Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38509898›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Explaining uncertainty in women's fertility preferences.

Amke M G van Tintelen, Gert Stulp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Amke M G van TintelenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, PO Box 196, 9700 AD, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Gert StulpUniversity of Groningen, Department of Sociology & Inter-University Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TS, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People's fertility preferences are often considered an important determinant of fertility. What is often neglected in studies of preferred fertility, is the uncertainty that people may have about their preferences. In this study, using data on Dutch women through the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (collected early 2018), we examined women's fertility preferences and asked detailed questions about the certainty of these preferences. We also examined whether women agreed with their partner on preferred family size, and to what extent partner (dis)agreement shaped uncertainty. We show that Dutch women expressed much uncertainty about their fertility preferences, with only one-third feeling strongly about their preferences. Uncertainty strongly increased when women preferred higher numbers of children, whereas already having children reduced it. Women who wanted no children were most certain about their preference. Higher preferred family sizes also led to more disagreement with the partner about these preferences, and greater partner disagreement, in turn, led to more uncertainty. These findings imply that people are more likely to downgrade their fertility preferences than to increase them, as women are more certain about their preferences for lower numbers of children and are more open to family sizes below than above their preferred choice. Partner disagreement is often resolved by not having (more) children, lowering realised fertility. Hence, these findings provide another explanation for why many people have fewer children than desired.

Indexed as

Family sizeFertility preferencesPartner agreementThe NetherlandsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID38509898
PMCPMC10950612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.