4.6 Article

Long-term Recall of Pregnancy-related Events

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 575-579

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000660

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [Z01-ES049003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Early-life factors can be associated with future health outcomes and are often measured by maternal recall. Methods: We used data from the North Carolina Early Pregnancy Study and Follow-up to characterize long-term maternal recall. We used data from the Early Pregnancy Study as the gold standard to evaluate the accuracy of prepregnancy weight, early pregnancy behaviors, symptoms and duration of pregnancy, and child's birth-weight reported at follow-up, for 109 women whose study pregnancies had resulted in a live birth. Results: Most (81%) participants reported a prepregnancy weight at follow-up that correctly classified them by BMI category. Women reported experiencing pregnancy symptoms later at follow-up than what they reported in the Early Pregnancy Study. Accuracy of reporting of early pregnancy behaviors varied based on exposure. Overall, women who had abstained from a behavior were more likely to be classified correctly. Sensitivity of reporting was 0.14 for antibiotics, 0.30 for wine, 0.71 for brewed coffee, and 0.82 for vitamins. Most misclassification at follow-up was due to false-negative reporting. Among women who gave birth to singletons, 94% could report their child's correct birthweight within 1/2 pound and 86% could report duration of pregnancy within 7 days at follow-up. Conclusions: Self-report of prepregnancy weight, duration of pregnancy, and child's birthweight after almost 30 years was good, whereas self-reported pregnancy-related exposures resulted in higher levels of reporting error. Social desirability appeared to influence women's report of their behaviors at follow-up. Self-reported assessment of confidence in the recalled information was unrelated to accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据