Differences in Prenatal Care by Presence and Type of Maternal Disability

Horner‐Johnson, Willi; Biel, Frances M.; Caughey, Aaron B.; Darney, Blair G.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.021

Cited by 36 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Women with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, enter prenatal care later than women without disabilities. 50,56,57,64,75 Perinatal care environments may be inaccessible, in terms of both the built environment (eg, examination tables that do not accommodate mobility limitations) and care delivery (eg, lack of interpreters for women with hearing impairments, complex medical terminology used with women with intellectual and developmental disabilities).…”

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tarasoff

Ravindran

Malik

et al. 2020

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O ne in 10 women of reproductive age has a disability. 1 While disabilities vary in their etiology and impact, they can be classified broadly based on common activity limitations. 2,3 Physical disabilities, such as cerebral palsy and spinal cord injuries, are those associated with limits to mobility, flexibility, and dexterity; sensory disabilities include vision and hearing impairments; and intellectual and developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, are associated with limitations in cognitive and adaptive functioning. In the past, stigma associated with disability and sexuality and medical factors, including risks of medication use in pregnancy, limited childbearing in women with disabilities. 4,5 However, with greater recognition of the reproductive rights of persons with disabilities 6 and medical advances, more women with disabilities now experience pregnancy. In fact, the 2008e2012 US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that similar proportions of

show abstract

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tarasoff

Ravindran

Malik

et al. 2020

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 16 included studies, eight were cross‐sectional 13,14,19‐24 and eight were retrospective cohorts 15,17,25‐30 . Studies were conducted in the United States ( n = 13) 13,15,17,19‐22,25‐30 and the United Kingdom (UK) ( n = 3) 14,23,24 and based on nine different data sources including: Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal data system (PELL, n = 3) 25‐27 ; California birth certificate and hospital discharge records ( n = 3) 15,17,29 ; Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS, n = 3) 13,21,22 ; and the UK National Health Service Care Quality Commission Survey ( n = 2) 14,23 . Definitions of physical disabilities varied.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Definitions of physical disabilities varied. Eight studies defined physical disabilities based on hospital records, databases, or diagnosis codes (eg International Classification of Diseases, ICD, codes): One study examined spinal cord‐related physical disabilities (eg spinal cord injury, spina bifida, paralysis) 28 and seven studies examined any diagnosed conditions related to physical disabilities (“diagnosed physical disabilities”) or grouped by body system (eg musculoskeletal, circulatory, nervous systems) 15,17,25‐27,29,30 . Two studies defined physical disability based on self‐report (“self‐reported physical disabilities”) 14,19 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pregnancy‐related outcomes among women with physical disabilities: A systematic review

Deierlein

Antoniak

Chan

et al. 2021

Paediatric Perinatal Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Disability among women of reproductive age is common; many of these women desire children and do not have impaired fertility. Objectives To examine the epidemiological literature on perinatal health outcomes among women with physical disabilities. Data sources We searched Medline and CINAHL for articles published January 2009–April 2020 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study selection and data extraction Eligible studies were observational, quantitative, and reported on physical disabilities in association with prenatal, perinatal, postpartum, and/or infant health outcomes. We included studies that grouped physical and non‐physical disabilities, such as surveys that queried only about general daily life limitations. We excluded case reports, descriptive studies without comparison groups, and studies conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries. Data extraction was done using predefined data fields. Synthesis All authors were involved in screening activities, data extraction, and/or quality assessment (rating and areas for bias). Results A total of 2650 articles were evaluated, of which sixteen met inclusion criteria (8 cross‐sectional studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies). Assessments of disability status and perinatal outcomes widely varied across studies. Studies were rated as poor (n = 8) or fair quality (n = 8). Findings suggested that women with physical disabilities were at risk of several adverse outcomes, including caesarean delivery, infections, preterm complications, and maternal post‐delivery hospitalisations, while their infants may be at risk of low birthweight and small‐for‐gestational age. Women classified as having complex/severe disabilities were often observed to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to women with less severe disabilities. Conclusions Research assessing how physical, functional, and medical restrictions influence health outcomes among women with physical disabilities, from preconception through postpartum, is limited. Longitudinal studies with comprehensive data collection that accurately identify women with physical disabilities are critical to understanding their reproductive health risks and outcomes.

show abstract

“…1,2 Research to date has demonstrated disparities for women with disabilities in prenatal care utilization and satisfaction with prenatal care, preterm birth, having infants small for gestational age, and high rates of cesarean deliveries. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] The majority of this research is based on delivery records or surveys like the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), which contain only live birth outcomes and therefore do not reflect early pregnancy loss or miscarriage. Thus, considerably less is known about the association between disability and miscarriage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Miscarriage Occurrence and Prevention Efforts by Disability Status and Type in the United States

Dissanayake

Darney

Caughey

et al. 2020

Journal of Women's Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Very little is known about early pregnancy loss in women with disabilities. To address this gap, we analyzed nationally representative data on miscarriage and receipt of care focused on miscarriage prevention among women with and without disabilities. Materials and Methods: We used 2011-2015 National Survey of Family Growth data on women with at least one completed pregnancy within the past 5 years. Bivariate and multivariate analyses assessed the association of six disability categories (any, hearing, vision, cognitive, physical, independent living) with miscarriage occurrence and receipt of services intended to prevent miscarriage. Results: Our analytic sample included 3,843 women with 5,776 completed pregnancies within the past 5 years. Overall, 31.63% of women with disabilities and 21.83% of women without disabilities had had a miscarriage within the past 5 years. Compared to women without disabilities, women with any, cognitive, physical, and independent living disability had higher adjusted odds of experiencing miscarriage (any disability aOR = 1.65 [95% CI: 1.21-2.25]). These women also had higher odds of receiving services to prevent miscarriage compared with women without disabilities (any disability aOR = 1.71 [95% CI: 1.20-2.45]). Among women who received services, higher proportions of women with any, vision, physical, or independent living disability received recommendations for bed rest (e.g., 65.007% of women with independent living disability vs. 33.98% of women without disability, p = 0.018). Conclusions: In a representative sample of U.S. women, we found significant differences in the odds of miscarriage and in receipt of care to prevent miscarriage between women with and without disabilities. Further research is needed to understand why women with disabilities are more likely to experience a miscarriage. Such research is important for informing care recommendations.

show abstract

Differences in Prenatal Care by Presence and Type of Maternal Disability

Cited by 36 publications

References 28 publications

Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pregnancy‐related outcomes among women with physical disabilities: A systematic review

Miscarriage Occurrence and Prevention Efforts by Disability Status and Type in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About