ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022
The ABC of reproductive intentions: a mixed-methods study exploring the spectrum of attitudes towards family building.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gender equity and sustainable development through the lens of fertility intentions among highly educated women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Age among women and men, time to pregnancy and risk of miscarriage.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Fertility knowledge as a tool for informed reproductive decision-making.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2025Article
- Digital health technologies to transform women's health innovation and inclusive research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Preconception health policy, health promotion, and health services to achieve health in current and future generations: a narrative review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Review
- What Does 'Preconception Health' Mean to People? A Public Consultation on Awareness and Use of Language.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Stimulating fertility awareness: the importance of getting the language right.Human reproduction open · 2023Article
- An online survey of UK women's attitudes to having children, the age they want children and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- What does family building mean? A qualitative exploration and a new definition: a UK-based study.Reproductive health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the intentions of men and women of reproductive age in the UK regarding reproduction and family building? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified six main categories of people; Avoiders, Betweeners, Completers, Desirers, Expectants and Flexers, for whom reproduction education strategies should be tailored differently to suit intentions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several studies have highlighted poor fertility awareness across men and women of reproductive age. As the average age of first-time parents continues to rise, there has been a concerted effort from educators, healthcare professionals, charities, reproductive health groups and government policymakers, to improve fertility awareness. In order to ensure that these messages are effective and to deploy the best strategies, it is important to understand people's reproductive health needs. This study therefore aimed to explore different reproductive intentions to aid tailoring of information to help individuals and couples achieve their family building desires. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a mixed-method study via a UK-wide cross-sectional survey with 1082 participants and semi-structured interviews of 20 women and 15 men who agreed to follow-up interviews. Interviews lasted an hour on average. Ethics approval from UCL Research Ethics Committee. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsSurvey participants were recruited nationwide via online newspaper and social media adverts. Interviewees were purposely sampled to include men and women from the reproductive age range (18-45 years), varying ethnicity and education background. Survey data were analysed using the Minitab statistical software package. Interview data were transcribed and analysed using the framework method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From the survey and interviews, we identified six key categories of people, grouped alphabetically, in a user-friendly manner to highlight a spectrum of reproductive intentions: Avoiders describes respondents who have no children and do not want to have children in the future; Betweeners describes those who already have child(ren) and want more in the future but are not actively trying to conceive; Completers describes those who have child(ren) but do not want more; Desirers describes those who are actively trying to conceive or plan to have child(ren) in the future; Expectants describes those who were pregnant at the time of the study; and Flexers describes those who may or may not already have and are unsure but or open to having child(ren) in the future. Analysis of survey data identified the following proportions in our study: Avoiders, 4.7%; Betweeners, 11.3%; Completers, 13.6%; Desirers, 36.9%; Expectants, 4.1%; and Flexers 28.4% and 2.4% preferring not to answer. There was one 'other' group from qualitative analysis, who would like to have children in the future but were unsure whether they could or had changing views. We recommend classifying as 'Desirers' or 'Flexers' for the purposes of fertility education. A majority of the survey population were trying to get pregnant; were pregnant; or planning to have a child in the future-whether actively, passively or simply open to the idea, with interviews providing deep insights into their family building decision-making. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the online recruitment method, there may be a bias towards more educated respondents. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsWe developed a user-friendly, alphabetical categorization of reproductive intentions, which may be used by individuals, healthcare professionals, educators, special interest groups, charities and policymakers to support and enable individuals and couples in making informed choices to achieve their desired intentions, if and when they choose to start a family. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. The authors report no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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.