Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32096336›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2020

Pregnancy Intendedness by Maternal Disability Status and Type in the United States.

Willi Horner-Johnson, Mekhala Dissanayake, Justine P Wu, Aaron B Caughey, Blair G Darney

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Willi Horner-JohnsonInstitute on Development and Disability, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Mekhala DissanayakeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Justine P WuDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Aaron B CaugheyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Blair G DarneyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology-all at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Oregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Oregon Patient Centered Outcomes Research K12 ProgramK12HS022981 · AHRQ · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI GUISE, JEANNE-MARIE · 2014 to 2018
$4.1M
Prevalence and outcomes of pregnancy in women with disabilitiesR21HD081309 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI HORNER-JOHNSON, WILLI · 2014 to 2015
$419k
AHRQ HHS K12 HS022981AHRQ HHS K12HS022981NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD081309NICHD NIH HHS R21HD081309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextSocietal views about sexuality and parenting among people with disabilities may limit these individuals' access to sex education and the full range of reproductive health services, and put them at increased risk for -unintended pregnancies. To date, however, no national population-based studies have examined pregnancy -intendedness among U.S. women with disabilities.

methodsCross-sectional analyses of data from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth were conducted; the sample included 5,861 pregnancies reported by 3,089 women. The proportion of pregnancies described as unintended was calculated for women with any type of disability, women with each of five types of disabilities and women with no disabilities. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of disability status and type with pregnancy intendedness while adjusting for covariates.

resultsA higher proportion of pregnancies were unintended among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities (53% vs. 36%). Women with independent living disability had the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies (62%). In regression analyses, the odds that a pregnancy was unintended were greater among women with any type of disability than among women without disabilities (odds ratio, 1.4), and were also elevated among women with hearing disability, cognitive disability or independent living disability (1.5-1.9).

conclusionsFurther research is needed to understand differences in unintended pregnancy by type and extent of disability. People with disabilities should be fully included in sex education, and their routine care should incorporate discussion of reproductive planning.

Indexed as

IntentionPregnancy, UnplannedAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services for Persons with DisabilitiesHumansLogistic ModelsOdds RatioPersons with DisabilitiesPregnancyReproductive BehaviorReproductive Health ServicesSex EducationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32096336
PMCPMC12331166
OpenAlexW3007256387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.