|

Planning for Motherhood: Fertility Attitudes, Desires And Intentions Among Women with Disabilities

Carrie L. Shandra Dennis P. Hogan Susan E. Short, Brown University

First published online:

| DOI: https://doi.org/10.1363/46e2514
Abstract / Summary
CONTEXT

An estimated 10% of U.S. women of reproductive age report a current disability; however, the relationship between disability, motherhood attitudes and fertility intentions among these women is largely unknown.

METHODS

Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth were used to examine attitudes toward motherhood and fertility intentions among 10,782 U.S. women aged 15–44. A series of regression models assessed, separately for mothers and childless women, associations between disability status and women's attitudes and intentions.

RESULTS

Women with and without disabilities held similar attitudes toward motherhood. Among women without children, women with and without disabilities were equally likely to want a child and equally likely to intend to have one. However, childless women with disabilities who wanted and intended to have a child were more likely to report uncertainty about those intentions than were childless women without disabilities (odds ratio, 1.7). Mothers with disabilities were more likely to want another child (1.5), but less likely to intend to have a child (0.5), than were mothers without disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Deepening understanding of the reproductive health desires, needs and challenges of women with disabilities is essential if the highest quality reproductive health services are to be provided for all.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2014, 46(4):TK, doi: 10.1363/46e2514

Author's Affiliations

Carrie L. Shandra is assistant professor, Department of Sociology, Core Faculty, Program in Public Health, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Dennis P. Hogan is professor (research), Department of Population Studies, and Susan E. Short is professor, Department of Sociology, both at Brown University, Providence.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Guttmacher Institute.