ReviewCureus2026
Knowledge and Attitude Toward Interpregnancy Interval and Its Impact on Women's Health.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The interpregnancy interval, also known as pregnancy spacing, is one of the key factors influencing physical, mental, and reproductive health outcomes of women. According to the WHO, the minimum time interval between a live birth and succeeding conception is 24 months to minimize maternal and neonatal problems. Regardless of that, according to worldwide estimates, about 35-40% of pregnancies take place in intervals of less than 24 months, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This review employed a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2025, using keywords related to interpregnancy intervals and maternal outcomes. Studies were included if they provided quantitative data on maternal morbidity and were excluded if they focused exclusively on neonatal outcomes or lacked clear diagnostic criteria. The lack of knowledge and negative attitudes toward pregnancy spacing remain key contributors to closely spaced pregnancies. This review explores what women know and how they feel about space during pregnancy and determines its effect on the health of women. Based on the available literature, short periods of interpregnancy (less than 18 months) are linked to the risk of maternal anemia, postpartum complications, and postpartum depression, with rates increased by 30-45%, 20-25%, and 15-20%, respectively. On the other hand, women who are well-informed and optimistic about pregnancy spacing record increased contraceptive use (ranging 50% and above) and improved maternal health markers (6-7 on clinical scales). The knowledge/attitude/pregnancy spacing interaction is critical to producing successful health promotion interventions. Optimal birth spacing can be strengthened by enhancing the quality of education, counseling, and engagement of healthcare providers, which can result in better health and well-being for women.
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.