PURPOSE: This study examines nonpregnant women's beliefs about whether or not they can influence their future birth outcomes with respect to the baby's health and factors associated with internal locus of control for birth outcomes. Perceived internal control of birth outcomes could be a predisposing factor for use of preconception care, which is recommended for all women of childbearing age by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall hypothesis is that internal control of birth outcomes is a function of prior pregnancy experiences, current health status and stress levels, access to health care, and sociodemographics. METHODS: Data are from the Central Pennsylvania Women's Health Study random digit dial telephone survey of 2,002 women ages 18-45; the analytic sample is 614 nonpregnant women with current reproductive capacity who reported that they are considering a future pregnancy. Internal control of birth outcomes is measured using 1) a 4-item Internal Control of Birth Outcomes Scale, 2) a single-item measure of Preconceptional Control, and 3) a score reflecting high internal control on both of these measures. FINDINGS: In multiple logistic regression analyses, internal control of birth outcomes is positively associated with older age (35-45 vs. 18-34 years), higher education (some college or more), marital status (currently married or living with a partner), and higher self-rated physical health status on the SF-12v2 (but not mental health status or psychosocial stress). Previous adverse pregnancy outcomes and current access to health care have no association with internal control for birth outcomes. CONCLUSION: Variables associated with internal control of birth outcomes among women contemplating a future pregnancy are primarily sociodemographic and physical health related. Educational and social marketing efforts to increase women's use of preconception care may be particularly important for women who are likely to have lower internal control, including younger, less educated, unmarried, and less healthy women.
PURPOSE: This study examines nonpregnant women's beliefs about whether or not they can influence their future birth outcomes with respect to the baby's health and factors associated with internal locus of control for birth outcomes. Perceived internal control of birth outcomes could be a predisposing factor for use of preconception care, which is recommended for all women of childbearing age by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall hypothesis is that internal control of birth outcomes is a function of prior pregnancy experiences, current health status and stress levels, access to health care, and sociodemographics. METHODS: Data are from the Central Pennsylvania Women's Health Study random digit dial telephone survey of 2,002 women ages 18-45; the analytic sample is 614 nonpregnant women with current reproductive capacity who reported that they are considering a future pregnancy. Internal control of birth outcomes is measured using 1) a 4-item Internal Control of Birth Outcomes Scale, 2) a single-item measure of Preconceptional Control, and 3) a score reflecting high internal control on both of these measures. FINDINGS: In multiple logistic regression analyses, internal control of birth outcomes is positively associated with older age (35-45 vs. 18-34 years), higher education (some college or more), marital status (currently married or living with a partner), and higher self-rated physical health status on the SF-12v2 (but not mental health status or psychosocial stress). Previous adverse pregnancy outcomes and current access to health care have no association with internal control for birth outcomes. CONCLUSION: Variables associated with internal control of birth outcomes among women contemplating a future pregnancy are primarily sociodemographic and physical health related. Educational and social marketing efforts to increase women's use of preconception care may be particularly important for women who are likely to have lower internal control, including younger, less educated, unmarried, and less healthy women.
Authors: Melissa V Auerbach; Jennifer Nicoloro-SantaBarbara; Lisa Rosenthal; Christina Kocis; Elizabeth R Weglarz; Cheyanne E Busso; Marci Lobel Journal: J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 2.949
Authors: Marianne M Hillemeier; Danielle Symons Downs; Mark E Feinberg; Carol S Weisman; Cynthia H Chuang; Roxanne Parrott; Diana Velott; Lori A Francis; Sara A Baker; Anne-Marie Dyer; Vernon M Chinchilli Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2008 Nov-Dec
Authors: Eileen C O'Brien; Ricardo Segurado; Aisling A Geraghty; Goiuri Alberdi; Ewelina Rogozinska; Arne Astrup; Rubenomar Barakat Carballo; Annick Bogaerts; Jose Guilherme Cecatti; Arri Coomarasamy; Christianne J M de Groot; Roland Devlieger; Jodie M Dodd; Nermeen El Beltagy; Fabio Facchinetti; Nina Geiker; Kym Guelfi; Lene Haakstad; Cheryce Harrison; Hans Hauner; Dorte M Jensen; Khalid Khan; Tarja Inkeri Kinnunen; Riitta Luoto; Ben Willem Mol; Siv Mørkved; Narges Motahari-Tabari; Julie A Owens; Maria Perales; Elisabetta Petrella; Suzanne Phelan; Lucilla Poston; Kathrin Rauh; Girish Rayanagoudar; Kristina M Renault; Anneloes E Ruifrok; Linda Sagedal; Kjell Å Salvesen; Tania T Scudeller; Gary Shen; Alexis Shub; Signe N Stafne; Fernanda G Surita; Shakila Thangaratinam; Serena Tonstad; Mireille N M van Poppel; Christina Vinter; Ingvild Vistad; SeonAe Yeo; Fionnuala M McAuliffe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692