ArticleDemography2020
Intentionally or Ambivalently Risking a Short Interpregnancy Interval: Reproductive-Readiness Factors in Women's Postpartum Non-Use of Contraception.
Article in Demography, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of non-binary measures of pregnancy perceptions, attitudes and reactions, and associated outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Medicaid reimbursement policies for long-acting reversible contraceptives immediately postpartum: A systematic literature review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- Socioeconomic Differences in Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Use for Achieving U.S. Women's Family Planning Goals: "Right Time" Births.Demography · 2025Article
- What Happened in Delaware Following a Statewide Contraceptive Initiative?The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Natural selection on reproductive timing varies by education in twentieth-century Estonia.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
- Postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive adoption after a statewide initiative.Health services research · 2024Article
- Birth-Intention Time Horizon as a Predictor of Contraceptive Method Effectiveness.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A focus of research on short interpregnancy intervals (IPI) has been on young disadvantaged women whose births are likely to be unintended. Later initiation of family formation in the United States and other high-income countries points to the need to also consider a woman's attributes indicative of readiness for purposefully accelerated family formation achieved through short IPIs. We test for whether factors indicating "reproductive readiness"-including being married, being older, and having just had a first birth or a birth later than desired-predict a woman's non-use of contraception in the postpartum months. We also test for whether this contraceptive non-use results explicitly from wanting to become pregnant again. The data come from the 2012-2015 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, representing women who recently gave birth in any of 35 U.S. states and New York City (N = 120,111). We find that these reproductive-readiness factors are highly predictive of women's postpartum non-use of contraception because of a stated desire to become pregnant and are moderately predictive of contraceptive non-use without an explicit pregnancy intention. We conclude that planning for, or ambivalently risking, a short IPI is a frequent family-formation strategy for women whose family formation has been delayed. This is likely to become increasingly common as family formation in the United States is initiated later in the reproductive life course.
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.