Intergenerational teen pregnancy: a population based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionMothers can influence on a teen’s knowledge and attitude about sexual and reproductive health practices. Prior studies on intergenerational teen pregnancy between mother and daughter were largely limited to livebirths.
 Objectives and ApproachTo estimate the odds of intergenerational teenage pregnancy, and whether there is a coupling tendency between mother and daughter in how their teen pregnancies end, such as induced abortion (IA) vs. livebirth. A cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada among 15,097 mothers and their 16,177 daughters. The mother and her daughter were each assessed, between ages 15-19 years, for the number and nature of teenage pregnancy. The nature of teen pregnancy was categorized as i) no teen pregnancy, ii) ≥1 teen pregnancy, all exclusively ending with livebirth, and iii) ≥1 teen pregnancy, with at least one ending with IA.
 Results13,036 daughters’ mothers had a teen pregnancy and 3,141 daughters’ mothers did not. Teen pregnancy occurred among 3,777(29.0%) and 513(16.2%) daughters, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of a daughter having a teen pregnancy was 1.42 (95% CI 1.25-1.61) if her mother had 1, 1.97 (95% CI 1.71-2.26) if her mother had 2, and 2.17 (95% CI 1.84-2.56) if her mother had ≥3 teen pregnancies, relative to none. If a mother had ≥1 teen pregnancy ending with IA, then her daughter had an aOR of 2.12 (95% CI 1.76-2.56) for having a teen pregnancy also ending with IA; whereas, if a mother had ≥1 teen pregnancy, all ending with livebirth, then her daughter had an aOR of 1.73 (95% CI 1.46-2.05) for that same outcome.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsThere is a strong intergenerational occurrence of teenage pregnancy between a mother and daughter, including a coupling tendency in how the pregnancy ends. Such evidence supports the use of family-centered interventions that engage parents to reduce unprotected sex and unintended pregnancies among teenagers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".