Background Adverse outcomes in adolescent pregnancies have been attributed to both biological immaturity and social determinants of health (SDOH). The present systematic review evaluated the evidence on the association between SDOH and adverse maternal and birth outcomes in adolescent mothers. Methods Comprehensive literature searches were conducted to identify observational studies evaluating the relationship between SDOH and adverse adolescent pregnancy outcomes. Study selection, risk of bias appraisal, and data extraction of study characteristics were independently performed by two reviewers. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to assess the association between SDOH and adverse birth outcomes. Results Thirty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently evaluated SDOH was race while the most commonly reported maternal and birth outcomes were caesarean section and preterm birth (PTB), respectively. The risk of bias of included studies was fair on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analyses of retrospective cohort studies showed that, compared to White adolescent mothers, African American teens had increased odds of PTB (pOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.59, 1.75) and low birthweight (pOR 1.53; 95% CI 1.45, 1.62). Rural residence was consistently linked with PTB while low maternal socio‐economic (SES) and illiteracy were found to increase the risk of adolescent maternal mortality and LBW infants. Conclusion Social determinants of health contribute to the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in adolescent mothers. African American race, rural residence, inadequate education, and low SES are markers for poor pregnancy outcomes in adolescent mothers. Further research needs to be done to understand the underlying causal pathways to inequalities in adolescent pregnancy outcomes.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe main objectives of this study were to synthesise and compare pandemic preparedness strategies issued by the federal and provincial/territorial (P/T) governments in Canada and to assess whether COVID-19 public health (PH) measures were tailored towards priority populations, as defined by relevant social determinants of health.MethodsThis scoping review searched federal and P/T websites on daily COVID-19 pandemic preparedness strategies between 30 January and 30 April 2020. The PROGRESS-Plus equity-lens framework was used to define priority populations. All definitions, policies and guidelines of PH strategies implemented by the federal and P/T governments to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission were included. PH measures were classified using a modified Public Health Agency of Canada Framework for Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness.ResultsA total of 722 COVID-19 PH measures were issued during the study period. Of these, home quarantine (voluntary) (n=13.0%; 94/722) and retail/commerce restrictions (10.9%; n=79/722) were the most common measures introduced. Many of the PH orders, including physical distancing, cancellation of mass gatherings, school closures or retail/commerce restrictions began to be introduced after 11 March 2020. Lifting of some of the PH orders in phases to reopen the economy began in April 2020 (6.5%; n=47/722). The majority (68%, n=491/722) of COVID-19 PH announcements were deemed mandatory, while 32% (n=231/722) were recommendations. Several PH measures (28.0%, n=202/722) targeted a variety of groups at risk of socially produced health inequalities, such as age, religion, occupation and migration status.ConclusionsMost PH measures centred on limiting contact between people who were not from the same household. PH measures were evolutionary in nature, reflecting new evidence that emerged throughout the pandemic. Although ~30% of all implemented COVID-19 PH measures were tailored towards priority groups, there were still unintended consequences on these populations.

No abstract

Background: An accurate assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is critical to inform the relationship between prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review critically appraises the evidence on measurement properties of prenatal care utilization indices and provides recommendations about which index is the most useful for this purpose. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception to October 2018 using keywords related to indices of prenatal care utilization. No language restrictions were imposed. Studies were included if they evaluated the reliability, validity, or responsiveness of at least one index of adequacy of prenatal care utilization. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. We conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria to appraise the measurement properties of the indices. Results: From 2664 studies initially screened, 13 unique studies evaluated the measurement properties of at least one index of prenatal care utilization. Most of the indices of adequacy of prenatal care currently used in research and clinical practice have been evaluated for at least some form of reliability and/or validity. Evidence about the responsiveness to change of these indices is absent from these evaluations. The Adequacy Perinatal Care Utilization Index (APNCUI) and the Kessner Index are supported by moderate evidence regarding their reliability, predictive and concurrent validity. Conclusion: The scientific literature has not comprehensively reported the measurement properties of commonly used indices of prenatal care utilization, and there is insufficient research to inform the choice of the best index. Lack of strong evidence about which index is the best to measure prenatal care utilization has important implications for tracking health care utilization and for formulating prenatal care recommendations.