ArticleHeliyon2024
Explaining uncertainty in women's fertility preferences.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Household wealth and timing of first birth among highly educated women in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from survey-adjusted survival analysis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Multiple dimensions of uncertainty in fertility goals: recent trends and patterns in the United States.Genus · 2025Article
- Exploring machine learning algorithms for predicting fertility preferences among reproductive age women in Nigeria.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.