Are self-reported fertility preferences biased? Evidence from indirect elicitation methods.
Christine ValenteWen Qiang TohInuwa JalingoAurélia LépineÁureo de PaulaGrant MillerPublished in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2024)
Desired fertility measures are routinely collected and used by researchers and policy makers, but their self-reported nature raises the possibility of reporting bias. In this paper, we test for the presence of such bias by comparing responses to direct survey questions with indirect questions offering a varying, randomized, degree of confidentiality to respondents in a socioeconomically diverse sample of Nigerian women ([Formula: see text]). We find that women report higher fertility preferences when asked indirectly, but only when their responses afford them complete confidentiality, not when their responses are simply blind to the enumerator. Our results suggest that there may be fewer unintended pregnancies than currently thought and that the effectiveness of family planning policy targeting may be weakened by the bias we uncover. We conclude with suggestions for future work on how to mitigate reporting bias.
Keyphrases
- polycystic ovary syndrome
- public health
- pregnancy outcomes
- healthcare
- mental health
- adverse drug
- randomized controlled trial
- systematic review
- open label
- decision making
- childhood cancer
- double blind
- cross sectional
- cervical cancer screening
- cancer therapy
- emergency department
- current status
- phase iii
- pregnant women
- breast cancer risk
- skeletal muscle
- adipose tissue
- insulin resistance
- study protocol
- gestational age