Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2025
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Interpregnancy interval and preterm delivery: An empirical comparison of between-persons and within-sibship designs
Mark A Klebanoff1,2,3, Erinn M Hade4
1Center for Perinatal Research, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Background:
Short interpregnancy interval has been associated with increased risk of preterm delivery; recent studies employing within-sibship designs suggest that this risk may be exaggerated. There are unresolved issues regarding properties of this design.
Objectives:
To compare directly the results, for short intervals, of between-person and within-sibship analyses when applied to the same target population.
Methods:
Cross-sectional data are from the National Survey of Family Growth, a statistically representative survey of women and men in the USA, 2006-2015. Participants provided a complete pregnancy history including outcome, duration and ending date, enabling calculation of interval. Conventional analysis employed log-linear regression, controlling survey design, early life events, demographic variables, pregnancy intendedness, breastfeeding of the previous birth and obstetric history. Within-sibship analyses, utilising conditional log-linear regression, controlled the same variables, except those remaining static within each participant.
Results:
Among participants with at least three live- or stillbirths, the percentage of pregnancies in each interval, and the percent of deliveries that were preterm following that interval were 9.2%, 14.6% for <6, and 14.7%, 15.4% for 6-11, versus 12.2%, 14.7% for 18-23 months. Among participants with at least three live- or stillborn infants, those in the within-sibship analysis had a higher risk profile than comparably parous, ineligible participants. In a between-participant analysis, among those included in within-sibship models, the adjusted risk ratios (vs 18-23 months) for preterm delivery for intervals <6 and 6-11 months were 0.74 (95% CI 0.63, 0.88) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.98). The corresponding risk ratios were 0.56 (95% CI 0.14, 2.30) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.13, 1.80) for those ineligible for the within-sibship models.
Conclusions:
When comparable analyses were employed, the association between interval and preterm delivery was similar between participants included in the within-sibship analysis and those ineligible for the within-sibship analysis, but differed from those in the full cohort, perhaps due to different target populations.
Related Concept Videos
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
02:01Group Design
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:23Behavioral Genetics and Its Designs
The primary methodologies used in behavior genetics include family studies, twin studies, and adoption studies, each providing unique...
01:24Testing a Claim about Population Proportion
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...