What is the ideal time to wait between having children?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

I have three kids. My first two were 14 months apart and for me that was perfect because while I was pregnant with the second, my first was still naping a lot which gave me the opportunity to do so also. When the second was born, I was able to time some of their naps together. The third child was three years later which was very difficult with a 3 and 4 year old to take care of also. But, on the flip side if you wait more than 3 years the children will be too far apart for them to have much in common.

Answer 3

I waited a little too long (7 years apart) I think that 2 or 3 would have been better.

2 year olds don't have enough ego to consider another child a threat if you bring another baby in gradually and begin introductions in the womb. By the time they are almost 3, they feel a sense of responsability and concern for "their" baby and the jealousy might not be an issue. They are close enough to be playmates and old enough to be responsable, learn and teach a younger sibling.

My oldest child has the whole "Only child syndrome" thing going on and was always very jealous of the baby. Not to mention, set in his ways and never wanted to be a part of it by the time he was 7 he could care less about anything but T-ball and leggos.

It was hard on him... and it still is sometimes. I still have to remind him he was my first and how that makes him just as special. He is 14 now.

Answer 4

Personally for me it would have been better if the first child was off of the bottle and potty trained, it would have made life alot easier. Plus the quicker the duration in between, the more likely you can have compications. The more preganancies you have, the more stress on a body.Just my opinion.



Experience: 5 kids, 3 3 years total between them 2 3 years apart from any other sibling. The ones closer together- I got E-coli,chicken poxs, and had to be induced with baby's heart rate eventually bottoming out.

Answer 5

I am wanting to wait until my son is 2 years old before trying to conceive.
My brother and I are 2 yrs and 9 months apart. I think this is a great age difference. Some people may think differently. It depends a lot on the mother. Such as living situations, health situations, and are you financially stable at this time?

Answer 6

My sister and I are 10 months apart and personally I think its wonderfull to have kids close in age. We were best friends growing up and to this day get along great. I intentionally had my babies close, they are 11 months apart and I've never had a problem with jealousy or resentment. My son is the perfect big brother to his sister. My husband comes from a family of 5 kids all within about a year apart. They are all close now also.

Answer 7

About 40 years.

Answer 8

I would wait at least 1 to 2 years to give your body time to recover and also to give you time to raise the first child to a certain age where they are less dependable.

Answer 9

I have 2 girls that are 4 years apart. That worked out well for me because when my youngest was born my oldest understood the baby needed a lot of attention and helped. They also play well together now.

Answer 10

Everyone has different opinions on this matter but I say between 2 and 3 years...

Answer 11

I think about 2-3 years.I like the thought of them growing up together but everyone has diffrent apinions