Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40768103›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie2025

Agree to Disagree? Fertility Intentions Among Mixed Couples in Sweden.

Eleonora Mussino, Caroline Uggla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Eleonora MussinoStockholm University Demography Unit (SUDA), Stockholm, Sweden. eleonora.mussino@sociology.su.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5311-4277
Caroline UgglaStockholm University Demography Unit (SUDA), Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Forskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap 2018-00310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether couples agree on having a(nother) child is crucial for both individuals and society. While fertility research has long focused on women, recent studies emphasize the need to incorporate both partners' perspectives. However, analyses that jointly consider men's and women's fertility intentions remain scarce. This focus on women has been partly driven by homogamy-the tendency for individuals to select partners with similar traits and values. Given that couples with mixed backgrounds have higher dissolution rates, they may also be less likely to share family-related beliefs. This study examines how agreement on fertility intentions varies among mixed and homogamous couples in Sweden. Using the 2021 Swedish Generation and Gender Survey (GGS) and stratifying by respondents' gender, we find that most couples agree not to have a(nother) child, reflecting recent fertility declines. Couples where both partners are migrants exhibit the highest agreement, while mixed couples show the most disagreement and the strongest gender asymmetries in reported intentions. However, these differences are small and vary by the gender of the reporting partner. The higher disagreement among mixed couples aligns with broader research on their elevated dissolution risks. However, reverse causality is possible-value differences may be linked to other stressors, making childbearing less desirable. By highlighting the role of couple composition in fertility decision-making, our findings contribute to understanding how family formation dynamics vary across different couple types.

Indexed as

Couple perspectiveFertility intentionsGGSMigrantsMixed unionsSweden

Identifiers

PMID40768103
PMCPMC12328862

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.