I believe the current best amount of time between children is 18 months. Read this article:
Researchers Seek 'Optimal' Pregnancy Interval
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter on 04/18/2006
TUESDAY, April 18 (HealthDay News) -- Pregnancies spaced less than 18 months or more than 59 months apart carry a higher risk of low birth weight, preterm birth and small size for gestational age.
"This sort of upholds the conventional wisdom that you want to wait between pregnancies, and you want to plan your pregnancies," said Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "The conventional wisdom is to try to space the births two years apart at least. A family needs to recover physically, emotionally and financially between babies. It needs to be able to devote enough time to each child."
Wu was not involved in the study, which appears in the April 19 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Having these accumulating studies adds strength to the conclusion," added Dr. Peter Bernstein, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. Bernstein was on a select panel making recommendations to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for guidelines on preconception care coming out this Friday.
Although experts were hesitant to suggest an optimal interval, Wu said that ideally a couple would want to wait 20 to 40 months between pregnancies, with the earliest interval being nine months after the first delivery. Eighteen months is considered optimal by many.
Previous research had suggested that both short and long intervals between pregnancies increased the rates of adverse outcomes, but it wasn't clear if other factors (for example, socioeconomic status or mother's health) also played a role.
For this study, researchers at Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota in Colombia conducted a meta-analysis of studies published between 1966 and 2006. Sixty-seven articles met the criteria for inclusion in the study, representing more than 11 million pregnancies.
The evidence showed that babies born to women who had an interval of less than six months between pregnancies had a 40 percent increased risk of preterm birth, a 61 percent increased risk of low birth weight and a 26 percent increased risk of being small for their gestational age, compared to children of mothers with an interval of 18 to 23 months between pregnancies.
Babies born to mothers with pregnancy intervals longer than 59 months had a 20 percent to 43 percent increased risk of these outcomes.
For each month that the pregnancy was shortened from 18 months, the risk for preterm birth, low birth weight and small for gestational age increased by 1.9 percent, 3.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively.
For each month that the time between pregnancies was lengthened beyond 59 months, the risk for increased by 0.6 percent, 0.9 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively.
It's not clear why short intervals make for worse outcomes, although several theories have been put forth. One is the maternal nutritional depletion hypothesis, which suggests that the mother doesn't have time to recover from one pregnancy to the next. Nutritional deficiency in the mother means the child doesn't get enough nutrients either.
It's even less clear why extra-long intervals run into more problems. "It may be related to the fact that women who have long intervals are getting older, and women of advanced maternal age have an increased risk of some of these things," Bernstein said.
The paper is, in a sense, an argument for family planning.
"You don't want to do it too soon," Wu said. "You want to plan a pregnancy."
"I don't know that providers are out there telling their patients at their postpartum visit you really should really try and not have another pregnancy for 18 months," Bernstein added. "Health-care providers need to start identifying this as a high-risk problem, and they need to counsel patients about planning."
More information
For more on healthy pregnancies, head to the U.S. National Women's Health Information Center.
2006-08-15 09:49:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sherry 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think it's too soon at all, not if it's right for you. Besides, the closest together that my OB reccomended to me is 18 to 24 months, and that's exactly when you would be starting.
I also had a C-Section, so his advice to me (barring any complications that you may have had in healing that I didn't or something) would probably apply to you too. He said that that would give my body ample time to recover, and that if I waited that long, I would be an excellent candidate for a V-BAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) if the next baby is in the proper position (unlike the last one-upside down, backwards, with his feet and arms over his head, 2 weeks overdue!).
I had my son in February of this year, and we are planning on starting to try again in the fall of next year.
Your dad just doesn't want to see you hurting, and he's being overprotective.
Good luck!
2006-08-15 16:18:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Queen Queso 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that it's totally up to you and your husband on when you think you're ready (assuming your doctor has given you the thumbs up). Some parents think it's better for siblings to be closer together in age, some prefer some time in between... it's a personal decision.
As far as dad is concerned, I'm sure he's just caring for his little girl but if your doctor has no issues with it, then your dad should have some faith and let you do what makes you happy.
2006-08-15 09:48:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by helpplz 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i am a pre-school teacher and in my 5 years experience the best age that i have noticed is between 17-26 months apart. They havent really shown any sibling rivalry and are more open to a sibling than a 3-4 year old. Hope this helps you! Good luck in whaterever your decision!
2006-08-15 11:58:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by LaLa444 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No way. My mom had my older sister in Janurary 1985 and me in Januray 1986. We are exactly a year apart, and then she had my sister in January 1994. She tried to get all of us born on the same date, well my older sister and I were. But my younger sister was born three days after my 8 birthday.
2006-08-15 11:59:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think so its too early for you to start again. I think you should wait around till January 2008. Pls. give time for your body to heal from that C-section you went through. I have an auntie who went through a C-section and after one year she started to try working on their second child. She was successful on conceiving but there were so many complications on the second child. She gave birth to their child when it was only six months , the baby survived but her right eye was blind, she was massive pre-mature, small, only two pounds, had lungs problem, had to stay in the hospital for months before she came out and when she finally came out from the hospital there were still complications because when she cries she turns purple and sometimes have hard time to breath. But thank GOD a year has passed since my auntie gave birth to her baby girl, her girl now is healthy and alittke bit bigger. What caused her to give birth early was because her body was physically prepared to have another baby. Her uterus hasn't healed completely thats why that happen to her.
I don't know you but to tell you the truth I don't want you to go through such pain my auntie went through when she had that happen to her. Its pretty hard and painful for you and your future child.
Take care.
2006-08-15 14:25:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Our doctor told us to wait 1 year after our C-section to conceive again (it took us 3 years!).
2006-08-15 13:14:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by dizneeland 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wait until March 07, when she is 2. It is perfect when you think about it.
2006-08-15 09:50:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by unbeatablec 2
·
0⤊
0⤋