The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP)            
 

Publications
PUBLICATIONS (METHODS)

This page provides methodological information relating to the LMUP. It lists publications that relate to the original development study, to the evaluation of the LMUP in new contexts, and/or provide insights into the performance of the LMUP as a psychometric measure.


Key publications from the original LMUP development and evaluation study

Barrett G. 2002 Developing a measure of unplanned pregnancy. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London. PhD Thesis. Abstract and full PhD

Barrett G, and Wellings K. 2002 What is a “planned” pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study Social Science and Medicine 55; 545-557 Abstract Full article (pdf)

Barrett G, Smith SC, Wellings K. 2004 Conceptualisation, development and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58:426-433 Abstract Full article (pdf)
(This paper is normally used as the key citation for the LMUP by those wishing to reference its origins and development.)

Hall JA, Barrett G, Copas A, Stephenson J. 2017 London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy: guidance for its use as an outcome measure Patient Related Outcome Measures 8:43-56 Abstract and full pdf
(This paper is based on a primary analysis of LMUP data from Malawi and contains a corresponding, new analysis of LMUP data from the original development study.)


Publications relating to the psychometric evaluations of the LMUP in translation and/or new populations

Rocca CH, Krishnan S, Barrett G, and Wilson M. 2010 Measuring pregnancy planning: an assessment of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among urban, south Indian women. Demographic Research 23(11):293-334 Abstract and full pdf Further Information

Morof D, Steinauer J, Haider S, Liu S, Darney P, Barrett G. 2009 Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in a U.S. population of women. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics Vol.107 Supplement 2 p.S275 journal page Further Information

Morof D, Steinauer J, Haider S, Liu S, Darney P, Barrett G. 2012 Evaluation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in the a United States population of women. PloS One 7(4) Article number e35381 Abstract and full pdf Further Information

Hall J, Barrett G, Mbwana N, Copas A, Malata A, Stephenson J. 2013 Understanding pregnancy planning in a low-income country setting: validation of the London measure of unplanned pregnancy in Malawi BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 13:200 Abstract and full pdf Further Information

Roshanaei S, Shaghaghi A, Jafarabadi MA, and Kousha A. 2015 Measuring unintended pregnancies in postpartum Iranian women: validation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 21(8):572-578 (pdf) (Further information)

Borges ALV, Barrett G, dos Santos OA, Nascimento NC, Cavalhieri FB, Fujimori E. 2016 Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in Brazilian Portuguese BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16:244 Abstract and full pdf (Further information)


Publications that provide insight into the validity of the LMUP

Insights can be gained into the validity (in particular the "construct validity") of a measure from its use in research studies. The following studies (incidentally) provide information about the performance of the LMUP in relation to the construct of pregnancy planning/intention.

Rocca CH, Kimport K, Gould H, Foster DG. 2013 Women's Emotions One Week After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 45: 122–131. Abstract
This is an extremely interesting paper. In relation to the LMUP it shows that women with higher LMUP scores who go on to have an abortion experience more negative emotions one week post-abortion. This finding makes sense. In terms of the performance of the LMUP, it suggests that LMUP scores are providing a fairly high degree of discrimination of the construct of pregnancy planning/intention, particularly in the lower/mid range.

Cameron ST, Glasier A. 2013 Identifying women in need of further discussion about the decision to have an abortion and eventual outcome Contraception 88;1:128-132. Abstract
This is also an interesting paper. It shows that, at a group level, LMUP scores are associated with the likelihood of abortion (lower scores mean abortion is more likely; higher scores mean abortion less likely) in a fairly homogeneous group (i.e. women attending a clinic for assessment for abortion). The strength of this study is the separation in time between completion of the LMUP (at clinic assessment for abortion) and the outcome (whether the woman had an abortion).


Comparing the LMUP with other ways of assessing pregnancy planning/intention

There have been two instances where the LMUP has been compared to a single question that asks about pregnancy planning:

The LMUP was compared to the single question, “Was your pregnancy planned?” among a small sample of teenagers who were surveyed as part of the Evaluation of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. This analysis is reported in Geraldine Barrett’s PhD:

Barrett G. 2002 Developing a measure of unplanned pregnancy. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London. PhD Thesis. (PhD, see pages 280-2)

The LMUP was compared to the single question, “Did you plan on becoming pregnant now?” in an analysis by Aiken et al in 2016. Barrett et al commented on the analysis in 2017:

Aiken ARA, Westhoff CL, Trussell J, Castano PM. 2016 Comparison of a timing-based measure of unintended pregnancy and the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 48;3:139-146 (Abstract)

Barrett G, Hall JA, Stephenson J. 2017 Measuring unintended pregnancy: the complexity of comparison Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49;1:69-70 (Letter)

Analyses comparing the LMUP to the DHS and NSFG questions are currently being carried out.

Other publications relating to the original LMUP development and evaluation study

Barrett G, and Wellings K. 2000 Understanding Pregnancy Intentions: a problem in evidence everywhere Family Planning Perspectives 32;4:194 html pdf This is the second letter on the page. Scroll down to view.

Barrett G, and Wellings K. 2002 Collecting information on marital status: a methodological note Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56:175-176 Extract Full text (pdf)

Barrett G. 2005 Unintended pregnancy. In Glasier A, Wellings K, Critchley H. (Eds). Contraception and Contraceptive Use. London: RCOG Press ISBN:1-904752-15-2 Pbk