Planning to get pregnant again? Better time it right

by Karen Walrond (Subscribe to Karen Walrond's posts) Apr 24th 2006 1:29PM

Categories: Health & Safety, Medical Conditions, Development, Media

From MSNBC.com: An in-depth analysis of over 67 international studies and 11 million studies seems to suggest that if you're planning your second (or third or fourth) pregnancy, better to wait for your previous child to be 18 months to 5 years old. Apparently, having your children too close together or too far apart can increase the risk of complications, including premature birth and low birth rate.

According to Dr. Agustin Conde-Agudelo of Santa Fe de Bogota Foundation in Colombia, millions of infant deaths could be avoided globally with better family planning. He further stated that pregnancy and nursing use up nutrients in a woman's body, and that getting pregnant prior to her body recovering nutritionally could be the cause of the increased risks.

Similarly, he concluded that the reason that a long interval between children also increases the risk of complications could be that "time could diminish a woman’s reproductive capacity and that factors that decrease fertility also could lead to poor fetal development."

(Thanks to momma2mingbu for the tip!)

Source

Comments (9)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Kira 4-24-2006 @ 3:01PM

Um...wow. I guess I'd better get hopping. My baby turns five next month. I wonder if my husband can come home from work early.

Laura Snow 4-25-2006 @ 2:38AM

We have planned our family and we believe that a 5+ age difference between children is the best outcome for kids getting along the most, less financial burden all at once, more sanity, etc. I had my first son at almost age 23. So waiting until I'm almost 30 for another I don't think is a big deal.

Kim 4-25-2006 @ 7:01AM

I'm too old to wait any longer, even the six more months for my son to be 18 months old. There are risks on both sides of this one.

Jenny 4-25-2006 @ 9:58PM

I didn't wait for the same reason as Kim. My risks were much more from "advanced maternal age" than from babies close together. My first baby was 10 months when I conceived the second. She was 8 lbs 2 oz at 40 weeks. A risk is just that: a risk. You take it into account when making a decision, but it can't be your whole decision.

Joy 4-26-2006 @ 12:07PM

I'm a student of research methods, and these findings sound a little shaky to me in terms of validity. First of all, it encompasses 67 international studies; in America, we have access to good nutrition and exercise regimes that can more quickly build up nutrients and strength after giving birth.

Second, how were these statistics correlated? Maybe the reason "too far apart" is dangerous is because women are then having children too far on in life -- likewise, I bet lower-income/non-birth-control couples are having children more rapidly, having less access to good nutrition and time to exercise.

The main issue I take with this is that they say "seems to suggest", implying that not waiting the correct timespan will CAUSE greater risk of problems, where they might only be occurring because of other variables, like those I have mentioned. If this interests anyone who would like to talk about it further, my address is joyfulnoise24 at aol.

deb 4-26-2006 @ 2:17PM

well let me just say that i got pregnant 6 weeks after having my first son. he is now 13 1/2 months old and my younger son is 3 months old. it's hard when they are both crying but they love each other. my older son is constantly kissing the younger one. there were no complications with my pregnancies and both babies are very healthy and happy. i dont know if this is an "ideal" situation, but it's definately not something i regret. next summer they will be able to play with each other. i'm sure there will be lots of competition between them, but there is in every family. i know in my heart everything will work out.

Wendy 4-26-2006 @ 4:01PM

I got pregnant with my 3rd child when my 2nd child was 9 months old. I didn't have any complications during the pregnancy and my baby was 9 lbs 3 oz. Low birth weight was not a problem in my case!

malibustacey 4-26-2006 @ 4:14PM

Unfortunately this information has come a little late for me. I fell pregnant with my third son when my second was 11 months (eldest was then 3 and I was 26) and was told at 21 week scan that he was 'not compatible with life'. There's no way of knowing whether or not the gap had anything to do with it, but it's certainly an possibility.

Kandi 5-19-2006 @ 3:17PM

I had fertilty drugs and shots to get pregnant with my first child at 26. My fertility specialist told me that if I wanted to have another one, it would be easier to get pregnant the sooner the better. My husband and I decided that we would try to time them 12-15 months apart, and I would go back to the fertility doctor. My doctor encouraged formula feeding if we wanted to have them that close. We thought we would try on our own for a month and then go see the doctor. The same week I was to go back to the doctor I found out I was pregnant and they would be 11 1/2 months apart. I was scared, but elated because we didn't have to do treatments. My second child was 8 lbs, and I had no complications. The boys were almost 2 and 3 when we decided we would have one more and try for a girl. I had to go back to the fertility doctor, and I was almost 30. After drugs and shots, I became pregnant with our little girl. My body at 30 was not in the same shape as at 26 and 27. I had to go through physical therapy because of the muscles in my legs and hips bothered me basically from carrying kids for so long. All of my kids were born healthy, good birth weights, and exactly on my due date each time w/o inductions.

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.