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]

Understanding the pregnancy experiences of racial and ethnic minority women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is critical to ensuring that policies can effectively support these women. This research analyzed data from the 1998-2013 Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal (PELL) data system to examine the racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes and labor and delivery charges of U.S. women with IDD. There was significant preterm birth disparity among non-Hispanic Black women with IDD compared to their non-Hispanic White peers. There were also significant racial and ethnic differences in associated labor and delivery-related charges. Further research, examining potential mechanisms behind the observed racial and ethnic differences in labor and delivery-related charges in Massachusetts' women with IDD is needed. [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]

Objectives This study examined the risk of postpartum hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits among US women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Methods We used the 2002-2012 Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System and identified deliveries to women with and without IDD. Women with IDD (n = 1104) or case subjects were identified from the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 9th Revision (ICD-9 CM) codes. The study primary outcome measures were any postpartum hospital admission and any ED visit during three critical postpartum periods (1-42, 43-90, and 1-365 days). We conducted unadjusted and adjusted survival analysis using Cox proportional hazard models to compare the occurrence of first hospital admission or ED visits between women with and without IDD. Results We found that women with IDD had markedly higher rates of postpartum hospital admissions and ED visits during the critical postpartum periods (within 1-42, 43-90, and 91-365 days) after a childbirth. Conclusion for Practice Given the heightened risk of pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes and the findings of this study, there is an urgent need for clinical guidelines related to the frequency and timing of postpartum care among new mothers with IDD. Further, this study provides evidence of the need for evidence-based interventions for new mothers with IDD to provide preventive care and routine assessments that would identify and manage complications for both the mother and the infant outside of the traditional postpartum health care framework. [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]