Search

Aim: To understand the postpartum care received by birthing people with disabilities and their newborns, from their own perspectives. Design: A qualitative study with semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Between July 2019 and February 2020, in‐person and virtual interviews were conducted with 31 people with physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities in Ontario, Canada, about the formal inpatient and outpatient services and supports they used in the first few months after they gave birth. Thematic analysis was used identify common themes. Results: We identified three overall themes concerning participants' postpartum care experiences and the different types of formal services received in and out of hospital: (1) lack of adequate care, (2) lack of provider awareness of disability and disability accommodations, and (3) fear of judgement, discrimination, and intrusive surveillance. The identified themes were applicable across disability groups. However, most comments on disability accommodations came from participants with physical or sensory disabilities, while participants with intellectual/developmental disabilities most commonly reported concerns about lack of adequate care and fear of judgement, discrimination, and intrusive surveillance. Conclusion: Findings indicate that postpartum care often fails people with disabilities. This could contribute to negative health consequences for them and their newborns. Impact: Birthing people with disabilities need multidisciplinary, proactive, and strengths‐based postpartum care to mitigate risk for health complications. Further, disability‐related training and guidelines for health and social service providers is required. Reporting method: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). Patient or Public contribution: Our research team included two peer researchers with physical disabilities who served as co‐interviewers and participated in data analysis, contributing their lived experience of disability and interactions with the health care system. All stages of the study were also informed by feedback from the study's Advisory Committee, which comprised women with disabilities (many of whom are parents), disability organization staff, clinicians, and policy representatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While an increasing number of girls and women are being identified with autism, we know little about the health of reproductive-aged autistic women. Our objectives were to (1) describe health characteristics of reproductive-aged autistic women who could potentially become pregnant and (2) compare these characteristics with those of non-autistic women. We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study using 2017–2018 administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. A total of 6,870 fifteen- to 44-year-old autistic women were identified and compared with 2,686,160 non-autistic women. Variables of interest included social determinants of health (neighborhood income, residential instability, material deprivation, rurality), health (co-occurring medical and psychiatric conditions, use of potentially teratogenic medications, history of assault), and health care factors (continuity of primary care). Overall, reproductive-aged autistic women had poorer health compared with non-autistic women, including increased rates of material deprivation, chronic medical conditions, psychiatric conditions, use of potentially teratogenic medications, and history of assault. These findings highlight the need for health interventions tailored to the needs of reproductive-aged autistic women. While an increasing number of girls and women are being identified with autism, we know little about reproductive-aged autistic women's health. This study used administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to compare the health of reproductive-aged autistic women with non-autistic women. Overall, reproductive-aged autistic women had poorer health compared with non-autistic women, including increased rates of material deprivation, chronic medical conditions, psychiatric conditions, history of assault, and use of potentially teratogenic medications (i.e. drugs that can be harmful to the development of an embryo or fetus). These findings suggest that there is a need for health interventions tailored to the needs of reproductive-aged autistic women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the risk of interpersonal violence experienced by pregnant and postpartum individuals with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, or intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities, and to examine whether a prepregnancy history of interpersonal violence puts individuals with disabilities, at excess risk of interpersonal violence in the perinatal period.Method: This population-based study included all individuals aged 15-49 years with births in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2019. Individuals with physical (n=147,414), sensory (n=47,459), intellectual or developmental (n=2,557), or multiple disabilities (n=9,598) were compared with 1,594,441 individuals without disabilities. The outcome was any emergency department visit, hospital admission, or death related to physical, sexual, or psychological violence between fertilization and 365 days postpartum. Relative risks (RRs) were adjusted for baseline social and health characteristics. Relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) was estimated from the joint effects of disability and prepregnancy violence history; RERI>0 indicated positive interaction.Results: Individuals with physical (0.8%), sensory (0.7%), intellectual or developmental (5.3%), or multiple disabilities (1.8%) were more likely than those without disabilities (0.5%) to experience perinatal interpersonal violence. The adjusted RR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.31-1.50) in those with physical disabilities, 2.39 (95% CI 1.98-2.88) in those with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.66-2.30) in those with multiple disabilities. Having both a disability and any violence history produced a positive interaction for perinatal interpersonal violence (adjusted RERI 0.87; 95% CI 0.47-1.29).Conclusion: The perinatal period is a time of relative high risk for interpersonal violence among individuals with pre-existing disabilities, especially those with a history of interpersonal violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of neonatal complications among women with a disability. Methods: This population-based cohort study comprised all hospital singleton livebirths in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Newborns of women with a physical (N = 144 187), sensory (N = 44 988), intellectual or developmental (N = 2207), or ≥2 disabilities (N = 8823) were each compared with 1 593 354 newborns of women without a disability. Outcomes were preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks, small for gestational age birth weight (SGA), large for gestational age birth weight, neonatal morbidity, and mortality, neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), and NICU admission. Relative risks were adjusted for social, health, and health care characteristics. RESULTS: Risks for neonatal complications were elevated among newborns of women with disabilities compared with those without disabilities. Adjusted relative risks were especially high for newborns of women with an intellectual or developmental disability, including preterm birth <37 weeks (1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.58), SGA (1.37, 1.24-1.59), neonatal morbidity (1.42, 1.27-1.60), NAS (1.53, 1.12-2.08), and NICU admission (1.53, 1.40-1.67). The same was seen for newborns of women with ≥2 disabilities, including preterm birth <37 weeks (1.48, 1.39-1.59), SGA (1.13, 1.07-1.20), neonatal morbidity (1.28, 1.20-1.36), NAS (1.87, 1.57-2.23), and NICU admission (1.35, 1.29-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: There is a mild to moderate elevated risk for complications among newborns of women with disabilities. These women may need adapted and enhanced preconception and prenatal care, and their newborns may require extra support after birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible and quality care during the perinatal period is critical for optimal maternal and neonatal health. Using the socio-ecological model, the purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators that shape the perinatal care experiences of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 individuals with IDD in Ontario, Canada, who had given birth within the past 5 years. Interviews focused on care experiences before, during, and after pregnancy. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach, and the socio-ecological model guided analysis. Barriers at the societal (e.g., cultural norms of motherhood), policy/institutional (e.g., child protection policies and practices), interpersonal (e.g., inadequate formal and informal support), and intrapersonal levels (e.g., internalized stigma) contributed to participants having negative perinatal care experiences. Conversely, we identified facilitators on the interpersonal level (e.g., positive interactions with perinatal care providers and familial and social service supports) as positively shaping participants' perinatal care experiences. Findings reveal that the perinatal care experiences of people with IDD are shaped by several interrelated factors that largely stem from societal-level barriers, such as dominant (stigmatizing) discourses of disability. To improve the perinatal care experiences of people with IDD, there is a need for interventions at multiple levels. These include the development of policies to support perinatal care for diverse populations and training care providers to enact policies at the institutional and interpersonal levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Emergency department (ED) use in pregnancy is common and occurs for a variety of reasons, including obstetrical complications, exacerbated underlying conditions, and inadequate outpatient health care access. People with disabilities have elevated rates of certain medical, psychiatric, and obstetrical conditions as well as inadequate access to prenatal care; their risk of ED use in pregnancy is not known, however., Objective: To compare the risk of ED use in pregnancy among people with physical, sensory, and intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities., Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based cohort study leveraging linked administrative health data sets in Ontario, Canada, April 2003 to March 2019. Analysis included all recognized pregnancies to people with a preexisting physical, sensory, intellectual or developmental, or 2 or more (multiple) disabilities, and those without a disability. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to January 2023., Exposure: Disability was ascertained using algorithms applied to 2 or more outpatient physician visits or 1 or more ED visits or hospitalizations before conception., Main Outcomes and Measures: Modified Poisson regression-generated adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs for any ED visit in pregnancy, from the estimated conception date up to the end of the pregnancy, adjusted for age, parity, income quintile, rurality, immigrant status, and preexisting chronic conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders., Results: The cohort included 2 659 895 pregnant people with physical (221 739 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.8 [6.1] years), sensory (71 891 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.4] years), intellectual or developmental (3877 participants; mean [SD] age, 26.1 [6.7] years), and multiple disabilities (14 359 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.5 [6.5] years), and pregnant people without a disability (2 348 023 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.4 [5.9] years). The rate of ED visits in pregnancy was 25.4% in people without a disability (596 771 visits). Relative to these individuals, the aRR for ED use was elevated in people with physical (aRR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.25-1.27), sensory (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17), intellectual or developmental (aRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.28-1.38), and multiple disabilities (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.40-1.46)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based study, people with disabilities were at elevated risk of ED use in pregnancy. This finding underscores the need for research on the benefits of proactive strategies to manage preexisting conditions in these individuals, improve their access to outpatient obstetrical and medical care, and prepare them for when ED visits occur.

We describe the disability-related education and training experiences of perinatal care providers in Ontario. Twenty perinatal care providers (e.g., obstetricians, midwives) participated in semi-structured interviews. Using a content analysis approach, we found most acquired disability-related training through their own initiative as opposed to education through professional training programs. Barriers to training included lack of data on disability and pregnancy and limited experiential learning opportunities. Providers recommended that future training focus on experiential learning and social determinants of health, with people with disabilities involved in developing and delivering training. These efforts are vital to optimize pregnancy outcomes for people with disabilities., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a high-risk time for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Decreased mobility is also a major risk factor. However, the risk of peripregnancy VTE among individuals with physical disabilities is unknown., Objectives: To compare the risk of peripregnancy VTE between people with a physical disability and those without a physical disability., Methods: This population-based cohort study comprised all births in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2018. Physical disability was defined as a condition diagnosed before conception that was likely to result in restricted mobility. Modified Poisson regression was used to compare the risk of VTE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks postpartum between people with a physical disability and those without a physical disability. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) were calculated, controlling for demographics, history of VTE, thrombophilia, and other comorbidities. An additional analysis was used to evaluate the risk of peripregnancy VTE among people with physical disabilities who used a mobility aid., Results: Of 1 220 822 eligible people, 13 791 (1.1%) had a physical disability. VTE occurred during pregnancy or up to 6 weeks of the postpartum period in 0.85% of the individuals with a physical disability and 0.47% of those without a physical disability (aRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.26-1.83). The rate of VTE was notably higher in those with a physical disability requiring a mobility aid (3.0%), generating an aRR of 3.05 (95% CI, 1.45-6.41), than in those without a physical disability., Conclusion: Pregnant people with a physical disability, especially those using a mobility aid, are at an increased risk of VTE. Anticoagulant prophylaxis could be considered in this group, especially in the presence of additional risk factors., (Copyright © 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the care experiences of childbearing people with physical, sensory, and/or intellectual/developmental disabilities during pregnancy., Design: Descriptive qualitative., Setting: Ontario, Canada, where physician and midwifery care during pregnancy are provided at no direct cost to residents., Participants: Thirty-one people with physical, sensory, and/or intellectual/developmental disabilities (who self-identified as cisgender women [n = 29] and trans or nonbinary persons [n = 2]) who gave birth in the last 5 years., Methods: We recruited childbearing people with disabilities through disability and parenting organizations, social media, and our team's networks. Using a semistructured guide, we conducted in-person and virtual (e.g., telephone or Zoom) interviews with childbearing people with disabilities in 2019 to 2020. We asked participants about the services they accessed during pregnancy and if services met their needs. We used a reflexive thematic analysis approach to analyze interview data., Results: Across disability groups, we identified four common themes: Unmet Accommodation Needs, Lack of Coordinated Care, Ableism, and Advocacy as a Critical Resource. We found that these experiences manifested in unique ways based on disability type., Conclusion: Our findings suggest the need for accessible, coordinated, and respectful prenatal care for people with disabilities, with the requirements of such care depending on the needs of the individual person with a disability. Nurses can play a key role in identifying the needs and supporting people with disabilities during pregnancy. Education and training for nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and other prenatal care providers should focus on disability-related knowledge and respectful prenatal care., (Copyright © 2023 AWHONN, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breastfeeding provides infants with nutrients required for optimal growth and development. We aimed to examine breastfeeding practices and supports that promote exclusive breastfeeding during the birth hospital stay among birthing parents with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, intellectual or developmental disabilities, and multiple disabilities compared with those without a disability., Methods: This population-based cohort study was done in Ontario, Canada. We accessed and analysed health administrative data from ICES and the Better Outcomes Registry & Network. We included all birthing parents aged 15-49 years who had a singleton livebirth between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2018. The study outcomes were breastfeeding practices and supports that promoted exclusive breastfeeding during the birth hospital stay, conceptualised based on WHO-UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines. Individuals with a physical disability, sensory disability, intellectual or developmental disability, or two or more (multiple) disabilities, identified using diagnostic algorithms, were compared with individuals without disabilities on the opportunity to initiate breastfeeding, in-hospital breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge, skin-to-skin contact, and provision of breastfeeding assistance. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using modified Poisson regression., Findings: Our cohort included 634 111 birthing parents, of whom 54 476 (8·6%) had a physical disability, 19 227 (3·0%) had a sensory disability, 1048 (0·2%) had an intellectual or developmental disability, 4050 (0·6%) had multiple disabilities, and 555 310 (87·6%) had no disability. Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely than those without a disability to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (adjusted RR 0·82, 95% CI 0·76-0·88), any in-hospital breastfeeding (0·85, 0·81-0·88), exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge (0·73, 0·67-0·79), skin-to-skin contact (0·90, 0·87-0·94), and breastfeeding assistance (0·85, 0·79-0·91). Those with multiple disabilities were less likely to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (0·93, 0·91-0·96), any in-hospital breastfeeding (0·93, 0·92-0·95), exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge (0·90, 0·87-0·93), skin-to-skin contact (0·93, 0·91-0·95), and breastfeeding assistance (0·95, 0·92-0·98). Differences for individuals with a physical or sensory disability only were mostly non-significant., Interpretation: Our findings show disparities in breastfeeding outcomes between individuals without a disability and individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities or multiple disabilities, but not individuals with physical or sensory disabilities. There is a need for further research on the factors that contribute to breastfeeding intentions, practices, and supports in people with intellectual or developmental disabilities and multiple disabilities, especially factors that affect breastfeeding decision making., Funding: National Institutes of Health and the Canada Research Chairs Program., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SNV receives royalties from UpToDate for authorship of materials related to depression and pregnancy. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To examine the risk of perinatal mental illness, including new-onset disorders and recurrent or ongoing use of mental health care, comparing women with physical, sensory, intellectual/developmental, and multiple disabilities to those without a disability., Methods: From all women aged 15-49 years with a singleton birth in Ontario, Canada (2003-2018), those with physical (n = 144,972), sensory (n = 45,249), intellectual/developmental (n = 2,227), and ≥ 2 of these disabilities ("multiple disabilities"; n = 8,883), were compared to 1,601,363 without a disability on risk of healthcare system contact for mental illness from conception to 365 days postpartum. The cohort was stratified into: (1) no pre-pregnancy mental illness (to identify new-onset illness), (2) distal mental illness (> 2 years pre-pregnancy, to identify recurrent illness), and (3) recent mental illness (0-2 years pre-pregnancy, to identify ongoing contact). Modified Poisson regression generated relative risks (aRR), adjusted for age, parity, income quintile, and rural residence., Results: About 14.7, 26.5, and 56.6% of women with no disabilities had new-onset, recurrent, and ongoing contact for mental illness, respectively, perinatally. Risks were elevated across disability groups for new-onset (physical: aRR 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.20; sensory: 1.11, 1.08-1.15; intellectual/developmental: 1.38, 1.17-1.62; multiple: 1.24, 1.15-1.33), recurrent (physical: 1.10, 1.08-1.12; sensory 1.06, 1.02-1.09; intellectual/developmental: 1.24, 1.11-1.37; multiple: 1.16, 1.09-1.23), and ongoing contact (physical: 1.09, 1.08-1.10; sensory: 1.08, 1.06-1.10; intellectual/developmental: 1.31, 1.26-1.37; multiple: 1.20, 1.16-1.23)., Conclusion: The heightened use of new, recurrent, and ongoing mental health care across disability groups in the perinatal period suggests that adapted screening and intervention approaches are critical to optimize perinatal mental health in this population., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Background: Disability is common in reproductive-aged women, and as many as 1 in 8 pregnancies occur in women with a disability. Women with disabilities experience significant social and health disparities, and are at greater risk than their nondisabled counterparts for perinatal complications. Yet, few studies have examined their postpartum acute care use., Objective: To examine risks of postpartum emergency department visits and hospital admissions among women with and without physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities., Study Design: In this population-based study in Ontario, Canada, women with a singleton obstetrical delivery from 2003 to 2019 were classified into those with physical (n=155,500), sensory (n=49,338), intellectual/developmental (n=2650), and multiple disabilities (≥2 disabilities; n=9904), and women without disabilities (n=1,701,574). Primary outcomes were emergency department visits and hospital admissions 0 to 365 days after index delivery hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were emergency department visits and hospital admissions by primary diagnosis (medical, psychiatric) and by timing (0-7, 8-42, 43-365 days postpartum). Adjusted relative risks comparing each disability group to those without disabilities were adjusted for age; parity; income quintile; rurality; immigrant/refugee status; prepregnancy chronic medical conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders; and prenatal care provider type., Results: Any postpartum emergency department visit occurred in 23.5% of women without a disability, with risks elevated in women with physical (32.9%; adjusted relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.28), sensory (30.0%; adjusted relative risk, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.18), intellectual/developmental (48.8%; adjusted relative risk, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.44), and multiple disabilities (42.0%; adjusted relative risk, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.48) compared with women without disabilities. Similarly, any postpartum hospital admission occurred in 3.0% of women without a disability, with elevated risks in women with physical (4.8%; adjusted relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.40), sensory (4.0%; adjusted relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.24), intellectual/developmental (9.6%; adjusted relative risk, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-2.21), and multiple disabilities (7.3%; adjusted relative risk, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.90). Results were consistent by primary diagnosis and timing in the postpartum period., Conclusion: Women with disabilities have elevated risk of emergency department visits and hospital admissions in the postpartum period, indicating greater postpartum morbidity, which requires attention through enhanced and extended follow-up across the postpartum period., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lay Abstract: While an increasing number of girls and women are being identified with autism, we know little about reproductive-aged autistic women's health. This study used administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to compare the health of reproductive-aged autistic women with non-autistic women. Overall, reproductive-aged autistic women had poorer health compared with non-autistic women, including increased rates of material deprivation, chronic medical conditions, psychiatric conditions, history of assault, and use of potentially teratogenic medications (i.e. drugs that can be harmful to the development of an embryo or fetus). These findings suggest that there is a need for health interventions tailored to the needs of reproductive-aged autistic women.

Importance: Severe maternal morbidity and mortality are important indicators of maternal health. Pregnancy rates are increasing in women with disabilities, but their risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality is unknown, despite their significant social and health disparities., Objective: To determine the risk of severe maternal morbidity or mortality among women with a physical, sensory, or intellectual/developmental disability compared with women without disabilities., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2018. The cohort included all singleton births to women with preexisting physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities as well as with 2 disabilities or more compared with women without a disability. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to September 2020., Exposures: Disabilities were identified with published algorithms applied to diagnoses in 2 physician visits or more or at least 1 emergency department visit or hospitalization., Main Outcomes and Measures: Severe maternal morbidity (a validated composite of 40 diagnostic and procedural indicators) or all-cause maternal mortality, arising between conception and 42 days post partum. Relative risks were adjusted for maternal age, parity, income quintile, rurality, chronic medical conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders., Results: The cohort comprised women with physical disabilities (144 972 women; mean [SD] age, 29.8 [5.6] years), sensory disabilities (45 259 women; mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.0] years), intellectual/developmental disabilities (2227 women; mean [SD] age, 26.1 [6.4] years), and 2 or more disabilities (8883 women; mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.1] years), and those without disabilities (1 601 363 women; mean [SD] age, 29.6 [5.4] years). The rate of severe maternal morbidity or death was 1.7% (27 242 women) in women without a disability. Compared with these women, the risk of severe maternal morbidity or death was higher in women with a physical disability (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.25-1.34), a sensory disability (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21), an intellectual/developmental disability (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.23-2.01), and 2 or more disabilities (aRR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.55-1.95). Similar aRRs were observed for severe maternal morbidity or death arising in pregnancy, from birth to 42 days post partum, and from 43 to 365 days post partum. Women with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to experience multiple severe maternal morbidity indicators. The most prevalent indicators in all groups were intensive care unit admission, severe postpartum hemorrhage, puerperal sepsis, and severe preeclampsia., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, women with a preexisting disability were more likely to experience severe maternal morbidity or mortality. Preconception and perinatal care provisions should be considered among women with a disability to mitigate the risk of these rare but serious outcomes.

Background : There is growing recognition that preconception health, defined as the health of all reproductive-age individuals, impacts reproductive and perinatal outcomes. Although women with disabilities are becoming pregnant at increasing rates, little is known about their preconception health. Our objective was to describe the preconception health characteristics of women with physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities and compare these characteristics with women without disabilities. Materials and Methods : We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of 15- to 44-year-old women with physical ( n  = 253,184), sensory ( n  = 93,170), intellectual/developmental ( n  = 8,986), and multiple disabilities ( n  = 29,868), and women without these disabilities ( n  = 2,307,822) using Ontario health administrative data (2017-2018). We described preconception health variables related to social determinants of health, physical health status, psychosocial well-being, history of assault, medication use, and continuity of primary care and compared women with and without disabilities in crude and age-standardized analyses, with standardized differences >0.10 indicating clinically meaningful results. Results : Women with physical, sensory, intellectual/developmental, and multiple disabilities had poorer preconception health than women without disabilities. Disparities were pronounced for physical health status, psychosocial well-being, use of potentially teratogenic medications, and history of assault. Of all groups, women with intellectual/developmental disabilities had the greatest disparities. Conclusion : Further research is needed to identify contributors to poor preconception health among women with disabilities and to develop tailored preconception health interventions to meet their unique needs and experiences.