Department of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):441-3. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.05.004.
Recently, there has been interest in developing a predictive measure to assess pregnancy readiness/intention in clinical settings. Two such measures have been created but tested primarily in pregnant or postpartum populations. This study examined agreement between the pregnancy readiness measures in a diverse population of nonpregnant women.
Women completed short questionnaires while waiting for clinical appointments. Participants' responses to the pregnancy readiness measures were cross-tabulated to assess the level of agreement between the measures. Logistic regression was used to determine factors related to disagreement between the measures. Complete information was available for 220 women.
Almost 55% of women had disagreement between the pregnancy readiness measures. Women with a high school education or less had 2.60 times the odds of disagreement (95% confidence interval 1.23-5.49), and women who did not use contraception had 2.40 times the odds of disagreement (95% confidence interval 1.18-4.87).
Although both pregnancy readiness measures are promising tools that could potentially be adapted for use in public health or clinical settings, there are limitations to these measures. These measures should be further tested and refined through the use of qualitative methods to ensure that a valid measure is created for use in non-pregnant populations.
最近,人们对开发一种预测性指标以评估临床环境中的妊娠准备/意愿产生了兴趣。已经创建了两种这样的指标,但主要在孕妇或产后人群中进行了测试。本研究在非孕妇的多样化人群中检查了这些妊娠准备指标之间的一致性。
女性在等待临床预约时完成简短的问卷。将参与者对妊娠准备度测量的回答进行交叉制表,以评估这些测量之间的一致性程度。使用逻辑回归来确定与这些测量之间的差异相关的因素。共有 220 名妇女提供了完整信息。
将近 55%的女性在妊娠准备度测量方面存在差异。具有高中学历或以下学历的女性出现差异的可能性是其 2.60 倍(95%置信区间 1.23-5.49),而不使用避孕措施的女性出现差异的可能性是其 2.40 倍(95%置信区间 1.18-4.87)。
尽管这两种妊娠准备度指标都是很有前途的工具,有可能适用于公共卫生或临床环境,但这些指标仍存在局限性。应通过使用定性方法进一步测试和完善这些指标,以确保为非孕妇群创建一个有效的指标。