The Misclassification of Ambivalence in Pregnancy Intentions: A Mixed‐Methods Analysis

Abstract

CONTEXT Researchers have developed various measures of pregnancy ambivalence in an effort to capture the nuance overlooked by conventional, binary measures of pregnancy intention. However, the conceptualization and operationalization of the concept of ambivalence vary widely and may miss the complexity inherent in pregnancy intentions, particularly for young people, among whom unintended pregnancy rates are highest. METHODS To investigate the utility and accuracy of current measures of pregnancy ambivalence, a mixed‐methods study was conducted with 50 young women and their male partners in northern California in 2015–2016. Survey data were used to descriptively analyze six existing pregnancy ambivalence measures; in‐depth interviews addressing pregnancy desires and plans were deductively coded and thematically analyzed to understand why some participants appeared to be ambivalent from the survey data when their interview responses suggested otherwise. RESULTS Eighty participants would be considered ambivalent by at least one measure. After assessment of the interview data, however, these measures were deemed to have misclassified almost all (78) participants. Qualitative analysis revealed several themes regarding misclassification: conflation of current pregnancy desires with expected postconception emotional responses; acceptability of an undesired pregnancy; tempering of survey responses to account for partners’ desires; perceived lack of control regarding pregnancy; and, among participants with medical conditions perceived to impact fertility, subjugation of pregnancy desires in the interest of self‐protection. CONCLUSIONS Current approaches to measuring pregnancy ambivalence may fail to capture the intricacies of pregnancy intentions and may be ineffective if they do not account for young people's experiences, especially when used to inform clinical practice, programs and policy.

The relationship between attitudes towards pregnancy and contraceptive continuation: Results from a longitudinal study of married women in India

“…Future research on the prevalence of ambivalence and its effects on contraceptive use in India is warranted as the government aims to increase demand for and use of modern reversible contraceptive methods. Suggested future research includes examining qualitatively women's cognitive and affective attitudes towards pregnancy, their perceived control over pregnancy planning, and how their attitudes map on to fertility intentions, as some mixedmethod studies have shown that quantitative interviews may overestimate ambivalence towards pregnancy when compared to qualitative interviews [39][40]. Additionally, further research is needed on how attitudes towards pregnancy interact with other relevant considerations, including side effects, quality of care, and relationship dynamics, to affect contraceptive and birth outcomes.…”

Medical conditions, pregnancy perspectives and contraceptive decision-making among young people: an exploratory, qualitative analysis

“…This disappointment was amplified by her partner's strong desire to have a child and her feelings about what her PCOS diagnosis might mean for their relationship: "I always tell him, like you're probably going to leave me for someone who can bear children." The seemingly conflicting desires exhibited could lead her to appear ambivalent about pregnancy; instead, her interview later revealed an internal negotiation process that served as a form of self-protection against the potential disappointment and pain of being unable to actualize her childbearing desires (further described elsewhere [62]).…”

Pathways to Parenthood in Social and Family Contexts: Decade in Review, 2020

“…These findings have led to suggestions for other ways to measure women's desires, intentions, and plans for childbearing at both the individual and aggregate levels (e.g., Finer, Lindberg, & Desai, ; Kost & Zolna, ). It is not clear whether current approaches over‐ or understate the clarity of intentions; a recent mixed‐methods study shows that ambivalence may be overestimated with certain survey measurement approaches (Gómez, Arteaga, Villaseñor, Arcara, & Freihart, ). Understanding fertility intentions is important for policies and programs as well as scholarly research (Aiken, Borrero, Callegari, & Dehlendorf, ; Finer et al, ).…”