ABSTRACT
Background Clinicians and people of reproductive age would benefit from a reliable way to identify who is, or is not, likely to become pregnant in the next year, 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 three months’, where women who strongly agreed had a 66.7% chance of pregnancy within 12months and the AUROC was acceptable (0.77).
Conclusion We recommend exploring the acceptability to women and healthcare professionals of asking a single DAP item (‘I wouldn’t mind if I became pregnant in the next three months’), possibly in combination with additional DAP items. This will help to guide the provision of information and services to support reproductive preferences.
Key messages
Clinicians do not currently have a valid and reliable way of asking people about their pregnancy preferences.
A single item from the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale is effective at identifying who is likely to become pregnant in the next year; other questions, including the APPS, are less discriminative but may be more acceptable.
The acceptability to women and health professionals of different ways of asking people about their pregnancy preferences in health care settings should be explored.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship held by JH (PDF-2017-10-021). The funder had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UCL Research Ethics Committee of University College London gave ethical approval for this work (ref 3974.003).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The dataset is available online at the UCL Research Data Repository, doi 10.5522/04/21263007.
