Cited by 387Reproductive Health and ContraceptionDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Household crowding index: a correlate of socioeconomic status and inter-pregnancy spacing in an urban setting

Open access
Melki, I S, Beydoun, H A, Khogali, M, Tamim, H, Yunis, K A·2004·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Objectives: This paper examines the effect of household crowding on inter-pregnancy spacing and its association with socioeconomic indicators, among parous mothers delivered in an urban environment. Design: Cross sectional survey. Methods: Sociodemographic data were obtained on 2466 parous women delivering at eight hospitals in Greater Beirut over a one year period. Statistical methodology comprised Pearson χ 2 test and logistic regression analysis. Main results: A significant inverse relation was observed between household crowding and socioeconomic status, defined as education and occupation of women and their spouses. Inter-pregnancy spacing increased with higher levels of crowding. Further analysis suggested that this positive association was confounded by maternal demographic characteristics. Conclusions: These data have shown that household crowding, a correlate of low parental socioeconomic status, is associated with longer birth intervals. This association, however, seems to be largely explained by maternal age and parity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech.2003.012690

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the Arabic validation study, McDonald's ω values for the ZTPI subscales were: past negative 0.84, past positive 0.66, present fatalistic 0.43, present hedonistic 0.61, and future focused 0.71.

    “In the Arabic validation study [46], McDonald’s ω values were as follows: past negative (ω = 0.84), past positive (ω = 0.66), present fatalistic (ω = 0.43), present hedonistic (ω = 0.61) and future focused (ω = 0.71) subscales.”

    From Association between time perspective and metacognition among Lebanese adults: the mediating role of mindfulness (2023) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Statistical analysis and Multivariate analysis sections address household crowding and inter-pregnancy spacing, not validation of the Arabic ZTPI. Searches for McDonald’s ω, the ZTPI subscales, and the five reported values found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Short Form of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory - Arabic Version (ZTPI-15-Ar) was validated in a separate publication.

    “This version of the ZTPI was validated in a separate publication [46].”

    From Association between time perspective and metacognition among Lebanese adults: the mediating role of mindfulness (2023) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Multivariate analysis and Discussion passages address household crowding and inter-pregnancy spacing, not validation of a time-perspective inventory. Searches for ZTPI-15-Ar and for Arabic time-perspective scale validation found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Baker D, Taylor H, Henderson J, et al. Inequality in infant morbidity: causes and consequences in England in the 1990s. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:451-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melki, I. S., Beydoun, H. A., Khogali, M., Tamim, H., & Yunis, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Hôtel-Dieu de France (LB)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
Corresponding author
Yunis, K A
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-05-13
Volume
58
Issue
6
Pages
476-480
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2102993462
Cited by
387
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American University of Beirut
  • Université Libanaise
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
household crowding, birth interval, socioeconomic status, maternal education, maternal occupation, maternal age, parity, urban women
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Birth Intervals, Cross-Sectional Studies, Crowding, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, New York City, Parity, Pregnancy, Socioeconomic Factors, Urban Health, Multivariate Analysis

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