TY - JOUR
T1 - Pregnancy Intendedness by Maternal Disability Status and Type in the United States
AU - Horner-Johnson, Willi
AU - Dissanayake, Mekhala
AU - Wu, Justine P.
AU - Caughey, Aaron B.
AU - Darney, Blair G.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported in part by award R21HD081309 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health, and by grant 0118WH from the Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University. Additional support was provided by grant K12HS022981 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Institute on Development and Disability at Oregon Health & Science University. 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 other funders. The funding agencies had no role in conducting the research or preparing the manuscript for submission.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2020 by the Guttmacher Institute
PY - 2020/3/1
Y1 - 2020/3/1
N2 - CONTEXT: Societal views about sexuality and parenting among people with disabilities may limit these individuals’ access to sex education and the full range of reproductive health services, and put them at increased risk for unintended pregnancies. To date, however, no national population-based studies have examined pregnancy intendedness among U.S. women with disabilities. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of data from the 2011–2013 and 2013–2015 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth were conducted; the sample included 5,861 pregnancies reported by 3,089 women. The proportion of pregnancies described as unintended was calculated for women with any type of disability, women with each of five types of disabilities and women with no disabilities. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of disability status and type with pregnancy intendedness while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: A higher proportion of pregnancies were unintended among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities (53% vs. 36%). Women with independent living disability had the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies (62%). In regression analyses, the odds that a pregnancy was unintended were greater among women with any type of disability than among women without disabilities (odds ratio, 1.4), and were also elevated among women with hearing disability, cognitive disability or independent living disability (1.5–1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand differences in unintended pregnancy by type and extent of disability. People with disabilities should be fully included in sex education, and their routine care should incorporate discussion of reproductive planning.
AB - CONTEXT: Societal views about sexuality and parenting among people with disabilities may limit these individuals’ access to sex education and the full range of reproductive health services, and put them at increased risk for unintended pregnancies. To date, however, no national population-based studies have examined pregnancy intendedness among U.S. women with disabilities. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of data from the 2011–2013 and 2013–2015 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth were conducted; the sample included 5,861 pregnancies reported by 3,089 women. The proportion of pregnancies described as unintended was calculated for women with any type of disability, women with each of five types of disabilities and women with no disabilities. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of disability status and type with pregnancy intendedness while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: A higher proportion of pregnancies were unintended among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities (53% vs. 36%). Women with independent living disability had the highest proportion of unintended pregnancies (62%). In regression analyses, the odds that a pregnancy was unintended were greater among women with any type of disability than among women without disabilities (odds ratio, 1.4), and were also elevated among women with hearing disability, cognitive disability or independent living disability (1.5–1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand differences in unintended pregnancy by type and extent of disability. People with disabilities should be fully included in sex education, and their routine care should incorporate discussion of reproductive planning.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85080039771&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85080039771&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1363/psrh.12130
DO - 10.1363/psrh.12130
M3 - Article
C2 - 32096336
AN - SCOPUS:85080039771
SN - 1538-6341
VL - 52
SP - 31
EP - 38
JO - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
JF - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
IS - 1
ER -