Associations of intimate partner violence and maternal comorbidities: a cross-sectional analysis of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

CONTEXT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs when an intimate partner inflicts physical, sexual, and/or emotional assault with coercive control and is a traumatic experience with repercussions that can be exacerbated when a woman is pregnant. While screening for IPV during pregnancy is recommended to occur regardless of risk, less than 50% of pregnant women are screened. OBJECTIVES: Identifying clinical factors commonly associated with IPV during pregnancy may improve screening rates, thus our primary objective was to examine associations between IPV and maternal comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Phase 8 spanning 2016 through 2019. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was utilized to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine associations between IPV and diabetes, anxiety, hypertension, depression, asthma, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and thyroid disease. RESULTS: More than 40% of women experiencing IPV reported a history of depression or anxiety. The occurrence of IPV was higher among women with depression (AOR 3.48, CI 3.14-3.85), anxiety (AOR 2.98, CI 2.64-3.37), hypertension (AOR 1.21, CI 1.02-1.44), and asthma (AOR 1.37; CI 1.17-1.59) than women without those respective conditions, but not among diagnoses of diabetes, PCOS, or thyroid disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that pregnant individuals reporting having experienced IPV were more likely to report having certain comorbidities compared to those who did not report experiencing IPV. Given the low rates of screening, knowing clinically relevant associations may increase screening sensitivity among clinicians and, in turn, increase the likelihood that individuals experiencing IPV receive supportive care.

Health disparities, COVID-19, and maternal and childbirth outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study of equity reporting in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk for adverse maternal and pregnancy outcomes, and birth complications. Given the health outcome disparities among pregnant women of racial and ethnic minorities and the reliance of medical practice on systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs)-as they are the apical component in the hierarchy of evidence in medical research-the primary objective of the study is to examine the inclusion of the equity reporting in SRMAs focused on pregnancy outcomes and COVID-19 using PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. PROGRESS represents equity measures of Place, Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Social capital, and Socio-economic status. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of three databases to identify SRMAs related to maternal and pregnancy outcomes related to COVID-19. We extracted whether SRMAs reported or analyzed PROGRESS-Plus components among other study characteristics. RESULTS: Nearly 85% of SRMAs did not include any equity items to account for racial or geographic disparities. Reporting of race was absent from 95% of the studies. Place was the most common PROGRESS item and maternal age was the most common PROGRESS-Plus item reported overall. CONCLUSION: When research is performed and reported in a way that fails to address disparities, the downstream repercussions may include medical care in the form of new protocol-driven hospital management, pharmacologic interventions, and other treatment options that mirror this absence in reporting. The absence of adequate reporting widens gaps in health outcomes among at-risk groups, such as pregnant women of racial and ethnic minorities.

Stigmatizing Terminology for Outcomes and Processes (STOP) in Alcohol Research: A Meta-epidemiologic Assessment of Language Used in Clinical Trial Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Stigmatizing language used to describe patients and medical conditions is associated with poorer health outcomes. A recent investigation showed that approximately 80% of medical literature focused on alcohol use disorder (AUD) contained stigmatizing terms related to individuals; however, the quantification of stigmatizing terminology for outcomes and processes (STOP) among AUD research is unknown. Thus, our primary objective was to evaluate publications of clinical trials for their inclusion of STOP. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed for AUD clinical trials between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate manner by 2 investigators. We searched the full text of included manuscripts for STOP. We reported the frequency and percentage of manuscripts with STOP and individual terms. We evaluated associations between STOP usage and several clinical trial characteristics via logistic regression. RESULTS: Our search returned 1552 articles, which were then randomized and the first 500 were screened for inclusion. Of 147 included articles, 115 (78.2%) included STOP. The most common STOP were "drop out" (38.78%; 57/147), "relapse" (36.05%; 53/ 147), and "adherent, nonadherence" (35.37%; 52/147). No significant associations were found between STOP usage and trial characteristics. DISCUSSION: STOP was found in a majority of AUD clinical trial publications. As AUD is highly stigmatized, steps should be taken to eliminate usage of STOP in literature pertaining to AUD treatments. Many stigmatizing terms can be replaced by person-centered, more clinically accurate terms to further combat AUD stigma.