Psychiatric vulnerability and the risk for unintended pregnancies, a systematic review and meta-analysis 39 Figure 2.2 - Funnel plot for studies reporting prevalences of unintended pregnancies in women with psychiatric vulnerability. Data synthesis A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model of the eight studies that provided prevalences of UPs amongst 3881 pregnant women (in case studies presented unwanted and unplanned pregnancies instead of UPs, we calculated number of UPs for this meta-analysis) (Figure 2.3). We performed a logit transformation of the results, to consider the maximum prevalence of UPs in studies of 100%. Overall, the rate of UPs was 65% (CI 0.43–0.82). Sensitivity analyses were performed and showed that the effect size remained within 95% CI if any of the studies was left out. Moderate heterogeneity was found within the studies as the I2 of 67% displays (p = 0.03) (see Figure 2..3). In addition, separate analyses were performed on the four studies that reported OR of UPs comparing a psychiatric vulnerable group to a control group (Fig. 4). One study on women with eating disorders32 and three studies on women with a variety of psychiatric vulnerabilities (mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders and/or psychosis)33,37,38. The overall odds of UPs were higher in women with psychiatric vulnerability compared to women without psychiatric vulnerability (OR 1.34, CI 1.08–1.67), n = 18,681.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw