https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4305-4095
Abstract
Objective
The study examines the differences within unintended first pregnancies in the life course of 20–44 year old women. Special attention is paid to response and pregnancy acceptance. Exploring determinants and dynamics, this study will contribute to a better understanding of ‘happiness with an unintended pregnancy’, as this is assumed to be indicative of fewer social problems and health risks.
Methods
Retrospective survey data on first unintended pregnancies carried to term (n = 2,306) were analysed using bivariate analysis. Qualitative analysis of the narrations of such pregnancies (n = 59) used the technique of comparing cases. Standardised and qualitative data are available for first intended or aborted pregnancies as comparison groups. All data were collected from the cross-sectional mixed-methods study of ‘Women’s Lives: Family Planning in the Life Course’ (2012–2018, Federal Centre of Health Education, Germany).
Results
Two-fifth of the unintended pregnancies carried to term were ‘(very) welcome’. Pregnancy intention, contraceptive use, living conditions, and attitudes had a significant impact. Five pathways of acceptance – sooner or later, more easy or hard to achieve – were identified in the qualitative data.
Conclusion
Unintended pregnancies form a continuum ranging from readily accepted ‘happy’ pregnancies to pregnancies hard to accept. A new measure should also include postconception acceptance, besides preconception desire.
摘要
目标：这项研究调查了20-44岁女性生命过程中首次意外怀孕的差异。特别关注女性的反应和妊娠接受度。探索决定因素和动力, 这项研究将有助于更好地理解“意外怀孕的幸福”, 因为这被认为是较少的社会问题和健康风险的指示。
方法：对2306例足月首次意外妊娠的回顾性调查数据进行双变量分析。对这种妊娠叙述的定性分析(n =59)使用了病例对比。标准化和定性数据可用于首次妊娠或流产作为比较组。所有数据均来自“女性生活:生命历程中的计划生育”(2012–2018, 德国联邦健康教育中心)的横断面混合方法研究。
结果：五分之二的意外怀孕是“非常受欢迎的”。怀孕意向、避孕药的使用、生活条件和态度都有显著影响。定性数据中确定了五种接受途径——早或晚, 更容易或更难实现。
结论：意外怀孕形成了一个连续范围, 从容易接受的“幸福”怀孕到难以接受的怀孕。除了孕前愿望之外, 新的衡量标准还应该包括孕后接受度。
Introduction
Unintended pregnancies are associated with social problems and health risks for mother and child [Citation1]. However, differentiation is called for as there is some evidence that not all unintended pregnancies imply the same adverse consequences to the same extent. Especially, ‘the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy’ [Citation2,p.149] is discussed as a predictor of positive development after unintended conception [Citation2]. Depending on the scope and measures of surveys, approximately every second to fourth woman with an unintended pregnancy carried to term reported positive feelings [Citation3–8]. The differentiation requires a clarification of the dimensions of the umbrella term ‘unintended’ and should also discuss the response to pregnancy.
Differentiation of ‘unintended’ as ‘unwanted’ or ‘mistimed’ is provided by the timing-based measure introduced in 1965 in the US-National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and well established as a standard later [Citation9–11]. The ‘London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy’ (LMUP, defined in the 1990s) goes beyond that by proposing a continuum between strictly planned and strictly unplanned pregnancy rated in six dimensions. Efforts to avoid a pregnancy – for example, by using contraceptives – are included as a dimension [Citation12–14]. As a critique of the prevailing ‘planning paradigm’ [Citation15,p.148], research was carried out on the ambivalence concerning pregnancy (with varying definitions: [Citation16–18]), on the impact of emotions and affective attitudes, and on intendedness ‘in between wanted and unwanted’ [Citation6,Citation11,Citation19–24].
The focus on intention and desire before conceiving was widened by including feelings and considerations after the pregnancy was confirmed [Citation9; for NSFG: Citation5,Citation25]. Stanford et al. [Citation26,p.185] defined a ‘postconception desire for pregnancy’ and ‘adaptation to pregnancy and baby’ as two out of the five dimensions of ‘pregnancy intendedness’. Aiken et al. [Citation15] defined the ‘perception of pregnancy’ and ‘pregnancy acceptability’ as indicators of pregnancy wantedness. Judging a pregnancy as acceptable can turn an unintended conception into a wanted pregnancy [Citation2,Citation15]. Gomez et al. defined pregnancy acceptance as a measure ‘which captures whether individuals anticipate considering an unexpected pregnancy welcome, manageable, or okay’ [Citation22,p.408]. However, the terms ‘happiness’, ‘pregnancy acceptability’, and ‘postconception desire’ are neither clarified nor well-founded in theory.
Aiken et al. [Citation2] explored happiness about the prospect of a pregnancy in the next few months among women who wanted no more children. In the semi-structured interviews, one of the reasons underlying this paradox was a ‘deep and heartfelt feeling about children taking precedence over practical consideration’ [p.159]. Some evidence is provided that in the United States this attitude is more pronounced among Latina [Citation2] respectively women with a low income [Citation11,Citation20]. In retrospective studies, mistimed pregnancies and pregnancies after omitting contraceptives were welcome more frequently compared to unwanted pregnancies, respectively those due to contraceptive failure [Citation6,Citation9]. Correlations were observed between positive feelings and the decision to keep the baby [Citation5,Citation27]. Interrelations between more or less favourable living conditions and general attitudes towards motherhood at the time of pregnancy and their respective impact on the response to pregnancy and pregnancy acceptance remain unclear. Furthermore, the impact of the pregnancy itself as a trigger for changes and the subsequent process of adaptation to pregnancy have not been explored.
First, more insight into the heterogeneity of ‘unintended’ pregnancy carried to term is provided with a main focus on differentiating between positive and negative responses, and the determinants of the response such as attitudes and living conditions are explored. The more or less ‘happy’ unintended pregnancies are discussed based on whether they share some features with intended pregnancies (acceptance assumed a priori) and pregnancies ending in abortion (no acceptance assumed). Second, five types of pathways of emerging acceptance in the course of unintended pregnancy – sooner or later, more easy or difficult – are derived from the qualitative interviews.
Methods
The cross-sectional mixed-methods study ‘Women’s lives: family planning in the life course’ was conducted in 2012–2018 in 12 Federal States of Germany. The standardised, population-based CATI survey includes a random sample of n = 14,522 women who were 20–44 years old. All participants who ever experienced an unintended pregnancy were asked for their willingness to give an additional in-depth interview. From those agreed, n = 116 were selected by purposeful sampling: one case was chosen after the other in contrast to the previous cases concerning age, education, and family situation. As no statistical generalisability is intended in the qualitative analysis, the quality criterion of the sample is maximal heterogeneity concerning relevant features. The design provides the option to merge standardised and qualitative data for 116 women.
The analyses are restricted to first pregnancies in the life course carried to term or aborted. As the dynamics of unintended pregnancies differ in the succession of first and further pregnancies [Citation6], this restriction generates a more homogeneous sample. Standardised data on n = 2,306 unintended and n = 6050 intended pregnancies leading to a first baby, and n = 620 first pregnancies ending in abortion are available. In accordance with the second research question, the qualitative interviews were selected out of the 116 in-depth interviews which recounted a first pregnancy that occurred unintentionally and resulted in a first baby (n = 59) or an abortion (n = 33), providing subjective reports of sufficient quality for analysis.
The standardised questionnaire collected retrospective data on all pregnancies. Intendedness was unintended according to the time-based measure of NSFG by combining desire and timing [Citation10]. Five categories were offered: (1) ‘wanted and the time was right’, (2) ‘wanted, but should have happened earlier’, (3) ‘wanted, but should have happened later’, (4) ‘I was ambivalent/did not make up my mind’, and (5) ‘unwanted’. Pregnancies at the right time or overdue were recoded as ‘intended’ (1, 2). The label ‘not strictly unwanted’ pools both ‘mistimed’ and ‘ambivalent, not decided’ (3, 4), as they express the idea of some kind of desire coinciding with lacking intention. Abortions are set as ‘unwanted’ [Citation10]. The label ‘unintended’ pools items 3–5. The first spontaneous response to pregnancy was measured with a scale ranging from one (very welcome) to six (not at all welcome). Analysis groups 1–2 were marked as ‘(very) welcome, positive’, 3–4 as ‘ambiguous’, and 5–6 as ‘not welcome (at all), negative’. Contraceptive use was reported as ‘yes’ (contraceptive failure, information on kind of contraception) or ‘no’ (contraceptive negligence).
Living conditions at the time of pregnancy were measured via a set of items which are known to influence the probability of unintended pregnancies [Citation6,Citation28–30] including age < 20 years, difficulties in relationship and in the professional or economic situation, summarised in a variable each. The item ‘I always wanted to have children’ captures a positive attitude towards children (full, partial, and no agreement). The statistical analyses are limited to bivariate contingency tables.
The guiding question in in-depth interviews prompted a free narration of the biography covering all pregnancies. The ‘cases’ are the narrated episodes of the process of emerging acceptance of an unintended first pregnancy. They start at the time before conception, locate the pregnancy in the context of living conditions at that time, and narrate all that happened since they discovered about the pregnancy and made a decision about it, resulting in positive feelings towards the baby (‘unplanned, but someday I was glad about it’). Qualitative analysis used a procedure of repeated contrasting of cases. Similar to the steps of coding in the grounded theory, a key category of ‘acceptance of pregnancy’ was developed. By this, a typology of five patterns was achieved.
SoFFI F./FIVE has established guidelines for ethical standards and data security and employs a data protection officer. He assessed the procedures according to the rules. As social science research (not medical research), an ethical approval by an external board was not required.
Results
Heterogeneity within the category ‘unintended pregnancy, carried to term’ and determinants of response
Unintended first pregnancies carried to term are heterogeneous as they show different manifestations of response, quality of ‘unintendedness’, and efforts to avoid the pregnancy. A total of 40.5% of the participants gave a positive response and 40.7% gave an ambiguous response, while only one-fifth reported negative feelings (18.9%). Further, 67.3% were declared as not strictly unwanted and 32.7% as unwanted. In 61.6% of the cases, contraceptives were omitted; 38.4% occurred while using contraceptives – among those the majority use the pill (63.9%) and/or condoms (29.5%). Only a few cases of contraceptives with low efficacy were mentioned.
shows that the response is interrelated with pregnancy intention and efforts to avoid the pregnancy: Pregnancies which are declared as ‘not strictly unwanted’ are more often ‘(very) welcome’ compared to ‘unwanted’ pregnancies. This also applies to those pregnancies reported as a result of no contraceptive use compared to those which occurred while using contraception. Thus, the unintended pregnancies that were welcome share some features we would rather expect in intended pregnancies, such as no contraceptive use or some kind of preconception desire. Unintended pregnancies which were not welcome resemble abortion in the contexts of a higher rate of ‘unwanted’ pregnancies and contraceptive failure.
Table 1. Response to the pregnancy (unintended pregnancies carried to term, first pregnancy in life).
confirms an impact of adverse living conditions with the response being less positive if these living conditions were difficult. Most important are difficulties in relationship and an age younger than 20 years rather than a difficult job and/or financial situation. A generalised orientation towards children shows little if any association. School education does not show any influence.
Five types of pathways: emerging acceptance in the course of an unintended pregnancy
On the one hand, qualitative analysis offers the opportunity to identify different pathways and meanings of ‘acceptance’ hidden behind a statistical correlation between pregnancy intention and efforts to avoid the pregnancy. On the other hand, the response helps to understand the attitudes and subjective perspectives on living conditions. Comparing the different narratives and discussing similarities and differences, three main dimensions of differences were identified: the moment (sooner or later) of emerging acceptance, attitudes towards the prospect of having a baby, and the plot of the story. Five pathways of emerging acceptance were identified. Some cases might show features of more than one type, and a few cases do not fit into the scheme because of individual traits ().
Table 2. Qualitative typology of emerging acceptance of a first pregnancy, unintended and carried to term: Moment of emergence, attitude towards the prospect to have a baby and plot of the story.
• Type 1: deliberate planning was not necessary: acceptance before conception
This type of narrative starts with a readiness for having a child as a deeply-rooted attitude in life or that emerges later, for example, related to ‘appropriate age’. Living conditions made the prospect of a baby at least manageable if not desirable. Behaviour is described as ‘it was clear that we take a chance’. Contraceptives were omitted or used irregularly. A positive response is plausible as any outcome of the risk behaviour was welcome and accepted: ‘If it happens, it happens’.
At that point it was irrelevant, we did not mind anymore. (…) we consciously stopped using contraceptives (…) it came as a surprise one day (…), but it was okay.
Although the question arises as to whether the pregnancy was really unwanted, there are reasons for not classifying the pregnancy as intended. Planning is considered as not necessary or the desire remains rather vague and lacks the necessary clarity to deliberately take steps to prepare for pregnancy.
I would have used contraceptives properly if I did not want children at all.
• Type 2: deliberate planning was not possible: acceptance when pregnancy was confirmed
A second type of narrative characterises the time before pregnancy as a conflict between the desire for a child and the counteracting obstacles with the metaphor of ‘heart’ and ‘feeling’ versus ‘head/rationality’ and ‘reason’. In light of the living conditions, it appears unreasonable or unjustifiable to get pregnant. Therefore, a pregnancy should not be planed deliberately. A specific no-go is the explicit rejection of a child by the partner, as no woman should force a man to become a father. It is underlined that the pregnancy occurred ‘without intention’ (=not the fault of the women), ‘was impossible, actually’, or was caused by something beyond control such as contraceptive failure.
I would not have dared to get pregnant – at least not at that time.
I cannot say I did it deliberately. (…) But I do not know, probably the body did it anyhow. Actually, it was a time when it should not happen at all.
To be pregnant created a new reality or a fact and the desire for a child was suddenly fulfilled, causing positive feelings. New light is shed on this situation.
We did not really discuss our future at that time. The idea that children might be a part of it only came up at the very moment we knew I was pregnant.
At this stage, problems were subordinated to the priority of becoming a mother (‘the child was more important to me. Then I cancelled my vocational training’) and the future was clarified.
• Type 3: acceptance when, spontaneously, the moral decision was made to keep the baby
The third type of narration reports acceptance of the pregnancy despite a lack of desire to have a baby and a negative responseFootnote1. They refer to moral reflections rather than emotions. Three main arguments were as follows. First was that it was a social norm (‘the normal, clear step’), which implied that, in general, any pregnancy should be accepted as a fact. Hence, women should take responsibility and give birth to the child. Second argument was that abortion is no option in general or is regarded as impossible and is no option even in a concrete situation. Third, a positive identification as a ‘saving’ and ‘protecting’ hero-mother is presented.
I somehow had decided instinctively before deciding consciously: Yes, now that it is here, I am going to protect it somehow.
Women either expressed optimism concerning the living conditions (‘somehow it is working’) or acceptance of the pregnancy despite adverse conditions. In this case, the narration of difficulties highlights the social costs, courage, and strength of the women who decide in favour of the child.
• Type 4: acceptance later: change of mind due to a change of perspectives
The fourth type of narrative is structured as a story of a personal conversion after a turning point. Negative aspects – rejection of pregnancy, negative response, and consideration or even initiation of steps to get an abortion – were abandoned and positive feelings emerged. While the ultrasound image of the foetus served as a trigger in some cases, it was the newly discovered opportunities in the other cases.
I never wanted children (…). At first, I was shocked, because I did not want it. However, after seeing the first ultrasound image you are totally happy (laughing).
• Type 5: acceptance later after working out uncertainty and ambivalence
Finally, the fifth type represents stories of clarifying emotions. Acceptance and positive response emerge as a result of this process. This type includes complex ambivalent feelings after conception such as happiness, desire, or confidence mixed with anxiety, fear of failure, or stress, and the difficulties in making a decision (‘an inner struggle: I thought I do not want it, actually, or I do not want it yet’).
Discussion
The analysis supports previously demonstrated results [Citation3–5,Citation7,Citation8,Citation22] that not all unintended pregnancies follow a clear pattern of ‘no intention/desire to have a child, efforts to avoid the pregnancy, negative response to the pregnancy (and decision for an abortion)’. The standardised and qualitative analysis explores pregnancy acceptance indicated by positive response as the central category, with the power to differentiate between unintended pregnancies with a positive or negative response and to identify different meanings and pathways to ‘acceptance’. The quantitative analysis shows that for first unintended pregnancies carried to term, the response as ‘(very) welcome’ is related to features such as ‘not strictly unwanted’ and no contraceptive use we would rather expect as aspects of intended pregnancies – only the deliberate intention to plan a pregnancy was lacking. Altogether we might think of a continuum of first pregnancies ranging from intended/at the right time or overdue – unintended but welcome – unintended and not welcome – abortions.
The qualitative typology represents a continuum, too, ranging from pregnancies accepted soon and easily to pregnancies accepted late and with many conflicts. Type 1 and 2 are about pregnancies that were accepted early and easily and resemble intended pregnancies concerning the desire, the weak efforts to avoid the pregnancy – they said that a deliberate intention was unnecessary or impossible. These pregnancies might be seen as manifestations of ‘happy’ unintended pregnancies. The pathways of type 4 and 5 rather share features of first pregnancies resulting in an abortion and correspond with unintended pregnancies ‘not welcome (at all)’. This typology adds two more dimensions: the moment and contradiction of emerging acceptance.
The typology seems apt to integrate some findings of previous research into a systematic analytical framework. In the first type of pathways, the label ‘unintended’ rather meant that a deliberate ‘planning’, based on a clear intention, is unnecessary. This corresponds to Earle’s findings of ‘laissez faire pregnancy’ [Citation21] and ‘passive proceptive behaviour’, as described by Stanford et al. [Citation26]. The second pathway says that deliberate intention was not possible, desirable, or justifiable, reflecting the stigmatisation of a pregnancy at the wrong time. These stories of unintended victory of the heart over the head do not present the pregnancies ‘bad luck’ or ‘unhappy ones’ as they do not meet the standards of deliberate planning, which are too high, as found in previous research [Citation24]. Earle [Citation21] and Aiken et al. [Citation15] described a desire for a pregnancy associated with a social stigma to go deliberately forward for it (‘recalcitrant pregnancy’), if women look for a pregnancy ‘outside the expected ideals regarding social and economic readiness’ [Citation15,p.148]. Especially in Germany, the definition of social and economic readiness as a precondition for raising children is ambitious [Citation31]. The third type shows the combination of spontaneous negative response changing to acceptance if the pregnancy is seen in the light of social and moral norms as an obligation to give birth. Acceptance is also obligatory, as no child should be unwanted even if the circumstances are adverse. Yet, only a few studies have explored the relationship between decision-making and happiness about pregnancy [Citation26]. In the fourth and fifth types, the focus is on refraining from abortion. These stories of ‘late acceptance’ can be related to the results of research on decision-making in case of unintended pregnancy [Citation6,Citation30].
The quantitative and qualitative analyses underline the impact of (the subjective evaluation of) living conditions and some aspects of attitudes towards having a baby/an abortion. This has not been well explored until now. A positive response was significantly more frequent if living conditions were favourable or if women conceived at an older age. As all these factors are known to increase the likelihood that the first pregnancy in the life course occurred unintentionally [Citation6], the influence might be direct or indirect (via pregnancy intention). Attitudes and conditions might be interrelated; once the pregnancy occurs, the conditions are judged via the lens of desire; however, these conditions and norms of social readiness for children also in turn influence the desire. The inclusion of living conditions implies that pregnancy acceptance is not understood only in a culturalistic approach as socio-culturally rooted ‘heartfelt feelings’ [Citation2]. This is especially important as, unlike in the United States [Citation2], in Germany, less educated women more often experience unintended first pregnancies [Citation6], but the acceptance of these pregnancies is not a question of education ().
A second impulse can be worked out. The analytic framework as a qualitative typology integrates the importance of conception as forwarding a new situation that demands adaptation.
Strength and weakness of the study
Since the analysis is restricted to first pregnancies carried to term or being aborted, these results cannot be generalised for unintended pregnancies. The inclusion of still births would provide a complete picture. Another limitation is the retrospective nature of standardised and qualitative data. However, while analysing the narratives, we discussed the impact of strategies of self-presentation, justifications, and social norms. The strength of the study is the mixed-methods-design, which offers the opportunity to relate standardised and qualitative data to the same case.
Conclusions
The findings substantiate the demand for a measure of ‘wantedness’ that includes preconception pregnancy intention and postconception pregnancy acceptance. This would be a promising and useful tool to differentiate unintended respectively unplanned pregnancies carried to term according to social and health problems they involve respectively positive developments after conception. The usual standardised ‘unintended’ measures such as the NSFG measure or the ‘unplanned’ ones such as LMUP capture only insufficiently first, that lacking intention and deliberate planning is not always a problem per se and does not strictly exclude a positive attitude towards a child and, second, that the desire for a child might change in the course of the pregnancy. Some proposals for relevant dimensions to be covered by such a measure can be drawn from our findings, that is, time and ease of emerging acceptance. The impact of attitudes, adverse living conditions, support, guidance, and counselling in case of unintended pregnancy carried to term could be explored in more detail using such a measure.
Acknowledgment
We thank Julika Clausen for her support of the SoFFI-Team. The survey was conducted by KANTAR, Bielefeld.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes
1 Two narrations deal with pregnancies that were diagnosed too late for an abortion. The new evaluation and the emergence of acceptance follow the same pattern, focusing on how to cope with adverse living conditions.
References
- Gipson JD, Koenig MA, Hindin MJ. The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann. 2008;39(1):18–38.
- Aiken ARA, Dillaway C, Mevs-Korff N. A blessing I can’t afford: factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;132:149–155.
- Sable MR, Libbus MK. Pregnancy intention and pregnancy happiness: are they different? Matern Child Health J. 2000;4(3):191–196.
- Trussel J, Vaughan B, Stanford J. Are all contraceptive failures unintended pregnancies? evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 1999;31(5):246–247.
- Aiken ARA, Westhoff CL, Trussell J, et al. Comparison of a timing-based measure of unitended pregnancy and the London measure of unplanned pregnancy. Perspect Sex Repro H. 2016;48(3):139–146. 2016/08/30.
- Helfferich C, Klindworth H, Heine Y, et al. Frauen Leben 3. Familienplanung im Lebenslauf von Frauen. Schwerpunkt: Ungewollte Schwangerschaften. Eine Studie im Auftrag der BZgA. [Womens’s live 3: family planning in the life course. Focus: unintended pregnancies. A study commissioned by the Federal Centre for Health Education]. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA); 2016. German.
- Blake SM, Kiely M, Gard CC, et al. Pregnancy intentions and happiness among pregnant Black women at high risk for adverse infant health outcomes. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007;39(4):194–205.
- Pulley L, Klerman LV, Tang H, et al. The extent of pregnancy mistiming and its association with maternal characteristics and behaviors and pregnancy outcomes. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002;34(4):206–211.
- Santelli JS, Lindberg LD, Orr MG, et al. Toward a multidimensional measure of pregnancy intentions: evidence from the United States. Stud Fam Plann. 2009;40(2):87–100.
- Santelli J, Rochat R, Hatfield-Timajchy K, et al. The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2003;35(2):94–101.
- Moos MK, Petersen R, Meadows K, et al. Pregnant women’s perspectives on intendedness of pregnancy. Womens Health Issues. 1997;7(6):385–392.
- Mosher WD, Jones J, Abma JC. Intended and unintended births in the United States. Natl Heal Stat Report. 2012;55:1–28.
- Bachrach CA, Newcomer S. Intended pregnancies and unintended pregnancies: distinct categories or opposite ends of a continuum? Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31(5):251–251.
- Barrett G, Smith SC, Wellings K. Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(5):426–433.
- Aiken ARA, Borrero S, Callegari LS, et al. Rethinking the pregnancy planning paradigm: unintended conceptions or unrepresentative concepts? Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48(3):147–151.
- Askelson NM, Losch ME, Thomas LJ, et al. “Baby? Baby Not?”: exploring women’s narratives about ambivalence towards an unintended pregnancy? Women Health. 2015;55(7):842–858.
- Yoo SH, Guzzo KB, Hayford SR. Understanding the complexity of ambivalence toward pregnancy: does it predict inconsistent use of contraception? Biodemography Soc Biol. 2014;60(1):49–66.
- Cutler A, McNamara B, Qasba N, et al. “I just don’t know”: an exploration of women’s ambivalence about a new pregnancy. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28(1):75–81.
- Shreffler KM, Wilson G, Stamps Mitchell K, et al. Considering planning salience in women’s pregnancy intentions. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38(3):204.
- Borrero S, Nikolajski C, Steinberg JR, et al. “It just happens”: a qualitative study exploring low-income women’s perspectives on pregnancy intention and planning. Contraception. 2015;91(2):150–156.[Mismatch] [pubmedMismatch]
- Earle S. “Planned” and “unplanned” pregnancy: deconstructing experiences of conception. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2004;7(1):39–42.
- Gomez AM, Arteaga S, Ingraham N, et al. It’s not planned, but is it okay? The acceptability of unplanned pregnancy among young people. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28(5):408–414.
- McQuillan J, Greil AL, Shreffler KM. Pregnancy intentions among women who do not try: focusing on women who are okay either way. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15(2):178–187.
- Helfferich C, Klindworth H, Heine Y, et al. frauen leben - eine Studie zu Lebensläufen und Familienplanung. Eine Studie im Auftrag der Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung. Schriftenreihe Forschung und Praxis der Sexualaufklärung und Familienplanung. 19th ed [womens’s live - a study on life courses and family planning. A study commissioned by the Federal Centre for Health Education]. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA); 2001. German.
- Miller W. Reproductive decisions: how we make them and how they make us. Adv Popul. 1994;2:1–27.
- Stanford JB, Hobbs R, Jameson P, et al. Defining dimensions of pregnancy intendedness. Matern Child Health J. 2000;4(3):183–189.
- Baldaszti E, Wimmer-Puchinger B. Schwangerschaftskonflikt. Motive für bzw. gegen den Schwangerschaftsabbruch [Pregnancy conflict: motives for or against termination of pregnancy]. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Frauengesundheitsforschung; 2001. German. Available from: http://abtreibung.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/Schwangerschaftskonflikt.2001.pdf.
- Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Singh S, et al. Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2005;37(3):110–118.
- Zabin LS, Huggins GR, Emerson MR, et al. Partner effects on a woman’s intention to conceive: “not with this partner”. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32(1):39–45.
- Sihvo S, Bajos N, Ducot B, et al. Women’s life cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(8):601–605.
- Bertram H. Familienpolitik und Fertilität: demografische Entwicklungen und politische Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten. Monitor Familienforschung [Family policy and fertility: demographic developments and policy options]. Family Research Monitor. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend; 2012. German. Available from: http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/pdf/Familienleben_2011.pdf?archivArticleID=1084076.