U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Unintended Pregnancy; Brown SS, Eisenberg L, editors. The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1995.

Cover of The Best Intentions

The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families.

Show details

DTables of Odds Ratios: Supplement to Chapter 3

Carol J.R. Hogue

Member, Committee on Unintended Pregnancy

Chapter 3 includes an assessment of the literature published within the last 30 years that addresses various health and health-related consequences of unintended pregnancy. The literature base for most consequences studied does not permit a numerical survey. However, some effects, particularly ones related to pregnancy and pregnancy outcome, have been studied sufficiently to permit a structured assessment. These consequences include timing of the initiation of prenatal care, an estimate of the adequacy of prenatal care based on both timing and the number of visits, exposure of the fetus to smoking and alcohol, and the incidence of low birthweight (<2,500 grams) among live-born infants. A graphical presentation of studies on these issues is provided in Chapter 3.

This appendix provides more detail regarding those studies. To be included in this structured assessment, an investigation had to compare outcomes between women reporting intended conceptions and women reporting unintended conceptions, variously defined. When unintended was subdivided into mistimed and unwanted, estimates of effects (usually odds ratios) are included for both categories of unintended conception. An odds ratio is an estimate of the relative risk, that is, the risk of a poor outcome among the "exposed" group (unintended conception) relative to the risk of a poor outcome among the "unexposed" group (intended conceptions). These results, with 95 percent confidence intervals, are shown in column 5 of the tables in this appendix. The results in Figures 3-3 through 3-5 of Chapter 3 were selected from these results. If a study calculated both a crude and an adjusted odds ratio, only the adjusted one was included in the figure. When the results were available for both mistimed and unwanted conceptions, they were included in the figures. The references for this appendix are provided in Chapter 3.

TABLE D-1Studies of Prenatal Care Attainment Associated with Pregnancy Intention

Definition of IntentionPopulation/SampleRetrospective/ProspectiveControl FactorsResultsReference/Comments
Initiation of Prenatal Care (PNC) after the First Trimester
Unwanted:
(a) at conception, (b) at fourth month,
(c) in last trimester
120 black women, Boston City Hospital, married with at least one living child, 1964Prospective at three points during gestationNoneLate PNC, (a) ORa = 2.89 (0.96,9.02)c, (b) OR = 3.57 (1.38,9.36)c , (c) OR = 2.42 (0.65,9.31)cWatkins, 1968; (a) 77.5%, (b) 27.9%, (c) 11.7%
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNSFG, 1982 (random sample of U.S. women 15–44, with live births 1979–1982)Retrospective (œ3 yrs. postpartum)Race(a) RRb, all = 1.6c; RR, white = 1.6c; RR, black = 1.4c (b) RR, all = 1.8c; RR, white = 1.7c; RR, black = 1.75cPamuk and Mosher, 1988
"Intended" vs. "unintended"NNS, 1980 (random sample of U.S., married)Retrospective (>6 mo postpartum)Race, residence, education, birth orderCrude OR = 1.25c Adjusted OR = -1.19cWells et al., 1987
Planned vs. unplanned416, central Harlem residents in PNC, 1982–1983Retrospective (at first PNC visit)NoneOR = 1.31cMcCormick et al., 1987; 73% were unplanned
Definition of IntentionPopulation/SampleRetrospective/ProspectiveControl FactorsResultsReference/Comments
Intended (stopped using contraception because of pregnancy desire or just before pregnancy, wanted to become pregnant) vs. unintendedNLSY, 1984, women 18–26, nationally representative sample of 6,015Retrospective (78%), prospective (22% during pregnancy)Race, economically disadvantaged (white), southern or urban resident at age 14, grandmother's education, maternal ageFor unintended, crude RR = 1.14c; adjusted OR = 1.6cMarsiglio and Mott, 1988; they used the term "wanted" but the questions more closely reflect intended
"Intended" vs. "unintended"Random sample, 1,490; births in England, 1,984Retrospective (>4 mo postpartum)NoneRisk of entry after first trimester; OR = 1.9 (1.33,2.17)cCartwright, 1988; interview asked pregnancy intention
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNMIHS, 1988 nationally representative sample of 9,953Retrospective (at least 1 yr postpartum)None(a) RR = 2.88c (b) RR = 2.62cKost et al., 1994
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedOklahoma PRAMS, 1988–1993, (a) N = 2,329 (b) N = 933Retrospective (4–12 mo postpartum)Age, education, source of family income, timing of pregnancy recognition, parity(a) Crude OR = 2.7 (2.1,3.4); adjusted OR = 1.4 (1.04,1.9) (b) crude OR = 4.6 (1.3,6.1); adjusted OR = 1.7 (1.1,2.5)DePersio et al., 1994
Planned vs. "surprise"Hispanic, Houston, TX, public hospital patients, 100 each entered PNC in 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester or noneRetrospective (at delivery)NoneRisk of entry after first trimester OR = 2.64 (1.50,4.66)cByrd, 1994; early PNC associated with hospital access card, fewer perceived barriers, more benefits to baby
Inadequate Prenatal Care (PNC)
See Results columnRandom sample in Oklahoma, births, 1985Retrospective (at delivery)MultipleReceipt of inadequate care, mistimed, family support OR = 1.15c (NS); mistimed, pregnancy discussed OR = 1.09c (NS); unwanted, family support, OR = 1.15c (NS); unwanted, pregnancy discussed, OR = 1.36 (p < 0.05)St. John and Winston, 1989; see text
UnwantedCase—control study, three sites in Missouri; adequate, N=720; inadequate, N=764Retrospective (at delivery)MultipleReceipt of inadequate care; OR = 1.39 (1.11, 1.67)Sable, 1992; 74% of women with inadequate care had not wanted the pregnancy
Initial attitude: negative, mixed, or positive200 poor, mainly black women, Detroit, MIRetrospective (at delivery)AttitudinalZero-order correlation = 0.39 (p < 0.05)Poland et al., 1990
Planned vs. unplanned; somewhat/very unhappy vs. neutral/happyCase—control, 400 inadequate care, 100 adequate care, Mecklenburg, NC, 1990– 991Retrospective (at delivery)NoneFor unplanned, OR = 1.86 (1.10,3.18)c for unhappy, OR = 2.2 (0.96,3.70)cBoggs and Miles, 1991; among cases with inadequate care, 81% unplanned and 21.2% unhappy
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedOklahoma PRAMS, 1988–1993 (a) N = 2,092 (b) N = 810Retrospective (4–12 mo postpartum)Education, marital status, source of family income, timing of pregnancy initiation, parity(a) crude OR = 2.7 (1.9,3.7); adjusted OR = 1.3 (0.8,1.9) (b) crude OR = 5.5 (3.8,8.0); adjusted OR = 1.9 (1.2,3.1)DePersio et al., 1994
a

The OR (odds ratio) is the odds of adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the odds among unexposed persons.

b

The RR (relative risk) is the risk of the adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the risk among unexposed persons. Relative risk and odds ratios are similar when adverse outcome is rare.

c

Calculated for this report.

NOTE: NSFG (National Survey of Family Growth); NNS (National Natality Survey); NLSY (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth); NMIHS (National Maternal and Infant Health Survey); PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System); NS (not significant).

TABLE D-2Studies of Behavioral Risk Factors for Low Birthweight or Preterm Delivery Associated with Pregnancy Intention

Definition of IntentionPopulation/SampleRetrospective/ProspectiveControl FactorsResultsReference/Comments
Smoking
''Intended" vs. "unintended"NNS, 1980 (random sample of U.S. married women)Retrospective (> 6 mo post-partum)Race, residence, education, birth order, early PNCWhether didn't stop smoking: crude ORa = 1.13c; adjusted OR = 1.07cWells et al., 1987; early PNC had similar but independent impact on smoking cessation, as planning the pregnancy did
Planned vs. unplanned416, central Harlem residents in PNC, 1982–1983Retrospective (at first PNC visit)NoneOR = 1.08cMcCormick et al., 1987; 41% smoked during pregnancy
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNSFG, 1982 (random sample of U.S. women ages 15–44, with live births 1979–1982)Retrospective (3 yr postpartum)Race(a) RRb, all = 1.3c RR, white = 1.25c RR, black = 1.05c (b) RR, all = 1.3c RR, white = 1.4c RR, black = 1.2cPamuk and Mosher, 1988
"Intended" vs. "unintended"Random sample, 1,490; births in England, 1,984retrospective (>4 mo postpartum)Social classSmoking OR = 1.66 (1.25,2.22)cCartwright, 1988; interview asked pregnancy intention
Intended (stopped using contraception because of pregnancy desire or just before pregnancy, wanted to become pregnant) vs. unintendedNLSY, 1984, women 18–26, nationally representative sample of 6,015Retrospective (78%) and prospective (22% during pregnancy)Race, economically disadvantaged (white), southern or urban resident at age 14, grandmother's education, maternal ageFor unintended, crude RR = 1.04c; adjusted OR = 0.97cMarsiglio and Mott, 1988; they used the term "wanted" but the questions more closely reflect intended
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNMIHS, 1988, nationally representative sample of 9,953Retrospective (at least 1 yr postpartum)Marital status(a) Crude RR = 1.71c (b) crude RR = 1.47cKost et al., 1994; smoked during pregnancy; married women with wanted conception smoked much less than other subgroups
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedOklahoma PRAMS, 1988–1993 (a) N = 2,267 (b) N = 900Retrospective (4-12 mo postpartum)Age, education, race, martial status, source of family income(a) Crude OR = 1.3 (1.02, 1.6); adjusted OR = 1.0 (0.8,1.3) (b) crude OR = 2.4 (1.9, 3.1); adjusted OR = 1.8 (1.3,2.4)DePersio et al., 1994; smoking 3 mo before delivery
Alcohol
Planned vs. unplanned416, central Harlem residents in PNC, 1982–1983Retrospective (at first PNC visit)NoneOR = 2.67cMcCormick et al., 1987; 9.2% drank during pregnancy
Intended (stopped using contraception because of pregnancy desire or just before pregnancy, wanted to become pregnant) vs. unintendedNLSY, 1984, women aged 18-26, nationally representative sample of 6,015Retrospective (78%), prospective (22% during pregnancy)Race, economically disadvantaged (white), southern or urban residents at age 14, grandmother's education, maternal ageFor unintended, crude RR = 1.05c; adjusted OR = 1.25cMarsiglio and Mott, 1988; they used the term "wanted," but the questions more closely reflect intended
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNMIHS, 1988, nationally representative sample of 9,953Retrospective (at least 1 yr postpartum)None(a) RR = 1.11c
(b) RR = 1.77c
Kost et al., 1994; drank one or more times per week
a

The OR (odds ratio) is the odds of adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the odds among unexposed persons.

b

The RR (relative risk) is the risk of the adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the risk among unexposed persons. Relative risk and odds ratios are similar when adverse outcome is rare.

c

Calculated for this report.

NOTE: NNS (National Natality Survey); NSFG (National Survey of Family Growth); NLSY (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth); PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System); NMIHS (National Maternal and Infant Health Survey).

TABLE D-3Studies of Low Birth Weight (LBW) (<2,500 grams) Associated with Pregnancy Intention

Definition of IntentionPopulation/SampleRetrospective/ ProspectiveControl FactorsResultsReference/ Comments
Wanted vs. unwanted17 selected U.S. sites, 1971–1972; 4,891 white and 3,030 black womenRetrospective (at delivery)RaceCrude ORa = 1.2c OR for whites = 1.36c OR for blacks = 0.94cMorris et al., 1973; women with high education and unwanted conceptions had babies with significantly higher LBW rates
Intended (stopped using contraception because of pregnancy desire or just before pregnancy, wanted to become pregnant) vs. unintendedNLSY, 1984, women ages 18–26, nationally representative sample of 6,015Retrospective (78%) and prospective (22% during pregnancy)Race, economically disadvantaged (white), southern or urban resident at age 14, grandmother's education, maternal ageFor unintended, crude RRb = 1.3c; adjusted OR = 0.92c adjusted OR = 0.88c (including behavioral risk factors)Marsiglio and Mott, 1988
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNSFG, 1982 (random sample of U.S. women aged 15–44, with live births 1979–1982)Retrospective (œ 3 yr post-partum)Race(a) RR, all = 1.4c RR, white = 1.2c RR, black = 1.3cPamuk and Mosher, 1988
Unintended vs. intendedCase-control study, 1984; 83 LBW cases, 1,392 NBW controlsRetrospective (at delivery)SmokingCrude OR = 1.28c adjusted OR = 1.17c (0.70, 1.95)cCartwright, 1988
Wanted vs. unwanted1,518 multiparous, indigent women in Birmingham, AL, 1985–1988, with risk of IUGRProspective (at PNC visit)NoneOR = 1.3cGoldenberg et al., 1991; sample was limited to women receiving early PNC
Mistimed, unwanted1988 NSFG, most recent singleton birthRetrospective (< 5 yr post-partum)Smoking, raceReduction in LBW if all unwanted conceptions had been avoidedKendrick et al., 1990; mistimed not associated with LBW
No.% change
Black69,0007
White67,0004
Smoker70,0006
Non- smoker66,0007
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedNMIHS, 1988, nationally representative sample of 9,953Retrospective (at least 1 yr postpartum)None(a) Crude RR = 1.21c
(b) crude RR = 1.80c
Kost et al., 1994
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwantedOklahoma PRAMS, 1988–1993 (a) N = 2,215 (b) N = 888Retrospective (4–12 mo postpartum)Education, black race, marital status at delivery, smoking three months before delivery, trimester that PNC began, infant gender, parity, plurality(a) Crude OR = 1.2 (1.1,1.4); adjusted OR = 1.0 (0.8,1.1) (b) crude OR = 1.4 (1.2,1.6); adjusted OR = 0.9 (0.7,1.1)DePersio et al., 1994
(a) Mistimed, (b) unwanted1990 NICHD/MOMIH surveyRetrospective (>6 mo postpartum)Multiple(a) No increased risk (b) crude OR = 1.44 for LBW adjusted or NS VLBW not associatedSable, 1992
a

The OR (odds ratio) is the odds of adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the odds among unexposed persons.

b

The RR (relative risk) is the risk of the adverse outcome among exposed persons relative to the risk among unexposed persons. Relative risk and odds ratios are similar when adverse outcome is rare.

c

Calculated for this report.

NOTE: NLSY (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth); NBW (Normal birthweight is over 2,500 grams); IUGR (intrauterine growth retardation); NSFG (National Survey of Family Growth); NMIHS (National Maternal and Infant Health Survey); PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System); NICHD/MOMIH (National Institute of Child Health and Development/Missouri Mothers and Infant Health); VLBW (very low birthweight is under 1,500 grams)

Image img00011
Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Bookshelf ID: NBK232125

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (9.0M)

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...