Home Medicine Risk of recurrent preterm birth among women according to change in partner
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Risk of recurrent preterm birth among women according to change in partner

  • Rebecca J. Baer EMAIL logo , Juan Yang , Christina D. Chambers , Kelli K. Ryckman , Audrey F. Saftlas , Vincenzo Berghella , Chris Dunkel Schetter , Gary M. Shaw , David K. Stevenson and Laura L. Jelliffe-Pawlowski
Published/Copyright: October 8, 2016
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
From the journal Journal of Perinatal Medicine Volume 45 Issue 1

Abstract

There is well-established literature indicating change in partner as a risk for preeclampsia, yet the research on the risk of preterm birth after a change in partners has been sparse and inconsistent. Using a population of California live born singletons, we aimed to determine the risk of preterm birth after a change in partner between the first and second pregnancies. The risk of preterm and early term delivery in the second pregnancy was calculated for mothers who did or did not change partners between births with the referent group as women who delivered both pregnancies at term and did not change partners. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Relative to women who delivered at 39 weeks or later in the second pregnancy and did not change partners, preterm birth risks were somewhat lower for women who changed partners between the first and second pregnancies compared to those women who did not change partners. For example, 10.6% of women who did not change partners and delivered their second pregnancy before 34 weeks also delivered their first pregnancy before 34 weeks, while 8.5% of women who changed partners delivered before 34 weeks. Findings suggest partner change may alter the risk of preterm birth.

Keywords: Adverse pregnancy outcome; change in partner; early term birth; interpregnancy interval; multi-partner fertility; preterm birth; recurrent preterm birth

Acknowledgments

An abstract of these findings was presented as a poster at the 36th Annual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine, February 1–4, 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia. This study was supported, in part, by funding from the Preterm Birth Initiative – California, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center at Stanford University, the Stanford Child Health Research Institute, and the Stanford Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) to Spectrum (UL1 TR001085). The CTSA program is led by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Also supported in part by the March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center Ohio Collaborative, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development (R00-HD65786). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

  1. Conflict of interest statement: The authors report no conflicts of interest or personal financial disclosures.

References

[1] Guzzo KB. New partners, more kids: multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2014;654:66–86.10.1177/0002716214525571Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[2] Dorius C. Multipartnered fertility at midlife. National Center for Family and Marriage Research Counting Couples, Counting Families Conference; 19–20 July; Bethesda, MD; 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bandoli G, Lindsay S, Johnson DL, Kao K, Luo Y, Chambers CD. Change in paternity and select perinatal outcomes: causal or confounded? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32:657–62.10.3109/01443615.2012.698669Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Saftlas AF, Levine RJ, Klebanoff MA, Martz KL, Ewell MG, Morris CD, et al. Abortion, changed paternity, and risk of preeclampsia in nulliparous women. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:1108–14.10.1093/aje/kwg101Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Vatten LJ, Skjaerven R. [Change of partner between births and adverse pregnancy outcomes]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2003;123:3546–8.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Krulewitch CJ, Herman AA, Yu KF, Johnson YR. Does changing paternity contribute to the risk of intrauterine growth retardation? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997;11 Suppl 1:41–7.10.1046/j.1365-3016.11.s1.7.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Li DK, Wi S. Changing paternity and the risk of preeclampsia/eclampsia in the subsequent pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:57–62.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010122Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Li DK. Changing paternity and the risk of preterm delivery in the subsequent pregnancy. Epidemiology. 1999;10:148–52.10.1097/00001648-199903000-00011Search in Google Scholar

[9] Basso O, Olsen J, Christensen K. Study of environmental, social, and paternal factors in preterm delivery using sibs and half sibs. A population-based study in Denmark. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:20–3.10.1136/jech.53.1.20Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Chambers CD, Chen BH, Kalla K, Jernigan L, Jones KL. Novel risk factor in gastroschisis: change of paternity. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A:653–9.10.1002/ajmg.a.31577Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Basso O, Christensen K, Olsen J. Higher risk of pre-eclampsia after change of partner. An effect of longer interpregnancy intervals? Epidemiology. 2001;12:624–9.10.1097/00001648-200111000-00008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Zhang J, Patel G. Partner change and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:46–57.10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00837.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Robillard PY, Dekker G, Chaouat G, Hulsey TC, Saftlas A. Epidemiological studies on primipaternity and immunology in preeclampsia–a statement after twelve years of workshops. J Reprod Immunol. 2011;89:104–17.10.1016/j.jri.2011.02.003Search in Google Scholar

[14] Saftlas AF, Rubenstein L, Prater K, Harland KK, Field E, Triche EW. Cumulative exposure to paternal seminal fluid prior to conception and subsequent risk of preeclampsia. J Reprod Immunol. 2014;101–102:104–10.10.1016/j.jri.2013.07.006Search in Google Scholar

[15] Triche EW, Harland KK, Field EH, Rubenstein LM, Saftlas AF. Maternal-fetal HLA sharing and preeclampsia: variation in effects by seminal fluid exposure in a case-control study of nulliparous women in Iowa. J Reprod Immunol. 2014;101–102:111–9.10.1016/j.jri.2013.06.004Search in Google Scholar

[16] Association AM. International classification of diseases: ICD-9-CM 2008. 2008 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Romero R, Dey SK, Fisher SJ. Preterm labor: one syndrome, many causes. Science. 2014;345:760–5.10.1126/science.1251816Search in Google Scholar

[18] Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371:75–84.10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60074-4Search in Google Scholar

[19] Boyd HA, Poulsen G, Wohlfahrt J, Murray JC, Feenstra B, Melbye M. Maternal contributions to preterm delivery. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:1358–64.10.1093/aje/kwp324Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Alio AP, Salihu HM, McIntosh C, August EM, Weldeselasse H, Sanchez E, et al. The effect of paternal age on fetal birth outcomes. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6:427–35.10.1177/1557988312440718Search in Google Scholar PubMed

  1. The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2016-6-14
Accepted: 2016-9-1
Published Online: 2016-10-8
Published in Print: 2017-1-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. What’s new in preterm birth prediction and prevention?
  4. Academy’s Corner
  5. Antenatal corticosteroids: current controversies
  6. Review articles
  7. The safety of progestogen in the prevention of preterm birth: meta-analysis of neonatal mortality
  8. Cervical pessary for the prevention of preterm birth: is it of any use?
  9. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following expectant management of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes before viability
  10. Highlight articles
  11. Placental malperfusion as a possible mechanism of preterm birth in patients with Müllerian anomalies
  12. Nifedipine increases fetoplacental perfusion
  13. Effect of sleep disorders on threatened premature delivery
  14. Risk of recurrent preterm birth among women according to change in partner
  15. Biomarkers of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review of studies using multiplex analysis
  16. Influence of transvaginal ultrasound examination on quantitative vaginal fibronectin measurements: a prospective evaluation study
  17. Evaluation of quantitative fFn test in predicting the risk of preterm birth
  18. The value of ultrasound measurement of cervical length and parity in prediction of cesarean section risk in term premature rupture of membranes and unfavorable cervix
  19. Comparison of the duo of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1/alpha fetoprotein (Amnioquick duo+®) and traditional clinical assessment for diagnosing premature rupture of fetal membranes
  20. Efficacy of a prospective community-based intervention to prevent preterm birth
  21. Maternal complications in settings where two-thirds of extremely preterm births are delivered by cesarean section
  22. The risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity according to the etiology of late preterm delivery
  23. Thyroid dysfunction in preterm neonates exposed to iodine
  24. Congress Calendar
  25. Congress Calendar
https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0207
Keywords for this article
Adverse pregnancy outcome; change in partner; early term birth; interpregnancy interval; multi-partner fertility; preterm birth; recurrent preterm birth

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. What’s new in preterm birth prediction and prevention?
  4. Academy’s Corner
  5. Antenatal corticosteroids: current controversies
  6. Review articles
  7. The safety of progestogen in the prevention of preterm birth: meta-analysis of neonatal mortality
  8. Cervical pessary for the prevention of preterm birth: is it of any use?
  9. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following expectant management of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes before viability
  10. Highlight articles
  11. Placental malperfusion as a possible mechanism of preterm birth in patients with Müllerian anomalies
  12. Nifedipine increases fetoplacental perfusion
  13. Effect of sleep disorders on threatened premature delivery
  14. Risk of recurrent preterm birth among women according to change in partner
  15. Biomarkers of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review of studies using multiplex analysis
  16. Influence of transvaginal ultrasound examination on quantitative vaginal fibronectin measurements: a prospective evaluation study
  17. Evaluation of quantitative fFn test in predicting the risk of preterm birth
  18. The value of ultrasound measurement of cervical length and parity in prediction of cesarean section risk in term premature rupture of membranes and unfavorable cervix
  19. Comparison of the duo of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1/alpha fetoprotein (Amnioquick duo+®) and traditional clinical assessment for diagnosing premature rupture of fetal membranes
  20. Efficacy of a prospective community-based intervention to prevent preterm birth
  21. Maternal complications in settings where two-thirds of extremely preterm births are delivered by cesarean section
  22. The risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity according to the etiology of late preterm delivery
  23. Thyroid dysfunction in preterm neonates exposed to iodine
  24. Congress Calendar
  25. Congress Calendar
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 31.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2016-0207/pdf
Scroll to top button