Abstract
The ideal interpregnancy interval (IPI) following a miscarriage is controversial as the World Health Organization (WHO) advise women to delay pregnancy for at least six months. Subsequent research has found that IPI less than six months is beneficial for both mother and baby. The impact of this guidance on the decision-making process for couples/women in this predicament is unknown.
Views of women regarding the optimum IPI following miscarriage were investigated using a thematic framework applied to discussion threads from a popular online forum, Mumsnet (https://www.mumsnet.com). A systematic search of all online information was also undertaken to identify all relevant patient information regarding conceiving another pregnancy after a miscarriage. The findings from the search were tabulated and analysed in relation to the themes identified from the discussion threads on Mumsnet. Ninety-four discussion threads were included. Women saw no reason to wait if they felt ready. Women posted about their frustrations at the multiple sources of conflicting advice they received, at the lack of professional sympathy and felt that being told to wait before trying to conceive after a miscarriage was outdated advice. However, these findings were not corroborated by the patient information currently available online. All web-based patient information gave consistent advice – to wait for at least one normal period before trying to conceive again after a miscarriage and to try for another pregnancy when they felt physically mentally and emotionally ready. None advised waiting for six months. This study highlights that sometimes despite contradictory clinical advice, women are keen to make their own decisions regarding reproductive choice. These decisions are often empowered by peer support and advice which women trust over inconsistent information received from healthcare professionals. In this case, health information appears to have been updated in response to women’s choice rather than the other way around.
Research highlights
A knowledge gap exists in relation to the views of women regarding the ideal interpregnancy interval following miscarriage.
This study provides insights into the views and beliefs of women regarding the IPI following miscarriage
The dominant themes emerging from the study were: there is an array of conflicting advice being provided; there is no requirement to wait following a miscarriage; and the right time is when a couple feels physically, mentally and emotionally ready to try for another pregnancy.
Current web-based information for patients does not endorse the WHO’s guidance of waiting for at least six months before trying to conceive again after a miscarriage.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project formed part of FS MSc in Global Health and Management at University of Aberdeen; KL was supported by an institutional grant REF Impact Support Award 18/19. The funders played no role in the collection, analysis or publication of the manuscript.
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:
This research utilised publicly available online information and was therefore exempt from ethical approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Footnotes
Declaration of interest: None
Funding source: This project formed part of FS’ MSc in Global Health and Management at University of Aberdeen; KL was supported by an institutional grant – REF Impact Support Award 18/19. The funders played no role in the collection, analysis or publication of the manuscript.
Data Availability
The data used in this manuscript are freely available on the internet within www.mumsnet.comp
