Search

Objectives: Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) women are at a higher risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes compared with other women. However, little is known about postpartum outcomes among DHH women. The objective was to compare the risk of postpartum hospitalizations for DHH compared with non-DHH women and the leading indications for postpartum admissions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from the 1998–2017 Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System and identified 3,546 singleton deliveries to DHH women and 1,381,439 singleton deliveries to non-DHH women. We used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the first hospital admission and ≥2 hospital admissions between DHH and non-DHH women within 1–42, 43–90, and 91–365 days after delivery. Results: DHH women had a higher risk for any hospital admissions across all periods (hazard ratios [HR] = 1.84; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.46–2.34 within 1–42 days; HR = 2.76; 95%CI 1.99–3.83 within 43–90 days; and HR = 3.10; 95%CI 2.66–3.60 91–365 days) after childbirth compared with non-DHH women. They had an almost seven times higher risk for repeated hospital admissions within 43–90 days (HR = 6.84; 95%CI 1.66–28.21) and nearly four times higher the risk within 91–365 days (HR = 3.63; 95%CI 2.00–6.59) after delivery compared with non-DHH women. The leading indications for readmission among DHH women included: conditions complicating the puerperium/hemorrhage and soft tissues disorders. Conclusion: Compared with other women, DHH women had significantly higher readmissions across all postpartum periods and for repeated admissions >42 days. Leading postpartum indications were distinct from those of non-DHH women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Being deaf or hard of hearing can be marginalizing and associated with inequitable health outcomes. Until recently, there were no U.S. population-based studies of pregnancy outcomes among deaf or hard of hearing women. In light of inconsistent findings in the limited available literature, this study sought to conduct a more rigorous study using population-based, longitudinal linked data to compare pregnancy complications, birth characteristics, and neonatal outcomes between deaf or hard of hearing and non-deaf or hard of hearing women.Methods: Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2019 using the Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal data system. This system links all Massachusetts birth certificates, fetal death reports, and delivery- and nondelivery-related hospital discharge records for all infants and their mothers. The study included women with singleton deliveries who gave birth in Massachusetts between January 1998 and December 2013.Results: The deaf or hard of hearing women had an increased risk of chronic medical conditions and pregnancy complications including pre-existing diabetes, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, and placental abruption. Deliveries to deaf or hard of hearing women were significantly associated with adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight or very low weight, and low 1-minute Apgar score or low 5-minute Apgar score. No significant differences were found in size for gestational age, fetal distress, or stillbirth among deaf or hard of hearing women.Conclusions: Findings from this 2019 study indicate that deaf or hard of hearing women are at a heightened risk for chronic conditions, pregnancy-related complications, and adverse birth outcomes and underscore the need for systematic investigation of the pregnancy- and neonatal-related risks, complications, costs, mechanisms, and outcomes of deaf or hard of hearing women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate contraceptive provision and contraceptive care quality measures for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and compare these outcomes to those individuals who are not.Methods: We conducted a claims analysis with data from the 2014 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database. Among premenopausal enrollees aged 15-44, we determined provision of any contraception (yes or no) and provision by contraception type: prescription contraception (pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm), long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) devices, and permanent contraception (tubal sterilization). We compared these outcomes by deaf or hard-of-hearing status (yes or no). The odds of contraceptive provision were calculated with regression models adjusted for age, Medicaid insurance, a preventive health visit, and deaf or hard-of-hearing status. We calculated contraceptive care quality measures, per the U.S. Office of Population Health, as the percentage of enrollees who used: 1) LARC methods or 2) most effective or moderately effective methods (tubal sterilization, pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm).Results: We identified 1,171,838 enrollees at risk for pregnancy; 13,400 (1.1%) were deaf or hard of hearing. Among individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing, 31.4% were provided contraception (23.5% prescription contraception, 5.4% LARC, 0.7% tubal sterilization). Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96) than individuals who were not deaf or hard of hearing. The percentage of individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing who received most effective or moderately effective methods was less than that for individuals who were not (24.2% vs 26.3%, P<.001). There were no differences in provision of LARC or permanent contraception by deaf and hard-of-hearing status.Conclusion: Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception than individuals who were not; factors underlying this pattern need to be examined. Provision of LARC or permanent contraception did not differ by deaf or hard-of-hearing status. These findings should be monitored and compared with data from states with different requirements for contraceptive coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]