PURPOSE: To describe the rate and sociodemographic profile of live births to adolescents having U.S. Department of Defense healthcare coverage because of parental military service. METHODS: All live births identified from the M2 database during 2003-2006 to 10- to 23-year olds in this population were stratified and compared. RESULTS: Birth rates rose in the 18- to 19- and 20- to 23-year-old groups over the 4 years studied (p < 0.05). Daughters of active duty personnel had higher live birth rates than daughters of retirees (7.1 vs. 6.1 age 15-17; p < 0.05). Birth rates differed among dependents of junior enlistees, senior enlistees, and officers (7.1, 9.4, 3.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent dependents in this system have an increasing, though low, live birth rate. Those with active duty sponsors have a significantly higher rate than their age-matched peers with retired sponsors. Further study is warranted to identify factors unique to this population that may influence birth patterns.
PURPOSE: To describe the rate and sociodemographic profile of live births to adolescents having U.S. Department of Defense healthcare coverage because of parental military service. METHODS: All live births identified from the M2 database during 2003-2006 to 10- to 23-year olds in this population were stratified and compared. RESULTS: Birth rates rose in the 18- to 19- and 20- to 23-year-old groups over the 4 years studied (p < 0.05). Daughters of active duty personnel had higher live birth rates than daughters of retirees (7.1 vs. 6.1 age 15-17; p < 0.05). Birth rates differed among dependents of junior enlistees, senior enlistees, and officers (7.1, 9.4, 3.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent dependents in this system have an increasing, though low, live birth rate. Those with active duty sponsors have a significantly higher rate than their age-matched peers with retired sponsors. Further study is warranted to identify factors unique to this population that may influence birth patterns.
Authors: David A Klein; William P Adelman; Amy M Thompson; Richard G Shoemaker; Jane Shen-Gunther Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 3.240