Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jul 14;21(7):e0353656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353656

Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life during the menopausal transition in a Turkish population: A cross-sectional study of associated factors

Aysun Badem 1,*
Editor: Shadab Shahali2
PMCID: PMC13367739  PMID: 42447163

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate fear of unintended pregnancy, contraceptive method use, sexual quality of life, and associated factors among perimenopausal women.

Methods

This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 2025 with 124 perimenopausal women aged 40–50 years. The data have been collected using a sociodemographic-obstetric questionnaire and the Turkish version of the Sexual Quality of Life-Female (SQOL-F) scale. Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis H and Linear regression analysis tests were applied.

Results

The median SQOL-F score was 84.50. The score indicated a moderate-to-high level of sexual quality of life. Significant differences in SQOL-F scores were observed according to employment status, education level, parity, mode of delivery, childbirth experience, and fear of unintended pregnancy (p < 0.05). Relatively higher SQOL-F scores have been exposed by women with higher education levels, lower parity, cesarean delivery, and positive birth experiences. Significantly lower SQOL-F scores have been observed on the fear of unintended pregnancy predicated women.

Conclusions

The fear of unintended pregnancy is prevalent among perimenopausal women and is associated with lower sexual quality of life. Comprehensive nursing interventions may be critical including contraceptive counseling and sexual health education tailored to the needs of perimenopausal women.

Introduction

Perimenopause is defined as a transitional stage in a woman’s reproductive lifespan between the ages of 40 and 50 before the menopause [1]. The Perimenopause is characterized by hormonal fluctuations and irregular menstrual cycles. Physical, psychological, and sexual symptoms often accompany in this period [1]. Although many women at this stage have completed their reproductive plans, the biological possibility of pregnancy remains. Therefore, the continuing risk of unintended pregnancy may lead to anxiety or fear in some women.

Sexuality is a fundamental component of health and is strongly associated with quality of life [2]. Women in the perimenopausal period are especially vulnerable to depressive symptoms and lower life satisfaction [3]. Sexual satisfaction is influenced by factors beyond physiological functioning [2]. Contraception is one of these factors and may either enhance or negatively affect sexual experiences depending on individual perceptions and side effects [4]. Therefore, sexual quality of life is shaped by the interaction of psychosocial and physiological factors [5].

Pregnancy risk remains a critical yet often overlooked dimension of sexual health during the perimenopausal period. Pregnancies occurring at the end of the reproductive period are associated with increased risks of complications such as preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, and fetal anomalies [6]. In addition, the higher likelihood of miscarriage may further intensify women’s concerns about conception and its outcomes [7]. In addition to physical risks, the possibility of unintended pregnancy may also have psychological consequences. Women in this life stage often experience multiple stressors, including professional responsibilities, family roles, age-related changes, and the transition toward menopause [3]. Despite declining fertility, many women remain sexually active in their late 40s and 50s, yet contraceptive counseling during this period is frequently insufficient [8]. This gap may increase the risk of unintended pregnancy and associated anxiety. The continued risk of pregnancy may impose a substantial emotional burden and negatively affect overall well-being and sexual life [8].

The fear of unintended pregnancy (FUIP) in perimenopausal women can be explained through cognitive-behavioral theory. Negative thoughts about potential future events such as “What if I get pregnant again?” can generate negative emotional responses and arise the anxiety. The cognitive patterns may lead to sexual avoidance, dissatisfaction, and a diminished sense of sexual safe during the perimenopausal period [9]. Therefore, FUIP can be recognized as both a cognitive and emotional phenomenon, rather than solely a physiological concern. Hence, the combined the worries about fertility and the FUIP may contribute to massively increase the anxiety levels [10]. Also, declining estrogen levels during perimenopause are related with a range of sexual dysfunctions, including reduced libido [4], vaginal dryness and dyspareunia [11], difficulties with arousal and orgasm [12], psychological distress [8], and broken communication with partners.

During the menopausal transition some women may experience increased anxiety about contraceptive effectiveness, while others may underestimate their risk of pregnancy and reduce contraceptive use. In addition, the FUIP may also be formed by previous reproductive experiences, the quality of the partner relationship, and personal perceptions of health. Although the majority of existing research has concentrated on the menopausal period, some studies have investigated the effect of physiological changes [13] and transitional symptoms specific to perimenopause on women’s sexual health [14]. However, emotional factors especially FUIP has not yet been examined in this context. In addition, there exist limited studies focused on contraceptive decision-making and perceptions of unintended pregnancy risk among women in this age group [15].

The FUIP may affect sexual well-being during perimenopause, making it important to examine this relationship. The FUIP has received limited examination by researchers as an emotional factor. The Reproductive Life Planning (RLP) define the importance of addressing both fertility intentions and contraceptive needs throughout a woman’s reproductive life course [16]. In this situation, evaluating FUIP together with contraceptive preferences is critical for exposing the reproductive health needs of women in perimenopause. In this study, fear of unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, and sexual quality of life in perimenopausal women are examined.

Materials and Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted between June and July 2025 with 124 perimenopausal women. Participants who met the inclusion criteria completed an online survey via Google Forms. The required sample size was calculated using G*Power (version 3.1), a statistical software for power analysis, based on two methodologically similar studies [15,17], assuming an effect size of 0.3, a significance level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 95%, which indicated a minimum of 122 participants. Participants were recruited through convenience (volunteer) and snowball sampling methods. Data were collected using an online Google Forms survey distributed via social media and messaging platforms. All questions were set as mandatory; therefore, no missing data were observed, and incomplete responses were not recorded by the survey system. A total of 138 women initially responded to the survey; however, 14 were excluded after eligibility screening for not meeting the inclusion criteria, such as age range and marital status.

Inclusion Criteria

In this study, women aged 40–50 years who were married, literate, sexually active (i.e., currently engaging in sexual intercourse), and in the perimenopausal phase (i.e., had experienced menstruation within the past 12 months) have been include. Participants were included if they voluntarily agreed to participate and met the inclusion criteria.

Exclusion Criteria

Women were excluded if they had physical disabilities that could affect sexual functioning, diagnosed psychiatric disorders, a history of gynecologic or breast cancer, recent vaginal infections, or prior pelvic surgery. These criteria were established to minimize potential confounders that could directly impact sexual functioning or psychological well-being.

Descriptive and obstetric characteristics of the women

Data on sociodemographic characteristics included age, employment status, education level, income status. Reproductive characteristics included the number of pregnancies, number of living children, miscarriage and curettage history, experience with unintended pregnancy, mode of delivery, childbirth complications, fertility intentions, FUIP, anticipated emotional reaction to a potential pregnancy, reasons for avoiding pregnancy, current use of contraceptive methods, and type of contraceptive method used. Fear of unintended pregnancy was assessed using a single self-report item: “Are you afraid of becoming pregnant unintentionally?” with response options “Yes” or “No.” These variables were considered independent variables in the analysis.

Questionnaire Scales- Sexual Quality of Life-Female (SQOL-F) Scale

The Sexual Quality of Life-Female (SQOL-F) Scale, originally developed by Symonds et al. (2005) [13], was adapted into Turkish by Tuğut and Gölbaşı in 2010 [14]. It consists of 18 items rated on a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree). Total scores range from 18 to 108, with higher scores indicating better sexual quality of life. Items 1, 5, 9, 13, and 18 are reverse scored. No cut-off point is defined for the scale. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.928, indicating excellent internal consistency.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables were summarized as median, interquartile range (IQR: Q1–Q3), minimum, and maximum; categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated a non-normal distribution of SQOL-F scores (p < 0.05). Therefore, non-parametric tests were used: Mann–Whitney U test for comparisons between two groups, and Kruskal–Wallis H test for more than two groups. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni-adjusted Mann–Whitney U tests where applicable. Effect sizes were calculated and reported as r and η². Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate factors associated with SQOL-F scores. Variables were selected a priori based on clinical relevance and previous literature and were entered simultaneously into the multivariable linear regression model. Regression assumptions were evaluated using diagnostic plots (histogram and normal P–P plot) of standardized residuals. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF), and all VIF values were < 2.

Results

Sociodemographic and Obstetric Characteristics of the Participants and Total SQOL-F Scores

The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (p = 0.018) and Shapiro–Wilk (p = 0.001) tests, both of which indicated a non-normal distribution. Consequently, all group comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests, specifically the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests. Detailed information on the participants’ sociodemographic, educational, and obstetric characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Sociodemographic, obstetric and reproductive characteristics of the participants (n = 124).

Variable n %
Age 40–45 60 48.4
46–50 64 51.6
Employment status Employed 51 41.1
Unemployed 73 58.9
Education Primary/Secondary 50 40.3
High school 23 18.5
University or higher 51 41.1
Income status Low 39 31.5
Medium 69 55.6
High 16 12.9
Gravida 0–3 73 58.9
4 or more 51 41.1
Living children 0–3 101 81.5
4 or more 23 18.5
Satisfaction with number of children As desired 93 75.0
Less than desired 23 18.5
More than desired 8 6.5
Miscarriage history Yes 48 38.7
No 76 61.3
Curettage history Yes 35 28.2
No 89 71.8
Unintended pregnancy Yes 39 31.5
No 85 68.5
Mode of delivery Vaginal 61 49.2
Cesarean 63 50.8
Birth experience Difficult 25 20.2
Moderate 88 71.0
Easy 11 8.8
Fear of unintended pregnancy Yes 66 53.2
No 58 46.8
Pregnancy intention Yes 9 7.3
No 115 92.7
Emotional response if found to be pregnant Happiness 18 14.5
Sadness 52 41.9
Uncertainty 54 43.5
Planned action if pregnancy occurs Don’t know 46 37.1
Give birth 42 33.9
Get depressed 21 16.9
Have curettage 7 5.6
Other 8 6.5
Suspicion of pregnancy during menstrual delay Yes 49 39.5
No 75 60.5
Reasons for avoiding pregnancy Unable to care 22 17.7
Don’t want 18 14.5
Advanced age 31 25.0
Health risk 4 3.2
Financial issue 4 3.2
Already grandmother 2 1.6
Using contraceptive Yes 71 57.3
No 53 42.7
Mode of contraceptive Condom 30 24.2
Intrauterine Device (IUD) 17 13.7
Tubal ligation 23 18.5
Hormone pill/injection 3 2.4
Withdrawal 26 21.0
Other 25 20.2

The age of the 124 participants ranged from 40 to 50 years. The majority (55.6%) reported a medium income level. Most participants (75%) were satisfied with the number of children they had. A history of miscarriage was reported by 38.7%, and curettage history by 28.2%, while 31.5% reported unintended pregnancies. In terms of subjective birth experience, 20.2% described it as difficult (Table 1).

A total of 92.7% of participants reported no desire to become pregnant again, and 53.2% expressed FUIP. When asked about their emotional reaction to a potential pregnancy, 41.9% stated they would feel sadness. Most participants (83.1%) perceived pregnancy at this stage as risky. The most commonly cited reasons for avoiding pregnancy were advanced maternal age (25.0%) and inability to care for a child (17.7%). Contraceptive use was reported by 57.3% of women, with condoms (24.2%), withdrawal (21.0%), and tubal ligation (18.5%) being the most frequently used methods (Table 1). The median SQOL-F score was 84.5 (range: 37–108; IQR: 67.0–97.0) (Table 2).

Table 2. Total score of the Sexual Quality of Life-Female Scale (SQOL-F).

n Median IQR Min-Max
SQOL-F Total score 124 84.50 67.00–97.00 37.00–108.00

Differences in SQOL-F Scores by Independent Variables

SQOL-F scores did not significantly differ by age, number of living children, satisfaction with number of children, history of miscarriage or curettage, unintended pregnancy, pregnancy intention, perceived pregnancy risk, emotional response to a potential pregnancy, suspicion of pregnancy during menstrual delay, or contraceptive use (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were identified based on employment status and educational level (p < 0.05), with lower scores particularly among those with primary or secondary education. Parity was also associated with SQOL-F scores, with women who had 0–3 pregnancies reporting higher scores than those with four or more (p < 0.05). Additionally, mode of delivery and perceived birth experience were significantly related to SQOL-F scores (p < 0.05). Participants who reported FUIP had significantly lower sexual quality of life scores compared to those without such fear (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3. Analysis of Total SQOL-F Scores by Independent Variables.

Variables SQOL-F Median

[IQR])
Mean Rank Test Effect size

r/ η²
p
Age 40–45 85.00 U = 1865.50 r = .02 0.785

46–50 84.50 z = –0.27
Employment status Employed 87.00 70.57 U = 1450.00 r = .19 0.037
Unemployed 80.00 56.86 z = –2.09
Education Primary/Secondary (a)* 76.50 49.48 χ²=11,06

df = 2
– 0.004
High school (b) 90.00 72.65
University or higher (c) 88.00 70.69
a-b * U = 372,500

z = −2,407
r = .22 0.016
a-c * U = 826,500

z = −3,048
r = .27



0.002



b-c * U = 555,500

z = −0,362
r = .03



0.717

Gravida 0-3 (low to moderate parity)

4 or more (high parity)
91.00

81.00
72.36

58.30
U = 1244,500

z = −1,994
r = .18



0.046

Living children 0-3 85.00 63.19 U = 1092,000 r = .04 0.655
4 or more 80.00 59.48 z = −0,447
Child satisfaction As desired 87.00 35.21 χ²= 2,13

df = 2
– 0.345
Less than desired 98.00 43.20
More than desired 95.00 43.50
Miscarriage Yes 81.00 60.80 U = 1742,500 r = .04 0.676
No 87.00 63.57 z = −0,418
Curettage Yes 80.00 58.63 U = 1422,000 r = .07 0.452
No 87.00 64.02 z = −0,753
Unintended pregnancy Yes 80.00 56.42 U = 1420,500 r = .11 0.202
No 87.00 65.29 z = −1,276
Mode of delivery Vaginal 80.00 55.80 U = 1512,500 r = .18



0.041

Cesarean 87.00 68.99 z = −2,045
Birth experience Difficult 74.00 53.14 χ²=7.08

df = 2
–



0.029

Moderate 84.00 62.02
Easy * 99.00 87.59
Difficult/Easy * U = 66,500

z = −2,440
r = .42 0.015
Moderate/Easy * U = 279,000

z = −2,284

r = .20 0.022
Pregnancy intention Yes 87.00 67.11 U = 476,000 r = .04 0.689
No 84.00 62.14 z = −0,400
Fear of unintended pregnancy Yes 75.00 51.42 U = 1183,000 r = .33 p < 0.001
No 90.50 75.10 z = −3,663
Emotional response if found to be pregnant Happiness 90.00 74.97 χ²=3,034

df = 2
– 0.219
Sadness 83.00 62.88
Uncertainty 84.50 57.97
Suspicion of pregnancy during Menstrual delay Yes 78.00 57.34 U = 1584,500

z = −1,294
r = .12 0.196
No 65.87
Contraceptive Yes 87.00 66.04 U = 1630,500

z = −1,269
r = .11 0.205
No 82.00 57.76

Mann–Whitney U testi:U Kruskal–Wallis H: χ² * Bonferroni post-hoc test

Multivariable linear regression model, fear of unintended pregnancy was independently associated with lower SQOL-F total scores (B = −12.66, 95% CI −18.65 to −6.84; p < 0.001). Higher education level was associated with higher SQOL-F scores (B = 4.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.10; p = 0.04). Current contraceptive use was associated with slightly lower SQOL-F scores (B = −1.80, 95% CI −3.38 to −0.13; p = 0.03). Age, employment status, gravida, mode of delivery, and history of unintended pregnancy were not significantly associated with SQOL-F scores (p > 0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariable linear regression analysis of factors associated with SQOL-F total score.

Dependent variable Independent variable Coefficient

(main effect)
95% CI

(main effect)
p-value

(main effect)
SQOL-F Total Score Age 0.49 (−0.36, 1.28) 0.24
Education 4.15 (0.67, 8.10) 0.04
Employment status 1.00 (−6.19, 7.93) 0.79
Gravida −0.71 (−2.95, 1.78) 0.60
Mode of delivery 0.66 (−5.87, 6.64) 0.84
Unintended pregnancy 1.06 (−2.50, 4.51) 0.53
Fear of unintended pregnancy (FUIP) −12.66 (−18.65, −6.84 <0,001
Using contraceptive −1.80 (−3.38, −0.13) 0.03

* Adjusted unstandardized regression coefficients (B) with 95% confidence intervals are presented from a multivariable linear regression model. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Categorical variables were entered using dummy coding with appropriate reference categories.

Discussion

Understanding the perimenopausal period is essential to supporting women’s transition into menopause. The cultural, social, and economic factors play a major role in formed women’s perceptions to this stage beyond the intensity of menopausal symptoms, was emphasized in recently published systematic review [18]. The obtained findings indicated to sexual quality of life during perimenopause is affected by a complex interplay of sociodemographic, reproductive, and psychological factors. The obtained results on mentioned variables are discussed with the literatures as follows:

Employed women produced significantly higher SQOL-F scores compared to their unemployed women (p < 0.05) in this study. Although the most existing research has focused on postmenopausal populations, our findings may provide relevant insights into the perimenopausal period. For example, Pérez-Herrezuelo et al. (2020) found that employment was positively correlated with better sexual functioning in menopausal women [19]. Nazarpour et al. (2021) reported that employed women scored significantly higher in sexual function than housewives and retirees especially for body image and sexual health [20]. Therefore, it clearly seen that employment may contribute to improved sexual quality of life through enhanced social connectedness, financial independence, and self-efficacy.

The significantly lower SQOL-F scores have been obtained by women with primary or secondary education than women with high school or university-level education (p < 0.05). Thus, obtained result show that higher educational attainment may contribute to better sexual quality of life. The education was positively linked to sexual health outcomes have been observed in studies on postmenopausal women as similar our finding [20,21]. Although the current research focuses on an earlier reproductive stage, similar results were found in this study. High level-Educated women are more likely to have access to accurate information about fertility transitions and contraceptive methods. Therefore, this reality may enable them to make more informed health decisions and foster a stronger sense of sexual well-being.

Women with lower parity (0–3 pregnancies) demonstrated significantly higher SQOL-F scores than those with higher parity (≥4 pregnancies) (p < 0.05). The high parity (≥3–4 births) is associated with declines in sexual functions such as libido, orgasm, and overall satisfaction in the previously study. The physical consequences of repeated childbirth, including pelvic floor weakening, vaginal laxity, urinary incontinence, and prolonged postpartum recovery, may be causes of the sexual dysfunctions mentioned [22].

Grand multiparity (≥5 births) has also been related to lower scores in both sexual function and quality of life. As the same time, grand multiparity may be caused to dystocia and obesity cited as additional risk factors [23]. In comparing pregnant and non-pregnant women study, increasing parity and pregnancy status were both significantly associated with reduced sexual functioning. This finding has been suggested the pregnancy itself may be a risk factor for sexual dysfunction [24]. Hence, these findings highlight the cumulative effects of physical strain, physiological stress, and psychological burden tied to reproductive history may negatively influence women’s sexual well-being.

A significantly higher SQOL-F scores has been obtained by delivered women via cesarean section than vaginal births (p < 0.05). The obtained this result overlaps with the findings of a few recently published studies. Baud et al. (2020) observed that women who underwent elective cesarean sections experienced fewer symptoms of sexual dysfunction compared to the vaginal delivered even up to six years postpartum [25]. The reported the difference was primarily attributed to reduced pelvic floor trauma associated with cesarean birth. Furthermore, Terece et al. (2024) has found that cesarean delivery was related to higher sexual function scores and better sexual quality of life within the first year after childbirth [26].

The most participants in the sample had 0–3 births (low to moderate parity), and the distribution between cesarean and vaginal deliveries was relatively balanced. It is clearly said that the findings are based on a representative and well-distributed sample. The overall mean SQOL-F score was 84.50. Obtained score has been indicated a moderate-to-high level of sexual quality of life. Thus, this result may partly reflect the potentially protective effects of lower parity and cesarean delivery (Table 2). In this study, women with low to moderate parity and those who had cesarean deliveries reported significantly higher sexual quality of life scores. When this result is compared with existing literature indicating that higher parity may negatively affect sexual health due to increased physical strain and pelvic floor dysfunction, the obtained results is consistent [25,26]. In addition, the cesarean delivery may help preserve sexual function by minimizing pelvic trauma may be stated. Consequently, the predominance of low-to-moderate parity in this sample may have contributed to the overall favorable sexual health outcomes observed.

In this study, women who described their birth experience as “easy” reported significantly higher SQOL-F scores than those who characterized it as moderate or very difficult (p < 0.05). The results of the existing studies on analyzed the impact of childbirth experience on later sexual health are supported to this result. A systematic review by Fanshawe et al. (2023) show that traumatic delivery methods such as episiotomy and assisted vaginal birth are related to negative medium- and long-term effects on sexual function [27]. Thanks to less invasive and uncomplicated births may help preserve pelvic floor integrity, better sexual functioning and satisfaction may be provided. Moreover, subjective perceptions of childbirth have been shown to be important predictors: negatively perceived births may reduce sexual quality of life, whereas positively remembered experiences may enhance sexual quality of life [28].

The most participants have reported using at least one form of contraception (Table 1). The relatively high SQOL-F scores observed in the sample may reflect a sense of safe and sexual autonomy associated with contraceptive uses. The most commonly reported methods were condoms, tubal ligation, and withdrawal. Geleta et al. (2021) examined contraceptive use among perimenopausal women and found a usage rate of 17%, with higher rates related to older age, higher educational, and higher socioeconomic status [29]. These finding is supported to our results.

A large proportion of perimenopausal participants reported not wanting to become pregnant (92.7%), perceiving pregnancy as risky due to their age (83.1%), and anticipating feelings of sadness (41.9%) or uncertainty (43.5%) if pregnancy were to occur. This may have limited the comprehensive assessment of all dimensions of FUIP. Especially, the fear reported women had significantly lower SQOL-F scores (p < 0.05). Previous research has shown that fears related to sexual activity can adversely affect sexual function and overall quality of life. For example, Calpbinici (2024) found that a traumatic childbirth perception was related to a raised desire to avoid pregnancy and lower sexual quality of life [28]. Similarly, Phan et al. (2021) reported that pregnant women often refrained from sexual intercourse due to fears of harming the fetus. Thus, this situation leading to diminished sexual well-being [30]. While these studies involve different reproductive stages, they support the broader notion that fertility-related fears can negatively influence sexuality. Remarkably, no previous studies have directly explored the association between FUIP and sexual quality of life in perimenopausal women according to the best knowledge. Therefore, stated the novelty and contribution of the present study.

A fear of unintended pregnancy states participants during the perimenopause period exhibited significantly lower SQOL-F scores. This relationship may stem not only from fertility-related concerns but also from underlying psychological factors. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Saha et al. (2021) stated the frequent co-occurrence of mood and anxiety disorders [31]. As the same time, another review of 19 studies found a strong link between female sexual dysfunction and mood disturbances [32]. For women experiencing pregnancy-related fear, heightened anxiety combined with mood fluctuations may undermine sexual satisfaction and function. These findings emphasize that sexual quality of life is influenced not only by physiological factors but also by deeply interconnected psychological and cognitive processes.

Armeni et al. (2023) identified a high prevalence of pathological sexual dysfunction symptoms among postmenopausal women in their study on climacteric symptoms and sexual functioning [33]. A qualitative study involving women over the age of 40 revealed widespread anxiety about becoming pregnant and a strong desire to avoid conception [34]. For this age group, contraceptive needs should be addressed proactively, without requiring additional diagnostic testing to confirm perimenopausal status [35]. In the multivariable model, FUIP remained independently associated with lower SQOL-F scores after adjusting for sociodemographic and reproductive factors. These findings suggest that the relationship cannot be explained solely by potential confounding variables (Table 4). The results of this study showed that FUIP was significantly associated with sexual quality of life. The regression model explained 10.4% of the variance in sexual quality of life (R² = 0.104). Moreover, Fear of unintended pregnancy was associated with an 11.62-point lower in SQOL-F total scores (B = −11.62, SE = 3.09, p < 0.001) (Table 5). These findings highlight the need to examine sexual quality of life and its contributing factors not only in postmenopausal populations, but also throughout earlier reproductive transitions such as perimenopause.

Table 5. Simple linear regression analysis of the association between fear of unintended pregnancy (FUIP) and SQOL-F score.

Regression coefficients Model
Dependent variable Independent variable B SE t p β F p R² Adj R²
SQOL-F Score Constant 88.00 2.25 39.09 <0.001 14.18 <0.001 0.104 0.097
FUIP (1 = Yes, 0 = No) −11.62 3.09 −3.77 <0.001 −0,323

B: Unstandardized coefficient; β: Standardised coefficient; SE: Standard error; Fear coded as 1 = yes, 0 = no; Adj R²: adjusted R-squared.

Simple linear regression showed that FUIP was significantly associated with SQOL-F scores (p < 0.001). The model explained 10.4% of the variance in SQOL-F (R² = 0.104; Adj R² = 0.097; F = 14.18, p < 0.001).

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The sample was restricted to married, sexually active women aged 40–50. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to all women. Data were collected via a self-administered online questionnaire. This may have limited participation to women with internet access and digital literacy. Psychosocial factors and partner perspectives were not assessed, despite their known influence on sexual well-being. Scales assessing pregnancy-related fear in the literature primarily focus on anxieties during a planned or ongoing pregnancy. However, the fear addressed in this study is the FUIP that arises in the pre-pregnancy period and has psychosocial characteristics. The existing scales are considered insufficient to adequately reflect this construct. Therefore, FUIP was measured using a self-report question rather than a validated multi-item scale. This may have limited the comprehensive assessment of all dimensions of FUIP.

Conclusions

Significant proportion of perimenopausal women experience negatively affects their sexual quality of life to FUIP is exposed in this study. Sexual well-being was significantly associated with educational level, parity, mode of delivery, and subjective birth experience. Especially, the expressed FUIP women had substantially lower SQOL-F scores. Thus, the importance of a holistic approach in women’s health services that simultaneously addresses sexual health and fertility-related concerns could be highlighted. Nursing-led psychoeducational programs, family planning counseling, and sexual health services should be redesigned to meet the specific needs of women during the perimenopausal transition. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs to better understand the evolving psychological factors and relational dynamics, such as partner support. In the menopausal transition, providing personalized contraceptive counseling is very important and necessary. Moreover, sexual health counseling for perimenopausal women must address not only physiological changes but also emotional and cognitive concerns, including the fear of unintended pregnancy.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to all the women who voluntarily participated in this study.

Data Availability

The minimal dataset underlying the findings of this study is available in the Mendeley Data repository via the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17632/ptcx3dwsgy.1 (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ptcx3dwsgy/1).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Liu X, Zhang X, Wang D, Zhou J, Li Y. Investigation of the quality of life and influencing factors among perimenopausal women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025;312(4):1253–65. doi: 10.1007/s00404-025-08116-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Caruso S, Palermo G, Caruso G, Rapisarda AMC. How Does Contraceptive Use Affect Women’s Sexuality? A Novel Look at Sexual Acceptability. J Clin Med. 2022;11(3):810. doi: 10.3390/jcm11030810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu X-Y, Peng S-Z, Pei M-Y, Zhang P. The effects of physical activity on depression and quality of life in Chinese perimenopausal women. J Affect Disord. 2023;328:153–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Higgins JA, Kramer RD, Wright KQ, Everett B, Turok DK, Sanders JN. Sexual Functioning, satisfaction, and well-being among contraceptive users: a three-month assessment from the HER salt lake contraceptive initiative. J Sex Res. 2022;59(4):435–44. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2021.1873225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bozkurt ÖD, Sevil Ü. Menopause and sexual life. Celal Bayar Univ Inst Health Sci J. 2016;3:4. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Başkıran Y, Tanoğlu FB, Uçkan K, Çeleğen İ, Karaçor T. The impact of maternal age distribution on pregnancy-related complications and neonatal outcomes: A single-center retrospective experience. Adiyaman Univ J Health Sci. 2023;9:215–22. doi: 10.30569/adiyamansaglik.1327740 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grandi G, Di Vinci P, Sgandurra A, Feliciello L, Monari F, Facchinetti F. Contraception During Perimenopause: Practical Guidance. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:913–29. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S288070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Soltes BA. Contraception in perimenopause. Menopause. 2025;32(5):472–4. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nunes LRDC, Coutinho FC, Santos VAD. Fear of childbirth: A review of interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy. Psicol Teor Prát. 2022;24:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saleh SA, Almadani N, Mahfouz R, Nofal HA, El-Rafey DS, Seleem DA. Exploring the Intersection of Depression, Anxiety, and Sexual Health in Perimenopausal Women. Int J Womens Health. 2024;16:1315–27. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S464129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hill DA, Taylor CA. Dyspareunia in Women. Am Fam Physician. 2021;103(10):597–604. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Verrilli L, Esposito-Smith M, Williams M. Sexual health and function in menopause and beyond. In: Challenges in Older Women’s Health: A Guide for Clinicians. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 185–99. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-59058-1_12 [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Symonds T, Boolell M, Quirk F. Development of a questionnaire on sexual quality of life in women. J Sex Marital Ther. 2005;31(5):385–97. doi: 10.1080/00926230591006502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tuğut N, Gölbaşı Z. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Sexual Quality of Life-Female Scale. Cumhuriyet Med J. 2010;32:172–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ceylan Ş. Examination of the relationship between sexual quality of life and happiness level in pregnant women. Turk J Health Sci Res. 2023;6:1–13. doi: 10.51536/tusbad.1384860 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stern J, Bodin M, Grandahl M, Segeblad B, Axén L, Larsson M, et al. Midwives’ adoption of the reproductive life plan in contraceptive counselling: a mixed methods study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(5):1146–55. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Altunbaş N, Gölbaşı Z. The Effect of Sex Education and Counseling Based on the Ex-PLISSIT Model on Sexual Life in Primigravidas. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2024;14(2):367–76. doi: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1305002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dashti S, Bahri N, Fathi Najafi T, Amiridelui M, Latifnejad Roudsari R. Influencing factors on women’s attitudes toward menopause: a systematic review. Menopause. 2021;28(10):1192–200. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pérez-Herrezuelo I, Aibar-Almazán A, Martínez-Amat A, Fábrega-Cuadros R, Díaz-Mohedo E, Wangensteen R, et al. Female Sexual Function and Its Association with the Severity of Menopause-Related Symptoms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7235. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nazarpour S, Simbar M, Khorrami M, Jafari Torkamani Z, Saghafi R, Alavi-Majd H. The association between sexual function and body image among postmenopausal women: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01549-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gupta G, Kumari R, Mishra P, Gupta B. Factors Associated with Quality of Life among Menopausal Women in Lucknow - A Cross-Sectional Study. J Midlife Health. 2023;14(4):257–64. doi: 10.4103/jmh.jmh_152_22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kırat S. Sexual Dysfunction in the Life Cycle of Women: Implications for Psychological Health. Healthcare (Basel). 2025;13(11):1268. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13111268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kaya Şenol D, Gözüyeşil E. Evaluation of the quality of sexual life and sexual function in women with grand multiparity. Health Care Women Int. 2024;45(12):1397–410. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2023.2190982 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Anğın AD, Özkaya E, Çetin M, Gün I, Sakin O, Ertekin LT, et al. Comparison of female sexual function and sexual function of their partners between groups of pregnant and non-pregnant women. Ginekol Pol. 2020;91(5):235–9. doi: 10.5603/GP.2020.0062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Baud D, Sichitiu J, Lombardi V, De Rham M, Meyer S, Vial Y. Comparison of pelvic floor dysfunction 6 years after uncomplicated vaginal versus elective cesarean deliveries: A cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2020;10:1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78625-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Terece C, Turan G, Uçkan HH, Eser A, Özler MR, Dunyamalıyeva A, et al. Impact of delivery mode on sexual functions in the first year after childbirth: A comparative study of vaginal and cesarean sections. Thai J Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;:365–76. doi: 10.14456/tjog.2024.40 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fanshawe A-M, De Jonge A, Ginter N, Takács L, Dahlen HG, Swertz MA, et al. The Impact of Mode of Birth, and Episiotomy, on Postpartum Sexual Function in the Medium- and Longer-Term: An Integrative Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(7):5252. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Calpbinici P. The relationship between traumatic childbirth perception, desire to avoid pregnancy, and sexual quality of life in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024;167(1):265–72. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Geleta D, Kebede A, Bulcha G, Usman H, Hajibediru K, Kebede S, et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Contraceptive Use Among Women of Premenopausal Period in Ethiopia: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Data Analysis. Open Access J Contracept. 2021;12:149–56. doi: 10.2147/OAJC.S318486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Phan TC, Hoang LB, Tran TK, Pham TTT, Bui AV, Dao HT, et al. Fear-Related Reasons for Avoiding Sexual Intercourse in Early Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sex Med. 2021;9(6):100430. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Saha S, Lim CC, Cannon DL, Burton L, Bremner M, Cosgrove P, et al. Co-morbidity between mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2021;38:286–306. doi: 10.1002/da.23113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rahmani A, Afsharnia E, Fedotova J, Shahbazi S, Fallahi A, Allahqoli L, et al. Sexual Function and Mood Disorders Among Menopausal Women: A Systematic Scoping Review. J Sex Med. 2022;19(7):1098–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.03.614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Armeni A, Armeni E, Augoulea A, Stergiotis S, Kaparos G, Alexandrou A, et al. Climacteric symptoms, age, and sense of coherence are associated with sexual function scores in women after menopause. J Sex Med. 2023;20(3):313–23. doi: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdac031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Burgin J, Bailey JV. Factors affecting contraceptive choice in women over 40: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e064987. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lega IC, Jacobson M. Perimenopause. CMAJ. 2024;196:E1169. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.240337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shadab Shahali

7 Apr 2026

-->PONE-D-26-07655-->-->Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life during the menopausal transition in a Turkish population: A cross-sectional study of associated factors-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. BADEM,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shadab Shahali, PHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Thank you for asking me to review this interesting manuscript titled “ Fear of Unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life during the menopausal transition in a Turkish population: A cross-sectional study of associated factors”. This topic addresses an important issue concerning perimenopausal women and their sexual health in Turkey.

This manuscript is well-conceived and was administered using the Google form, making the study unique. However, as it stands now, the manuscript needs to be improved upon for one to appreciate the study.

The authors need to pay attention to the language, as this is of concern. A lot of times, one cannot appreciate the message, and a couple of times, so much is said without communicating. This has prevented a thorough evaluation of the manuscript. Nevertheless, I will make some specific comments:

1. Under the introduction – line 37, the definition of perimenopause should be referenced. Interestingly, another definition is written in lines 62–63 of perimenopause, without reference to the previous statement. Kindly reconcile this.

2. The second paragraph, especially lines 45 -50 are not clear

3. The third paragraph is not clear and is not connected to the previous paragraph.

4. The justification should be concise, and the objectives well outlined

5. Under materials and method-

- Sample size determination is unclear. How did you arrive at 122? Did you consider attrition?

- What is G*Power?

- Participant recruitment is not clear

- Nothing was mentioned about the study setting, study population

- Study

- Line 125 should be Research Instrument. Reconcile it with line 135 and make it explicit

- Lines 165 & 166 are part of the result

Reviewer #2: Dear author, thank you for highlighting and important topic for women's health. Kindly, I suggest you to do some minor revision in your manuscript. I don not need to see the manuscript after your revision. In some parts of the manuscript, there are a few grammatical mistakes, please review your manuscript in this case. The introduction is too long for the readers, it needs summarizing and shortening. For results section, we can see all the data from available tables, however you added every single result below the tables as well, you may need to summarize the results and write only the significant results that you want to highlight please. Thank you.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Adewale Olufemi Ashimi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life.docx

pone.0353656.s001.docx (15.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Jul 14;21(7):e0353656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353656.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 May 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to revise my manuscript. The revised version has been uploaded along with a detailed response to reviewers. All comments have been carefully addressed. We have also uploaded the dataset to the Mendeley Data repository in line with your suggestion, and the access links have been provided (https://doi.org/10.17632/ptcx3dwsgy.1

; https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ptcx3dwsgy/1

).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0353656.s002.docx (15.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Shadab Shahali

8 Jun 2026

-->PONE-D-26-07655R1-->-->Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life during the menopausal transition in a Turkish population: A cross-sectional study of associated factors-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. BADEM,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.-->--> -->-->Please submit your revised manuscript by  Jul 20 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shadab Shahali, PHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: I will suggest that the authors get a native English speaker to edit the manuscript or the services of a professional language editor. Below are some of my observations.

1. Lines 9&10 are unclear, kindly rewrite them

2. Lines 11 &12 - incomplete and should be rewritten

3. Lines 15 -18 - unclear

4. Lines 32 - 35 - not clear

5. lines 51 - 52 should be referenced.

6. line 67 ---some woman may experience -- incorrect

7. line 77 - 78 - not clear

8. line 81 - a word is missing in the statement

9. line 92- 94 - recruitment of participants not clear

10. line 99 - define " sexually active"

11. line 102 - statement is unclear

12. line 105 - define physical disability

13. line 110 - rewrite for clarity

14. line 114/1115- " mode of contraceptive method use" - do you mean type

15. line 144/145 - paraphrase this statement

16. Line 327 - 330 is not clear.

17. Under limitation, kindly explain why data collection through an online platform is a limitation.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the comments for your manuscript. I see all of my recommendations were addressed carefully.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Adewale Olufemi Ashimi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

--> -->--> --> --> -->--> --> --> --> --> --> --> -->-->-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jul 14;21(7):e0353656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353656.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


9 Jun 2026

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their constructive comments. All suggestions have been carefully addressed, and a detailed point-by-point response has been provided in the uploaded Response to Reviewers document.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0353656.s003.docx (24.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Shadab Shahali

29 Jun 2026

Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life during the menopausal transition in a Turkish population: A cross-sectional study of associated factors

PONE-D-26-07655R2

Dear Dr. AYSUN BADEM,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shadab Shahali, PHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #3: 1. Discuss the unexpected association between contraceptive use and lower SQOL-F scores.

2.Expand the limitations section to emphasize the single-item FUIP measure as a major methodological constraint.

3.Replace causal language with associational language throughout the Discussion.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Shahali

**********

Acceptance letter

Shadab Shahali

PONE-D-26-07655R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. BADEM,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shadab Shahali

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Fear of unintended pregnancy and sexual quality of life.docx

    pone.0353656.s001.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0353656.s002.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0353656.s003.docx (24.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The minimal dataset underlying the findings of this study is available in the Mendeley Data repository via the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17632/ptcx3dwsgy.1 (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ptcx3dwsgy/1).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES