PDF herunterladen
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2017; 67(09/10): 401-412
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-100758
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Kinderwunsch bei (permanenter) Infertiliät: Entwicklung und Ergebnisse des „Fragebogens Einstellungen zur Mutterschaft (FEMu)“

The Wish for a Child in the Case of (Permanent) Infertility: Development of the “German Questionnaire on Attitudes Toward Motherhood”
Maike Fliegner
1   Institut für Sexualforschung und Forensische Psychiatrie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
Hertha Richter-Appelt
1   Institut für Sexualforschung und Forensische Psychiatrie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
Kerstin Krupp
1   Institut für Sexualforschung und Forensische Psychiatrie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
Franziska Brunner
1   Institut für Sexualforschung und Forensische Psychiatrie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

eingereicht 06. August 2016

akzeptiert 09. Januar 2017

Publikationsdatum:
18. Juli 2017 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Studie 1 Fragebogenentwicklung Die meisten Fragebögen zu Einstellungen zur Mutterschaft setzen Fertilität voraus und bilden positive und negative Einstellungen zur Mutterschaft auf einer Dimension ab. Häufig liegen zudem keine deutschsprachigen Versionen und Normwerte vor. Ziel dieser Studie ist es zu überprüfen, ob mit der Entwicklung des „FEMu“ ein Instrument zur Verfügung steht, mit dem Einstellungen mehrdimensional erfasst werden und welches unabhängig vom Fertilitätsstatus zu beantworten ist. Der FEMu wurde an einer weiblichen Stichprobe (n=932) mittels Hauptachsenanalyse (oblique Rotation) entwickelt, welche 2 unabhängige Hauptskalen („pro Kind“, „contra Kind“) mit 5 Unterskalen (Entbehrung/Fremdbestimmtheit, Attraktivität/Ausgeglichenheit, Unvollständigkeit, Verbundheit, Akzeptanz) und 4 Prototypen (Idealisierung, Ablehnung, Ambivalenz, Indifferenz) ergab.

Studie 2 Überprüfung an klinischen Stichproben Zur Überprüfung an klinischen Gruppen wurden Personen mit Kompletter Androgeninsensitivität (CAIS, n=12), Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser-Syndrom (MRKHS, n=49) und Polyzystischem Ovarsyndrom (PCOS, n=55) befragt, wobei die ersteren unter permanenter Infertilität leiden und bei PCOS eine eingeschränkte Fruchtbarkeit vorliegt. Es wurden die Stärke des Kinderwunsches, die FEMu-Hauptfaktoren sowie die Prototypen ausgewertet. Die Unabhängigkeit der Pro- und Contra-Kind-Scores und die Prototypen ließen sich empirisch bestätigen. Bei CAIS wurde ein geringer Kinderwunsch und eine indifferente Haltung, bei MRKHS ein mittelgradiger Kinderwunsch und Ambivalenz, bei PCOS ein maximaler Kinderwunsch und eine Idealisierung von Mutterschaft festgestellt.

Fazit Mit dem FEMu wird ein Instrument vorgestellt, das Einstellungen zur Mutterschaft mehrdimensional erfasst. Er ist unabhängig vom Fertilitätsstatus beantwortbar und kann zu Forschungszwecken sowie in der Einzelfall-Diagnostik eingesetzt werden. Die FEMu-Ergebnisse können zur gezielten Beratung herangezogen werden – orientierend im Rahmen von Fertilitätsbehandlungen, in der gynäkologischen Praxis, der Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung oder begleitend zu psychologischen Beratungen. Im psychotherapeutischen Kontext können sie bei der Entwicklung geeignter Interventionen hilfreich sein. Auch außerhalb des klinischen Kontexts ist der Einsatz des FEMu interessant, bspw. bei Themen der Familienplanung oder dem Konflikt von Frauen zwischen Karriere und Familie.

Abstract

Study 1 Development of the questionnaire Most questionnaires on attitudes toward motherhood presume that the subject is fertile and positive and negative attitudes are represented on a one-dimensional scale. Moreover, the questionnaires often do not provide German versions and German norms. The aim of this study is to examine whether the German Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Motherhood (“FEMu”) can be used to describe attitudes toward motherhood multi-dimensionally and whether it is applicable independent of a person’s fertility status. The FEMu was developed based on a female sample (n=932) using principal factor analysis (oblique rotation) which yielded 2 independent main factors (“pro child”, “contra child”) with 5 subfactors (privation/conformation, attractiveness/balance, incompleteness, relation, affiliation) and 4 prototypes (idealization, rejection, ambivalence, indifference).

Study 2 Evaluation of clinical Samples of people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS, n=12), Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome (MRKHS, n=49) and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS, n=55) were included for testing. The first 2 suffer from permanent infertility, in the latter fertility is compromised. The intensity of their wish for a child, the FEMu main factors and the prototypes were analyzed. The independence of pro and contra child scores and the prototypes were emipirically confirmed. Participants with CAIS had a low wish for a child and an indifferent attitude toward motherhood, women with MRKHS had a moderate wish for a child and were ambivalent, women with PCOS had a maximum wish for a child and idealized motherhood.

Conclusion The FEMu represents attitudes toward motherhood in a multi-dimensional way. It is appropriate for use in fertile and infertile individuals and can be applied in research and single-case settings. The FEMu results can be useful in individual counseling, e. g. within the scope of fertility treatmernt, at gynecological consultations, in pregnancy counseling or psychological counseling. In psychotherapy the results can help to develop suited interventions. The FEMu could also bring about valuable insights outside of the clinical setting, e. g., in the realms of family planning and women’s conflict between family and career.

Schlüsselwörter

Einstellungen zur Mutterschaft - permanente Infertilität - komplette Androgeninsensitivität (CAIS) - Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser-Syndrom (MRKHS) - polyzystisches Ovarsyndrom (PCOS)

Key words

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) - Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome (MRKHS) - Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) - attitudes toward motherhood - permanent infertility

Anhang

    Anhang 1–4 und Abb.3 zu diesem Beitrag finden Sie online unter http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-100758
  • Anhang
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Margolis R, Myrskylä M. A global perspective on happiness and fertility. Popul Dev Rev 2011; 37: 29-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hansen T, Slagsvold B, Moum T. Childlessness and psychological well-being in midlife and old age: An examination of parental status effects across a range of outcomes. Soc Indic Res 2009; 94: 343-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kohler H-P, Behrman JR, Skytthe A. Partner+Children=Happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well-being. Popul Dev Rev 2005; 31: 407-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nomaguchi KM, Milkie MA. Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives. J Marriage Fam 2003; 65: 356-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stöbel-Richter Y, Sender A, Brähler E. et al. Psychologische Beratung und Psychotherapie bei ungewollter Kinderlosigkeit. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2013; 63: 400-414
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chachamovich JR, Chachamovich E, Ezer H. et al. Investigating quality of life and health-related quality of life in infertility: A systematic review. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2010; 31: 101-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Boivin J, Griffiths E, Venetis CA. Emotional distress in infertile women and failure of assisted reproductive technologies: Meta-analysis of prospective psychosocial studies. BMJ 2011; 342: d223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hämmerli K, Znoj H, Barth J. The efficacy of psychological interventions for infertile patients: A meta-analysis examining mental health and pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15: 279-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kleinert E, Martin O, Brähler E. et al. Motives and decisions for and against having children among nonheterosexuals and the impact of experiences of discrimination, internalized stigma, and social acceptance. J Sex Res 2015; 52: 174-185 doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.838745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fügener J, Matthes A, Strauß B. Knowledge and behaviour of young people concerning fertility risks – results of a questionnaire. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 800-807
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Aschenbrenner VK, Aschenbrenner F, Kirchmann H. et al. Psychological motives behind the wish to have children among highschool and university students under consideration of female test persons with eating disorders. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2005; 51: 230-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tan S, Hahn S, Benson S. et al. Psychological implications of infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2064-2071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J. et al. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology, 2009. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 2683-2687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Friedler S, Grin L, Liberti G. et al. The reproductive potential of patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome using gestational surrogacy: A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 32: 54-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lee PA, Nordenström A, Houk CP. et al. Global disorders of sex development update since 2006: Perceptions, approach and care. Horm Res Paediatrics. 2016; 85: 158-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hughes IA, Davies JD, Bunch TI. et al. Androgen insensitivity syndrome. The Lancet 2012; 380: 1419-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Houk CP, Lee PA. Update on disorders of sex development. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2012; 19: 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Oakes MB, Eyvazzadeh AD, Quint E. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome – A review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2008; 21: 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sanders C, Carter B, Lwin R. Young women with a disorder of sex development: Learning to share information with health professionals, friends and intimate partners about bodily differences and infertility. J Adv Nurs 2015; 71: 1904-1913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wesley Y. Why women want children: Defining the meaning of desire for children and the construction of an index. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc 2007; 18: 14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Langdridge D, Sheeran P, Connolly K. Understanding the reasons for parenthood. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2005; 23: 121-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lawson KL. Development and psychometric properties of the Perceptions of Parenting Inventory. J Psychol 2004; 138: 433-455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Groat H, Giordano P, Cernkovich S. et al. Attitudes toward childbearing among young parents. J Marriage Fam 1997; 59: 568-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gerson M-J. A scale of motivation for parenthood: The Index of Parenthood Motivation. J Psychol 1983; 113: 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bell JS, Bancroft J, Philip A. Motivation for parenthood: A factor analytic study of attitudes towards having children. J Comp Fam Stud 1985; 16: 111-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hölzle C, Wirtz M. Fragebogen zum Kinderwunsch (FKW). Manual. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Brähler E, Stöbel-Richter Y, Schumacher J. Für und Wider eines eigenen Kindes: Der Leipziger Fragebogen zu Kinderwunschmotiven (LKM). Diagnostica 2001; 47: 96-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Meyer-Bahlburg HF, Dolezal C, Johnson LL. et al. Development and validation of the Pregnancy and Infant Orientation Questionnaire. J Sex Res 2010; 47: 598-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bengel J, Carl C, Mild U. et al. Langfristige psychische Folgen von Kinderlosigkeit: Eine Übersicht. Z für Klin Psychol Psychother 2000; 29: 3-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kraaij V, Garnefski N, Schroevers MJ. Coping, goal adjustment, and positive and negative affect in definitive infertility. J Health Psychol 2009; 14: 18-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kirkman M. Thinking of something to say: Public and private narratives of infertility. Health Care Women Int 2001; 22: 523-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lundberg T, Roen K, Hirschberg AL. et al. “It’s Part of Me, Not All of Me”: Young women’s experiences of receiving a diagnosis related to Diverse Sex Development. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29: 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ernst ME, Sandberg DE, Keegan C. et al. The lived experience of MRKH: Sharing health information with peers. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29: 154-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Carrard C, Chevret-Measson M, Lunel A. et al. Sexuality after sigmoid vaginoplasty in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 691-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kimberley N, Hutson JM, Southwell BR. et al. Well-being and sexual function outcomes in women with vaginal agenesis. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 238-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Holt R, Slade P. Living with an incomplete vagina and womb: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of vaginal agenesis. Psychol Health Med 2003; 8: 19-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Garrett CC, Kirkman M. Being an XY-Female: An analysis of accounts from the website of the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group. Health Care Women Int 2009; 30: 428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Alderson J, Madill A, Balen A. Fear of devaluation: Understanding the experience of intersexed women with androgen insensitivity syndrome. Br J Health Psychol 2004; 9: 81-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bean EJ, Mazur T, Robinson AD. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome: Sexuality, psychological effects, and quality of life. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2009; 22: 339-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sarpel U, Palmer SK, Dolgin SE. The incidence of complete androgen insensitivity in girls with inguinal hernias and assessment of screening by vaginal length measurement. J Pediatr Surg 2005; 40: 133-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wisniewski AB, Migeon CJ, Meyer-Bahlburg HFL. et al. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome: Long-term medical, surgical, and psychosexual outcome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85: 2664-2669
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bangsbøll S, Qvist I, Lebech PE. et al. Testicular feminization syndrome and associated gonadal tumors in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 63-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Blackless M, Charuvastra A, Derryck A. et al. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. Am J Hum Biol 2000; 12: 151-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wieacker P, Ledig S. Androgeninsensitivität. Med Genet 2011; 23: 249-253
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H. et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 2015; 385: 607-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Aittomaki K, Eroila H, Kajanoja P. A population-based study of the incidence of mullerian aplasia in Finland. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 624-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Teede H, Deeks A, Moran L. Polycystic ovary syndrome: A complex condition with psychological, reproductive and metabolic manifestations that impacts on health across the lifespan. BMC Med 2010; 8: 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Koivunen R, Pouta A, Franks S. et al. Fecundability and spontaneous abortions in women with self-reported oligo-amenorrhea and/or hirsutism: Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2134-2139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Azziz R. PCOS: A diagnostic challenge. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8: 644-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 March WA, Moore VM, Willson KJ. et al. The prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in a community sample assessed under contrasting diagnostic criteria. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 544-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Laufer MR. Congenital absence of the vagina: In search of the perfect solution. When, and by what technique, should a vagina be created?. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 1441-1444
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Brucker SY, Rall K, Campo R. et al. Treatment of congenital malformations. Sem Reprod Med 2011; 29: 101-112
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Rachmiel M. Primary amenorrhea as a manifestation of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome in adolescents: A unique subgroup?. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162: 521-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Barnard L, Ferriday D, Guenther N. et al. Quality of life and psychological well being in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2279-2286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Coëffin-Driol C, Giami A. The impact of infertility and its treatment on sexual life and marital relationships: Review of the literature. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil 2004; 32: 624-637
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Kitzinger C, Willmott J. “The thief of womanhood”: Women’s experience of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54: 349-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fliegner M, Krupp K, Brunner F. et al. Sexual life and sexual wellness in individuals with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) and Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome (MRKHS). J Sex Med 2014; 11: 729-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Brunner F, Fliegner M, Krupp K. et al. Gender role, gender identity and sexual orientation in CAIS (“XY-Women”) compared with subfertile and infertile 46,XX women. J Sex Res 2016; 53: 109-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Palomba S, Santagni S, Falbo A. et al. Complications and challenges associated with polycystic ovary syndrome: Current perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2015; 7: 745-763
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Hoffman LW, Thornton A, Manis JD. The value of children to parents in the United States. Popul Environ 1978; 1: 91-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Krupp K, Brunner F, Fliegner M. et al. Fragebogen zum Erleben der eigenen Weiblichkeit (FB-W): Ergebnisse von Frauen mit Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrom und Frauen mit polyzystischem Ovarsyndrom. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2013; 63: 334-340
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd edition London: Sage Publications; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Bühner M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 2.überarb. Aufl München: Pearson Studium; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Moosbrugger H, Kelava A. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Fisseni HJ. Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik. 3. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika 1954; 19: 149-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Kaiser HF, Dickman KW. Analytic determination of common factors. Am Psychol 1959; 14: 425-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1966; 1: 245-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivar Behav Res 1982; 17: 253-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 O’Connor B. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods 2000; 32: 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 2005; 10: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Velicer WF, Fava JL. Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychol Methods 1998; 3: 231-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC. et al. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999; 4: 272-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Buchanan T, Ali T, Heffernan TM. et al. Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behav Res Methods 2005; 37: 148-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Fliegner M, Richter-Appelt H, Krupp K et al. Attitudes toward motherhood in Complete Adrogen Insensitivity (CAIS) and Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome (MRKHS). [in Vorbereitung]
    PubMed
  • 76 Krupp K, Fliegner M, Brunner F. et al. Quality of life and psychological distress in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome and individuals with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Open J Med Psychol 2014; 3: 212-221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Patterson CJ, Crawford R, Jahoda A. Exploring the psychological impact of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome on young women: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. J Health Psychol 2014 [online first]
    PubMed
  • 78 Morgan EM, Quint EH. Assessment of sexual functioning, mental health, and life goals in women with vaginal agenesis. Arch Sex Behav 2006; 35: 607-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen (Embryonenschutzgesetz–ESchG) vom 13.12.1990. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/eschg/gesamt.pdf)
    PubMed
  • 80 Kazyak E, Park N, McQuillan J et al. Attitudes toward motherhood among sexual minority women in the United States. J Fam Issues 2014 [online first]
    PubMed
  • 81 Connidis IA, McMullin JA. Ambivalence, family ties, and doing sociology. J Marriage Fam 2002; 64: 594-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Gollwitzer PM, Heckhausen H, Ratajczak H. From weighing to willing: Approaching a change decision through pre- or postdecisional mentation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1990; 45: 41-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar