Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 58, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 426-433

  Barrett, G ^a,b   Smith, S C ^c   Wellings, K ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PREGNANCY;

ABORTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; PREVALENCE; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ABORTION, INDUCED; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTIVATION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 2142713078     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.014787     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Jurich J. The relationship of modernity of sex roles to pregnancy planning. Sociological Focus 1984;17:223-42.
2. Najman JM, Morrison J, Williams G, et al. The mental health of women six months after they give birth to an unwanted baby: a longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med 1991;32:241-7.
3. Miller WB. Reproductive decisions: how we make them and how they make us. Advances in Population: psychological perspectives 1994;2:1-27.
4. Harris K, Campbell E. The plans in unplanned pregnancy: secondary gain and the partnership. Br J Med Psychol 1999;72:105-20.
5. Morin P, Payette H, Moos MK, et al. Measuring the intensity of pregnancy planning effort. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003;17:97-105.
6. Cartwright A. Parents and family planning services. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1970.
7. Bone M. Family planning services in England and Wales. London: HMSO, 1973.
8. Dunnel K. Family formation 1976. London: HMSO, 1979.
9. Fleissig A. Unintended pregnancies and the use of contraception: changes from 1984 to 1989. BMJ 1991;302:147.
10. Cleland J, Johnson-Acsadi G, Marckwardt A. The core questions. In: Cleland J, Scott C, eds. The World Fertility Survey: an assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
11. Macro International. Women's lives and experiences: a decade of research findings from the Demographic and Health Surveys. Program Calverton, MD: Macro International, 1994.
12. London K, Peterson L, Piccinino L. The National Survey of Family Growth: principal source of statistics on unintended pregnancy: supplement to chapter two. In: Brown SS, Eisenberg L, eds. The best intentions: unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington: National Academy Press, 1995.
13. Adams MM, Shulman HB, Bruce C, et al. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System: design, questionnaire, data collection and response rates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1991;5:333-46.
14. Kost K, Forrest JD. Intention status of U.S. births in 1988: differences by mothers' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Fam Plan Perspect 1995;27:11-17.
15. Sable MR, Spencer JC, Stockbauer JW, et al. Pregnancy wantedness and adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences by race and medicaid status. Fam Plan Perspect 1997;29:76-81.
16. Kaufmann RB, Morris L, Spitz AM. Comparison of two question sequences for assessing pregnancy intentions. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:810-16.
17. Trussel J, Vaughan B, Stanford J. Are all contraceptive failures unintended pregnancies? Evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Fam Plan Perspect 1999;31:246-7, 260.
18. Stanford JB, Hobbs R, Jameson P, et al. Defining dimensions of pregnancy intendedness. Maternal Child Health Journal 2000;4:183-9.
19. Petersen R, Moos MK. Defining and measuring unintended pregnancy: issues and concerns. Womens Health Issues 1997;7:234-40.
20. Luker K. Contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy: a reminder that human behavior frequently refuses to conform to models created by researchers. Fam Plan Perspect 1999;31:248-9.
21. Santelli J, Rochat R, Hatfield-Timajchy K, et al. The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Repro Health 2003;35:94-101.
22. Peterson LS, Mosher WD. Contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy: options for measuring unintended pregnancy in Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plan Perspect 1999;31:252-3.
23. Barrett G. Developing a measure of unplanned pregnancy. [PhD thesis]. London: University of London, 2002.
24. Barrett G, Wellings K. What is a "planned" pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:545-57.
25. Everett CB. Unintended pregnancies and contraceptive use. BMJ 1991;302:789-90.
26. Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S. On the validity of retrospective assessments of pregnancy intention. Demography 2002;39:199-213.
27. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
28. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.
29. Loewenthal KM. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2nd edn. London: Psychology Press, 2001.
30. Kline P. A Handbook of test construction: introduction to psychometric design. London: Methuen, 1986.
31. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
32. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. London: Sage, 1991.
33. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, 1993.
34. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch report 8-75. Memphis: Naval Air Station, 1975.
35. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002;11:193-205.
36. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
37. Kline P. The new psychometrics: science, psychology and measurement. London: Routledge, 1998.
38. Wore JE, Keller SD. Interpreting general health measures. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.
39. Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics: review of the registrar general on births and patterns of family building in England and Wales, 1999. Series FMI no 28. London: HMSO, 2000.
40. Office for National Statistics. Abortion statistics: legal abortions carried out under the 1967 Abortion Act in England and Wales, 1999. Series AB, no 26. London: HMSO, 2000.
41. General Register Office for Scotland. Annual Report, 1999. (http:// www.gro-scotland.gov).
42. Information and Statistics Division of NHS in Scotland. Abortion Statistics Scotland 1998 and 1999. Health Briefing, number 00/11, July, 2000.
43. Streiner DL. Sample-size formulae for parameter estimation. Percept Mot Skills 1994;78:275-84.
44. Donner A, Eliasziw M. Sample size requirements for reliability studies. Stat Med 1987;6:441-8.
45. Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics: review of the registrar general on births and patterns of family building in England and Wales, 2000, Series FM1 no 29. London: HMSO, 2001.
46. Office for National Statistics. Abortion statistics: legal abortions carried out under the 1967 Abortion Act in England and Wales, 2000. Series AB, no 27. London: HMSO, 2001.
47. General Register Office for Scotland. Annual report, 2000. (http://www.gra-scotland.gov).
48. Szreter S. Fertility, class and gender in Britain, 1860-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
49. Fisher K. Uncertain aims and tocit negotiation: birth control practices in Britain, 1925-50. Popul Dev Rev 2000;26:295-317.