Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1087–1096 | Cite as

Pregnancy Intentions and Maternal and Child Health: An Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Oklahoma

  • Laura LindbergEmail author
  • Isaac Maddow-Zimet
  • Kathryn Kost
  • Alicia Lincoln


Better understanding of the impact of unintended childbearing on infant and early childhood health is needed for public health practice and policy. Data from the 2004–2008 Oklahoma Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey and The Oklahoma Toddler Survey 2006–2010 were used to examine associations between a four category measure of pregnancy intentions (intended, mistimed <2 years, mistimed ≥2 years, unwanted) and maternal behaviors and child health outcomes up to age two. Propensity score methods were used to control for confounding. Births mistimed by two or more years (OR .58) and unwanted births (OR .33) had significantly lower odds than intended births of having a mother who recognized the pregnancy within the first 8 weeks; they were also about half as likely as intended births to receive early prenatal care, and had significantly higher likelihoods of exposure to cigarette smoke during pregnancy. Breastfeeding was significantly less likely among unwanted births (OR .68); breastfeeding for at least 6 months was significantly less likely among seriously mistimed births (OR .70). We find little association between intention status and early childhood measures. Measured associations of intention status on health behaviors and outcomes were most evident in the prenatal period, limited in the immediate prenatal period, and mostly insignificant by age two. In addition, most of the negative associations between intention status and health outcomes were concentrated among women with births mistimed by two or more years or unwanted births. Surveys should incorporate questions on the extent of mistiming when measuring pregnancy intentions.


Unintended pregnancy Pregnancy intentions PRAMS Child health 



This study was supported by Grant R40 MC 25692 from the Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act), Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD068433. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services.


  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. (2011). Clinical preventive services for women: Closing the gaps. Report of the Committee on Preventive Services for Women. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy People 2020 topics & objectives.
  3. 3.
    Gipson, J. D., Koenig, M. A., & Hindin, M. J. (2008). The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: A review of the literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39(1), 18–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Logan, C., Holcombe, E., Manlove, J., & Ryan, S. (2007). The consequences of unintended childbearing: A white paper. Washington, DC: Child Trends and The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joyce, T. J., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2000). The effect of pregnancy intention on child development. Demography, 37(1), 83–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baydar, N. (1995). Consequences for children of their birth planning status. Family Planning Perspectives, 27(6), 228–34, 245.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crissey, S. R. (2005). Effect of pregnancy intention on child well-being and development: Combining retrospective reports of attitude and contraceptive use. Population Research and Policy Review, 24(6), 593–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carson, C., et al. (2011). Effect of pregnancy planning and fertility treatment on cognitive outcomes in children at ages 3 and 5: Longitudinal cohort study. British Medical Journal, 343, d4473.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hummer, R. A., Hack, K. A., & Raley, R. K. (2004). Retrospective reports of pregnancy wantedness and child well-being in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 25(3), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2011). Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception, 84(5), 478–485.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenberg, K. D., et al. (2011). New options for child health surveillance by state health departments. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(3), 302–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santelli, J., et al. (2003). The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(2), 94–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klerman, L. V. (2000). The intendedness of pregnancy: A concept in transition. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pulley, L., Klerman, L. V., Tang, H., & Baker, B. A. (2002). The extent of pregnancy mistiming and its association with maternal characteristics and behaviors and pregnancy outcomes. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(4), 206–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosher, W. D., Jones, J., & Abma, J. C. (2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. Hyattsville, MD: National Center of Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindberg, L. D., Finer, L. B., & Stokes-Prindle, C. (2008). Refining measures of pregnancy intention: Taking timing into account. In 2008 Annual meetings of the Population Association of America. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oklahoma State Department of Health. (2006). PRAMSGRAM: Unintended pregnancy.
  18. 18.
    Oklahoma State Department of Health. (2010). TOTS brief: The Oklahoma Toddler Survey.
  19. 19.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). PRAMS model surveillance protocol, 2009 CATI version.
  20. 20.
    Oklahoma State Department of Health. (2012). TOTS 2012 protocol. Unpublished manuscript available upon request at Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, G., Siahpush, M., & Kogan, M. D. (2010). Disparities in children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the United States, 2007. Pediatrics, 126(5), 1052.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hagan, J. F., Shaw, J. S., & Duncan, P. M. (Eds.). (2008). Bright futures: Guidelines for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose–response functions. Biometrika, 87(3), 706–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: A comparative study. Statistics in Medicine, 23(19), 2937–2960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dugoff, E. H., Schuler, M., & Stuart, E. A. (2013). Generalizing observational study results: Applying propensity score methods to complex surveys. Health Services Research49(1), 284–303.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sonfield, A., & Kost, K. (2013). Public costs from unintended pregnancies and the role of public insurance programs in paying for pregnancy and infant care: Estimates for 2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hayford, S. R., & Guzzo, K. B. (2010). Age, relationship status, and the planning status of births. Demographic Research, 23(13), 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D’Angelo, D. V., et al. (2004). Differences between mistimed and unwanted pregnancies among women who have live births. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36(5), 192–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice & Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. (2009). Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(6), 1434–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Speidel, J. J., Harper, C. C., & Shields, W. C. (2008). The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 78(3), 197–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baldwin, M. K., Rodriguez, M. I., & Edelman, A. B. (2012). Lack of insurance and parity influence choice between long-acting reversible contraception and sterilization in women postpregnancy. Contraception, 86(1), 42–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Braveman, P., & Barclay, C. (2009). Health disparities beginning in childhood: A life-course perspective. Pediatrics, 124(Suppl 3), S163–S175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shah, P. S., et al. (2011). Intention to become pregnant and low birth weight and preterm birth: A systematic review. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(2), 205–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Durousseau, S., & Chavez, G. F. (2003). Associations of intrauterine growth restriction among term infants and maternal pregnancy intendedness, initial happiness about being pregnant, and sense of control. Pediatrics, 111(5 Part 2), 1171–1175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kost, K., Landry, D. L., & Darroch, J. E. (1998). The effects of pregnancy planning status on birth outcomes and infant care. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(5), 223–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCrory, C., & McNally, S. (2013). The effect of pregnancy intention on maternal prenatal behaviours and parent and child health: Results of an Irish cohort study. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 27(2), 208–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guzzo, K. B., & Hayford, S. R. (2014). Revisiting retrospective reporting of first-birth intendedness. Maternal and Child Health Journal. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1462-7.
  42. 42.
    Joyce, T., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2000). The stability of pregnancy intentions and pregnancy-related maternal behaviors. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 171–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lewis, C. C., Pantell, R. H., & Kieckhefer, G. M. (1989). Assessment of children’s health status: Field test of new approaches. Medical Care, 27(Suppl. 3), S54–S65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Lindberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isaac Maddow-Zimet
    • 1
  • Kathryn Kost
    • 1
  • Alicia Lincoln
    • 2
  1. 1.Guttmacher InstituteNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Maternal and Child Health ServiceOklahoma Department of HealthOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations