| |
Indeed it is hard to find agreement between academics as what the prime factor(s) is in the development of pseudocyesis and it proves equally hard to gather a common census as to the rarity of the condition. Brown and Barglow (1991) put the rate at 1:25 pregnancies being a false-pregnancy, where Ouj (2009) puts the rate at 1:344 in Nigeria, whilst also in Nigeria, Oguntoyinbo (2011) reports the rate as being 1:48 pregnancies. Again this is juxtaposed with the reports from neighbouring Ghana where Seffah (2004) records the rate as being 1:192 and then in Sudan, Defallah (2004) presents the rate as 1:160. Clearly then, even between research and academic investigations carried out within the same nation, or the same year, there is no clarity, which is why further study into pseudocyesis is desperately needed.
|
