Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35238351›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

The ABC of reproductive intentions: a mixed-methods study exploring the spectrum of attitudes towards family building.

B Grace, J Shawe, S Johnson, N O Usman, J Stephenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

B GraceDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5943-1700
J ShaweFaculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Devon, UK.
S JohnsonQIAGEN Manchester Ltd, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3371-7246
N O UsmanDepartment of Community Medicine, Kaduna State University, Kaduna, Nigeria.
J StephensonDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FertilityIntentionAdolescentAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyReproductionYoung Adultchildbearingchildfreefamily buildingfertility awarenessfertility intentionsmixed methodspreconception healthpsychosocialqualitative researchreproductive health

Identifiers

PMID35238351
PMCPMC9071225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.