Predictive ability of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale.

Jennifer A Hall, Geraldine Barrett, Judith Stephenson, Corinne H Rocca, Natalie Edelman
Author Information
  1. Jennifer A Hall: Reproductive Health Research Department, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, London, UK. jennifer.hall@ucl.ac.uk.
  2. Geraldine Barrett: Reproductive Health Research Department, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
  3. Judith Stephenson: Reproductive Health Research Department, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
  4. Corinne H Rocca: San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, USA.
  5. Natalie Edelman: Independent Researcher and Trauma-Informed Consultant at TRuST, Brighton, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A longstanding gap in the reproductive health field has been the availability of a screening instrument that can reliably predict a person's likelihood of becoming pregnant. The Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale is a new measure; understanding its sensitivity and specificity as a screening tool for pregnancy as well as its predictive ability and how this varies by socio-demographic factors is important to inform its implementation.
METHODS: This analysis was conducted on a cohort of 994 non-pregnant participants recruited in October 2018 and followed up for one year. The cohort was recruited using social media as well as advertisements in a university, school, abortion clinic and outreach sexual health service. Almost 90% of eligible participants completed follow-up at 12 months; those lost to follow-up were not significantly different on key socio-demographic factors. We used baseline DAP score and a binary variable of whether participants experienced pregnancy during the study to assess the sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the DAP at a range of cut-points. We also examined how the predictive ability of the DAP varied according to socio-demographic factors and by the time frame considered (e.g., pregnancy within 3, 6, 9 and 12 months).
RESULTS: At a cut-point of 2 on the 0-4 range of the DAP scale, the DAP had a sensitivity of 0.78, a specificity of 0.81 and an excellent AUROC of 0.87. In this sample the cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 16% (95%CI 13%, 18%) making the PPV 43% and the NPV 95% at this cut-point. The DAP score was the factor most strongly associated with pregnancy, even after age and number of children were taken into account. The association between baseline DAP score and pregnancy did not differ across time frames.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the DAP scale as a screening tool and shows that its predictive ability is superior to the limited pre-existing pregnancy prediction tools. Based on our findings, the DAP could be used with a cut-point selected according to the purpose.

References

  1. Fertil Steril. 1996 Mar;65(3):503-9 [PMID: 8774277]
  2. Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5 [PMID: 15405679]
  3. Med Care. 2019 Feb;57(2):152-158 [PMID: 30550399]
  4. BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 25;12(7):e060287 [PMID: 35879004]
  5. PLoS One. 2021 Sep 20;16(9):e0257411 [PMID: 34543298]
  6. Contraception. 2020 Feb;101(2):79-85 [PMID: 31805265]
  7. Hum Reprod. 2003 Sep;18(9):1959-66 [PMID: 12923157]
  8. Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1774-8 [PMID: 19395365]
  9. Hum Reprod. 2004 Sep;19(9):2019-26 [PMID: 15192070]
  10. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 [PMID: 18929686]
  11. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2022 Sep;54(3):90-98 [PMID: 36071572]
  12. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016 Sep;38(3):e384-e391 [PMID: 26354998]
  13. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 13;16(24): [PMID: 31847168]
  14. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Jan;38(1):77-94 [PMID: 30424937]
  15. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2023 Jul;49(3):167-175 [PMID: 36717217]
  16. Hum Reprod. 2005 Jun;20(6):1636-41 [PMID: 15760951]
  17. Hum Reprod. 2007 Feb;22(2):536-42 [PMID: 16997935]
  18. Hum Reprod. 2022 Mar 01;37(3):565-576 [PMID: 35024824]
  19. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208 [PMID: 31078660]
  20. Women Birth. 2021 Mar;34(2):e153-e161 [PMID: 32312651]

Grants

  1. PDF-2017-10-021/National Institute for Health and Care Research

MeSH Term

Female
Pregnancy
Child
Humans
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Reproductive Health
Schools
Universities

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DAPpregnancypredictiveabilityscreeningsensitivityspecificitysocio-demographicfactorsparticipantsscorecut-pointscale0healthDesireAvoidPregnancytoolwellcohortrecruitedfollow-up12monthsusedbaselinestudyassessAUROCPPVNPVrangeaccordingtimeBACKGROUND:longstandinggapreproductivefieldavailabilityinstrumentcanreliablypredictperson'slikelihoodbecomingpregnantScalenewmeasureunderstandingvariesimportantinformimplementationMETHODS:analysisconducted994non-pregnantOctober2018followedoneyearusingsocialmediaadvertisementsuniversityschoolabortionclinicoutreachsexualserviceAlmost90%eligiblecompletedlostsignificantlydifferentkeybinaryvariablewhetherexperiencedareaROCcurvepositivenegativevaluescut-pointsalsoexaminedvariedframeconsideredegwithin369RESULTS:20-47881excellent87samplecumulativeincidence16%95%CI13%18%making43%95%factorstronglyassociatedevenagenumberchildrentakenaccountassociationdifferacrossframesCONCLUSIONS:firstshowssuperiorlimitedpre-existingpredictiontoolsBasedfindingsselectedpurposePredictive

Similar Articles

Cited By