Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale: clinical considerations and comparison with other questions about pregnancy preferences.

Jennifer Anne Hall, Geraldine Barrett, Judith M Stephenson, Natalie Lois Edelman, Corinne Rocca
Author Information
  1. Jennifer Anne Hall: Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, London, UK jennifer.hall@ucl.ac.uk. ORCID
  2. Geraldine Barrett: Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, London, UK. ORCID
  3. Judith M Stephenson: Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
  4. Natalie Lois Edelman: School of Sport & Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK. ORCID
  5. Corinne Rocca: Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, Oakland, San Francisco, California, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and women of reproductive age would benefit from a reliable way to identify who is likely to become pregnant in the next year, in order to direct health advice. The 14-item Desire to Avoid Pregnancy (DAP) scale is predictive of pregnancy; this paper compares it with other ways of assessing pregnancy preferences to shortlist options for clinical implementation.
METHODS: A cohort of 994 UK women of reproductive age completed the DAP and other questions about pregnancy preferences, including the Attitude towards Potential Pregnancy Scale (APPS), at baseline and reported on pregnancies quarterly for a year. For each question, DAP item and combinations of DAP items, we examined the predictive ability, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), and positive and negative predictive values.
RESULTS: The AUROCs and predictive ability of the APPS and DAP single items were weaker than the full DAP, though all except one had acceptable AUROCs (>0.7). The most predictive individual DAP item was 'It would be a good thing for me if I became pregnant in the next 3 months', where women who strongly agreed had a 66.7% chance of pregnancy within 12 months and the AUROC was acceptable (0.77).
CONCLUSION: We recommend exploring the acceptability to women and healthcare professionals of asking a single DAP item ('It would be a good thing for me if I became pregnant in the next 3 months'), possibly in combination with additional DAP items. This will help to guide service provision to support reproductive preferences.

Keywords

References

  1. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 [PMID: 18929686]
  2. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan;8(1):e76-e84 [PMID: 36603914]
  3. Contraception. 2020 Apr;101(4):226-230 [PMID: 31935383]
  4. Contraception. 2020 Apr;101(4):231-236 [PMID: 31935384]
  5. Med Care. 2019 Feb;57(2):152-158 [PMID: 30550399]
  6. Aust J Prim Health. 2023 Jul;29(3):268-275 [PMID: 36346949]
  7. Soc Sci Med. 2002 Aug;55(4):545-57 [PMID: 12188462]
  8. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;51(6):743-750 [PMID: 29536574]
  9. PLoS One. 2021 Sep 20;16(9):e0257411 [PMID: 34543298]
  10. Matern Child Health J. 2017 Mar;21(3):387-392 [PMID: 28220337]
  11. Contraception. 2022 May;109:73-79 [PMID: 35038448]
  12. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014 Nov-Dec;43(6):710-8 [PMID: 25316218]
  13. BJGP Open. 2022 Aug 30;6(2): [PMID: 35177414]
  14. Lancet. 2018 May 5;391(10132):1830-1841 [PMID: 29673873]
  15. Contraception. 2022 Aug;112:93-99 [PMID: 35609628]
  16. Reprod Health. 2023 Sep 25;20(1):144 [PMID: 37749640]
  17. Fam Pract. 2004 Feb;21(1):22-7 [PMID: 14760039]
  18. Contraception. 2020 Feb;101(2):91-96 [PMID: 31881220]
  19. Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5 [PMID: 15405679]
  20. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 13;16(24): [PMID: 31847168]
  21. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;12(6):1100-1122 [PMID: 28841086]
  22. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 2;9:1117 [PMID: 30034353]
  23. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Dec;93(3):655-63 [PMID: 24094839]
  24. BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 25;12(7):e060287 [PMID: 35879004]
  25. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2017 Apr;4(2):184-194 [PMID: 27004949]
  26. Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2022 Mar 08;3(1):326-334 [PMID: 35415707]
  27. Fam Pract. 2016 Dec;33(6):588-595 [PMID: 27650308]
  28. Contraception. 2019 Jan;99(1):27-31 [PMID: 30336133]
  29. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208 [PMID: 31078660]
  30. Women Birth. 2021 Mar;34(2):e153-e161 [PMID: 32312651]
  31. Contraception. 2021 Jan;103(1):6-12 [PMID: 33130107]
  32. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220093 [PMID: 35788671]
  33. Fam Med. 2020 Feb;52(2):112-119 [PMID: 32050265]
  34. Nat Med. 2020 Jan;26(1):71-76 [PMID: 31932807]

MeSH Term

Female
Humans
Pregnancy
Attitude
Psychometrics

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DAPpredictivepregnancywomenpreferencesreproductivepregnantnextPregnancyitemitemsageyearDesireAvoidclinicalquestionsAPPSabilityAUROCAUROCssingleacceptable'Itgoodthingbecame3 months'ReproductiveHealthBACKGROUND:Cliniciansbenefitreliablewayidentifylikelybecomeorderdirecthealthadvice14-itemscalepapercompareswaysassessingshortlistoptionsimplementationMETHODS:cohort994UKcompletedincludingAttitudetowardsPotentialScalebaselinereportedpregnanciesquarterlyquestioncombinationsexaminedsensitivityspecificityareareceiveroperatingcurvepositivenegativevaluesRESULTS:weakerfullthoughexceptone>07individualstronglyagreed667%chancewithin12months077CONCLUSION:recommendexploringacceptabilityhealthcareprofessionalsaskingpossiblycombinationadditionalwillhelpguideserviceprovisionsupportscale:considerationscomparisonServicesfamilyplanningservices

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)