Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33189708›Full record

ArticleContraception2021

Certainty and intention in pregnancy decision-making: An exploratory study.

Brenly B Rowland, Corinne H Rocca, Lauren J Ralph

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Large-Scale Data Harmonization Across Prospective Studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Medication abortion: A perfect solution?Health services research · 2022
    Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Brenly B RowlandUCB-UCSF Joint Medical Program (JMP), Berkeley, CA, USA. Electronic address: Brenly.Rowland@ucsf.edu.
Corinne H RoccaAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Lauren J RalphAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, Oakland, CA, USA.

Funding

UCSF/Kaiser-DOR Program for Developing Independent Women's Health ResearchersK12HD052163 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ADLER, NANCY E, BRINDIS, CLAIRE D. · 2005 to 2023
$9.3M
Psychology & Medicine: Translational Research on Stress, Behavior and DiseaseT32MH019391 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ADLER, NANCY E, EPEL, ELISSA S. · 1991 to 2022
$4.4M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD052163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAbortion is often characterized as an inherently difficult decision, despite research demonstrating high decision certainty among abortion patients. Minimal research has examined decision certainty among people planning to continue a pregnancy. We examined whether women seeking abortion experience lower decision certainty than those planning to continue pregnancies and whether certainty differs by pregnancy intendedness. STUDY

designWe administered the decisional conflict scale (DCS) to pregnant women (n = 149) at 8 U.S. primary and reproductive health clinics. Using Poisson regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and pregnancy characteristics, we evaluated differences in DCS scores (<25/100 vs ≥25/100) by pregnancy decision and whether pregnancy intention modified the effect of pregnancy decision on certainty.

resultsOver one-half (58%) of respondents planned to have an abortion, 32% to continue the pregnancy, and 10% were unsure. DCS scores were low overall (median 9.4/100; IQR: 1.6, 25.0), indicative of high certainty, and the percentage scoring ≥25/100, reflecting any uncertainty, did not differ by pregnancy decision (23% abortion vs 19% continuing, p = 0.55). In a multivariable model, there was no statistically significant interaction between pregnancy decision (abortion vs continuing pregnancy) and intention. However, the predicted percentage reporting any uncertainty among respondents with intended pregnancies was comparable among those decided on abortion (13%) and continuing the pregnancy (16%). Among those with unintended pregnancies, these figures were 25% among those decided on abortion vs 36% among those continuing.

conclusionLevels of certainty about a pregnancy decision were high and appeared to depend more on whether the pregnancy was intended or unintended than on the pregnancy decision itself. IMPLICATIONS: Similar levels of uncertainty among individuals who decided to have an abortion versus continue a pregnancy challenge the narrative that abortion is a particularly difficult medical and personal decision. The prevalence of some uncertainty among respondents continuing pregnancies suggests voluntary options counseling may be useful for some patients in prenatal care settings.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedIntentionDecision MakingFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedUncertaintyAbortionDecision certaintyDecision conflictPregnancy decision-makingPregnancy intentionPrenatal

Identifiers

PMID33189708
PMCPMC8186868

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.