↓ Skip to main content

Death and Desirability: Retrospective Reporting of Unintended Pregnancy After a Child’s Death

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Death and Desirability: Retrospective Reporting of Unintended Pregnancy After a Child’s Death
Published in
Demography, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13524-016-0475-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Smith-Greenaway, Christie Sennott

Abstract

Social scientists have long debated how to best measure pregnancy intentions. The standard measure relies on mothers' retrospective reports of their intentions at the time of conception. Because women have already given birth at the time of this report, the resulting children's health-including their vital status-may influence their mothers' responses. We hypothesize that women are less likely to report that deceased children were from unintended pregnancies, which may explain why some cross-sectional studies have shown that children from unintended pregnancies have higher survival, despite the fact that longitudinal studies have shown the opposite is true. Using Demographic and Health Survey data from 31 sub-Saharan African countries, we confirm that mothers are less likely to report that deceased children resulted from unintended pregnancies compared with surviving children. However, the opposite is true for unhealthy children: mothers more commonly report that unhealthy children were from unintended pregnancies compared with healthier children. The results suggest that mothers (1) revise their recall of intentions after the traumatic experience of child death and/or (2) alter their reports in the face-to-face interview. The study challenges the reliability of retrospective reports of pregnancy intentions in high-mortality settings and thus also our current knowledge of the levels and consequences of unintended pregnancies in these contexts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Master 8 22%
Unspecified 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 17%
Unspecified 5 14%
Psychology 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Other 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#8,177,833
of 13,043,198 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,227
of 1,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,724
of 265,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,043,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,017 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.