Article Text

Download PDFPDF
London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy and newer family forms: an update
  1. Geraldine Barrett,
  2. Elizabeth Mary Nolan,
  3. Zeynep B Gürtin,
  4. Judith Stephenson,
  5. Jennifer Anne Hall
  1. UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Geraldine Barrett, Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, Medical School Building, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK; g.barrett{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP), a psychometric measure of pregnancy intention based on lay views, was published in this journal in 20041 and is now validated in 15 languages.2 Since its development, there has been a growth in same-sex couples having children, women choosing to become mothers without a partner and non-romantic partners choosing to become parents together.3 The LMUP is intended to be suitable for all pregnant women and item 5 (about partner discussion) is potentially exclusionary. We aimed to update item 5 to incorporate newer family forms.

Our study’s first stage was qualitative, comprising cognitive interviews to generate and test amendments to item 5. The second, quantitative, stage aimed to assess the basic psychometric properties of the …

View Full Text


  • Correction notice This article has been correcetd since it first published online. The sentence starting ‘We tested two additional response options’ has been corrected.

  • Contributors Conceptualisation: GB, JAH, JS. Design of data collection: GB, EMN, ZBG, JS, JAH. Data collection: EMN, JAH. Analysis: GB, EN. Writing and review of the manuscript: GB, EMN, ZBG, JS, JAH. Approval of the final manuscript: GB, EMN, ZBG, JS, JAH.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests No, there are no competing interests for any author.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.