comprehension and acceptability) and a field test. Pregnant women aged over 18 years were recruited in early pregnancy (approximately 12 weeks' gestation). Reliability (internal consistency) was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, corrected item-total correlations and inter-item correlations, and stability via a test-retest. Construct validity was assessed using principal components analysis and hypothesis testing.
resultsSix women participated in cognitive interviews and 317 in the field test. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy was acceptable and well comprehended. Reliability testing demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.81, all corrected item-total correlations >0.20, all inter-item correlations positive) and excellent stability (weighted kappa = 0.92). Validity testing confirmed the unidimensional structure of the measure and all hypotheses were confirmed.
conclusionsThe London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy is a valid and reliable measure of pregnancy planning/intention for the Australian population. Implementation of this measure into all maternity healthcare, research and policy settings will provide accurate population-level pregnancy planning estimates to inform, monitor and evaluate interventions to improve preconception health in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.