Cited by 20Reproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and Technologies

Attitude and perceptions toward miscarriage: a survey of a general population in Japan

Banno, Chihiro, Sugiura-Ogasawara, Mayumi, Ebara, Takeshi, Ide, Shoko, Kitaori, Tamao, Sato, Takeshi, Ando, Kiwamu, Morita, Yoko·2020·Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

Miscarriage is the greatest complication of pregnancy, and 70-80% of early miscarriages are mostly due to chromosomal abnormalities in the embryo. There is no evidence that stress is a direct cause of miscarriage. Despite these findings, in a national US survey on the causes of miscarriage, many Americans mistakenly attributed miscarriage to the mental state or behavior of the women. We conducted a survey to assess public attitudes and perceptions regarding the cause and prevalence of miscarriage in Japan. We sent out a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions. The 5000 recipients consisted of men and women (1:1 ratio) aged 18-69 who resided in Aichi Prefecture. A total of 1257 recipients (25%) responded to the questionnaire and 1219 valid respondents (24%) were included in the analyses. Of these, 62% considered a genetic abnormality of the fetus as the cause of miscarriage. Participants who were female, highly educated, married and healthy gave significantly more correct responses. On the other hand, the majority wrongly assumed that a stressful event (65%) and long-standing stress (75%) to be causes of miscarriage. Participants who had no history of miscarriage as well as males answered significantly more incorrectly. Sixty-five percent of respondents thought that miscarriage occurred less than 15% of all pregnancies. Among respondents who had experienced miscarriage personally, 53 and 36% felt guilty and lonely, respectively. Many respondents blamed the woman for the miscarriage either in terms of her behavior or mental stress and considered the frequency of miscarriage to be lower than it actually is.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s10038-019-0694-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 20

Authors
Banno, C., Sugiura-Ogasawara, M., Ebara, T., Ide, S., Kitaori, T., Sato, T., Ando, K., & Morita, Y.
Affiliations
Nagoya City University (JP)
Venue
Journal of Human Genetics
Published
2019-11-25
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
155-164
ISSN
  • 1434-5161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-232X
OpenAlex
W2990219079
Cited by
20
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K11245, 18K09267)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
miscarriage, public perception, fetal chromosomal abnormalities, Japan
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude, Chromosome Aberrations, Female, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Prevalence, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review