Psychometric assessment of the US person-centered prenatal and maternity care scales in a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California.

OBJECTIVES: To assess psychometric properties of two scales developed to measure the quality of person-centered care during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States-the Person-Centered Prenatal Care (PCPC-US) and Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC-US) scales-in a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California. METHODS: Data were collected from July 2020 to June 2023 from surveys of low-income pregnant and birthing people in Fresno, California, participating in the "Engaging Mothers and Babies; Reimagining Antenatal Care for Everyone" (EMBRACE) trial. Research staff administered the 26-item PCPC-US scale at 30-34 weeks' gestation (n = 315) and the 35-item PCMC-US scale at 10-14 weeks after birth (n = 286), using the language preferred by the participant (English or Spanish). We assessed construct, criterion, and known group validity and internal consistency of the scales. RESULTS: 78% of respondents identified as Latinx. Factor analysis identified one dominant factor for each scale that accounted for over 60% of the cumulative variance, with most items loading at > 0.3. The items also loaded adequately on sub-scales for "dignity and respect," "communication and autonomy," and "responsive and supportive care." Cronbach's alpha for the full scales were > 0.9 and between 0.70 and 0.87 for the sub-scales. Summative scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher person-centered care. Correlations with scores on scales measuring prenatal care quality and birth experience provided evidence for criterion validity, while associations with known predictors provided evidence for known-group validity. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPC-US and PCMC-US scales, which were developed using a community-engaged process and found to have good psychometric properties in a largely high-income sample of Black women, were shown to also have good psychometric properties in a sample of low-income primarily Latinx women. Both scales provide valid and reliable tools to measure person-centered care experiences among minoritized communities to support efforts to reduce existing birth inequities.

Factors associated with person-centered care during pregnancy and birth for Black women and birthing people in California.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, adverse birth outcomes are most prevalent among Black women and birthing people, who are known to experience increased mistreatment and disrespect in care. The purpose of this paper is to describe findings from a study that used two validated scales to examine factors associated with experiences of person-centered care during pregnancy and birth among Black birthing people in California. METHODS: We used data from 234 Black women and birthing people who were recruited between January and September 2020 as part of a validation study for the Person-Centered Prenatal Care (PCPC) and the Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC-US) scales. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the associations between PCPC and PCMC-US scores and sociodemographic, health-related, and care-related factors. RESULTS: The factors associated with lower PCPC scores were having foreign-born parents, having public or no insurance, part-time employment, unstable housing, late start of prenatal care (in the second or third trimester), poorer self-rated health (less than very good), and lack of continuity of care with prenatal providers. Factors associated with lower PCMC-US scores were having public insurance, late start of prenatal care, longer length of stay in facility following birth, poorer self-rated health, lack of continuity of care between prenatal care and birth providers, and racial discordance with birth provider. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the contributions of intersecting identities as well as health-related and care-related factors to Black birthing people's experiences of care in California. Continuity of care and provider racial concordance, in particular, were shown to improve pregnancy and birth experiences.

Estimating the effect of timing of earned income tax credit refunds on perinatal outcomes: a quasi-experimental study of California births.

BACKGROUND: The largest poverty alleviation program in the US is the earned income tax credit (EITC), providing $60 billion to over 25 million families annually. While research has shown positive impacts of EITC receipt in pregnancy, there is little evidence on whether the timing of receipt may lead to differences in pregnancy outcomes. We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design, taking advantage of EITC tax disbursement each spring to examine whether trimester of receipt was associated with perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of California linked birth certificate and hospital discharge records. The sample was drawn from the linked CA birth certificate and discharge records from 2007-2012 (N = 2,740,707). To predict eligibility, we created a probabilistic algorithm in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and applied it to the CA data. Primary outcome measures included preterm birth, small-for-gestational age (SGA), gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia. RESULTS: Eligibility for EITC receipt during the third trimester was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth compared with preconception. Eligibility for receipt in the preconception period resulted in improved gestational hypertension and SGA. CONCLUSION: This analysis offers a novel method to impute EITC eligibility using a probabilistic algorithm in a data set with richer sociodemographic information relative to the clinical and administrative data sets from which outcomes are drawn. These results could be used to determine the optimal intervention time point for future income supplementation policies. Future work should examine frequent income supplementation such as the minimum wage or basic income programs.

Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design a Patient and Practitioner-Centered Group Prenatal Care Model.

In response to disproportionately high rates of infant mortality and preterm birth among women of color and women in poverty in Fresno County, California, community and academic partners coordinated a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project with local residents. Social isolation and stress, inaccessible prenatal care, and dissatisfaction with care experiences were identified as leading predictors of poor birth outcomes. The PRECEDE-PROCEED framework was used to lead the CBPR effort that resulted in the development of a model of group prenatal care, named Glow! Group Prenatal Care Program (Glow! Program). Group prenatal care (GPNC), which focuses on pregnancy health assessments, education, and peer support, has the potential to address the health and social priorities of women during pregnancy. As a result of the employed CBPR process and the extensive participation from stakeholders, this modified GPNC model responds to the unique needs of the at-risk community members, the agencies aiming to improve maternal-child health experiences and outcomes, and the prenatal care providers offering it to their patients. The methods from this study can be applied in the design and implementation of community-based health care interventions. Returning to community partners throughout the design, implementation, and evaluation phases underscored that health care interventions cannot be designed in silos, and require flexibility to respond to factors that promote improved maternal and infant outcomes, which affect the end goal for the intervention.

Impact of an educational tool on young women's knowledge of cervical cancer screening recommendations.

PURPOSE: Current cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend 3-year screening intervals, in contrast to the previous recommendation of annual screening, to prevent over screening and overtreatment. We evaluated the impact of viewing a tablet-based educational tool prior to seeing a clinician on young women's knowledge and understanding of cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination follow-up of abnormal pap smears, and comfort in communicating with their providers. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was part of a cluster-randomized study of fourteen primary care clinics from January 2015 to December 2016. We developed the cervical cancer education tool in English and Spanish using a community-based approach that included formative work and cognitive interviewing. Clinics were randomized to use the intervention (tablet-based patient education tool) or to participate as a control group. We administered surveys to a convenience sample of 229 English- or Spanish-speaking women aged 19 to 35 years in these clinics. We used descriptive analyses and logistic regression models with cluster-robust standard errors to compare differences among the two groups. RESULTS: Compared to women seen in control clinics, women seen in intervention clinics demonstrated greater knowledge regarding human papilloma virus (HPV (p = 0.004) and understanding (p < 0.001) of cervical cancer screening. Comfort in communicating with providers was not statistically different (p = 0.053). Women in the intervention group felt that the tool helped them understand that an abnormal Pap smear does not require immediate treatment (61.5%). CONCLUSION: Innovative online patient education that is offered prior to patients' interaction with their clinicians can improve their knowledge about cervical cancer prevention and treatment.

Perceived stress and COVID-19-related stressors: the moderating role of social support during pregnancy.

Recent evidence on perceived stress during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that birthing people experienced stress from pandemic-related stressors. While psychosocial stress is a significant predictor of adverse birth outcomes, social support can reduce stress levels during pregnancy. This study examined social support moderation of relationships between COVID-19-related stressors and perceived stress during pregnancy. The analysis included data from publicly insured pregnant participants who were enrolled in a randomized control trial of two enhanced prenatal care models in Fresno, California, and completed a third-trimester questionnaire between April and August 2020 (n = 77). Multivariate linear regression was used to estimate the associations between perceived stress and COVID-19-related stressors and social support moderation. COVID-19-related stressors related to childcare and tension at home remained significantly associated with perceived stress adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and other COVID-19-related stressors. Social support moderated the relationship between perceived stress and loss of childcare (ß = 2.4, 95 percent CI = 0.5-4.3, p = .014). Overall, social support moderated the association between COVID-19 stressors and perceived stress. While social support is commonly conceptualized as protective, the finding of greater stress around childcare among individuals reporting greater social support suggests complexity for leveraging these support networks during the pandemic.

Development of the person-centered prenatal care scale for people of color.

BACKGROUND: Given the stark disparities in maternal mortality and adverse birth outcomes among Black, indigenous, and other people of color, there is a need to better understand and measure how individuals from these communities experience their care during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a tool that can be used to measure person-centered prenatal care that reflects the experiences of people of color. STUDY DESIGN: We followed standard procedures for scale development-integrated with community-based participatory approaches-to adapt a person-centered maternity care scale that was initially developed and validated for intrapartum care in low-resource countries to reflect the needs and prenatal care experiences of people of color in the United States. The adaptation process included expert reviews with a Community Advisory Board, consisting of community members, community-based health workers, and social service providers from San Francisco, Oakland, and Fresno, to assess content validity. We conducted cognitive interviews with potential respondents to assess the clarity, appropriateness, and relevance of the questions, which were then refined and administered in an online survey to people in California who had given birth in the past year. Data from 293 respondents (84% of whom identified as Black) who received prenatal care were used in psychometric analysis to assess construct and criterion validity and reliability. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis yielded 3 factors with eigenvalues of >1, but with 1 dominant factor. A 34-item version of the person-centered prenatal care scale was developed based on factor analyses and recommendations from the Community Advisory Board. We also developed a 26-item version using stricter criteria for relevance, factor loadings, and uniqueness. Items were grouped into 3 conceptual domains representing subscales for "dignity and respect," "communication and autonomy," and "responsive and supportive care." The Cronbach alphas for the 34-item and the 26-item versions and for the subscales were >0.8. Scores based on the sum of responses for the 2 person-centered prenatal care scale versions and all subscales were standardized to range from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate more person-centered prenatal care. These scores were correlated with global measures of prenatal care satisfaction suggesting good criterion validity. CONCLUSION: We present 2 versions of the person-centered prenatal care scale: a 34-item and a 26-item version. Both versions have high validity and reliability in a sample made up predominantly of Black women. This scale will facilitate measurement to improve person-centered prenatal care for people of color and could contribute to reducing disparities in birth outcomes. The similarity with the original scale also suggests that the person-centered prenatal care may be applicable across different contexts. However, validation with more diverse samples in additional settings is needed.

Association of multifetal gestation with obstetric and neonatal outcomes in gestational carrier pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: Multifetal gestation is more frequent among gestational carrier pregnancies than non-surrogacy IVF pregnancies. We aimed to evaluate the association between multifetal gestation and obstetric and neonatal morbidity among gestational carrier pregnancies. METHODS: Pooled cross-sectional study of birth certificate data from gestational carrier pregnancies in Utah from 2009 to 2018. Our primary outcome was a composite of severe obstetric morbidity; secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery (CD), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (PTB), and a neonatal morbidity composite. Logistic regression was utilized to compare odds of these outcomes between gestational carrier pregnancies with and without multifetal gestation. RESULTS: A total of 361 gestational carrier pregnancies resulted in the delivery of 435 neonates during the study period. Of these, 284 were singleton pregnancies, and 77 were multifetal, a multifetal gestation rate of 21.3%. Baseline demographic characteristics did not differ between singleton and multifetal gestations. Multifetal gestation was not associated with higher rates of severe obstetric morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-10.39). Multifetal gestation was associated with increased odds of neonatal morbidity (OR 9.49, 95% CI 5.35-15.83); PTB < 37, 34, and 32 weeks (OR 21.88, 95% CI 11.64-41.12; OR 11.67, 95% CI 5.25-25.91; OR 8.79, 95% CI 3.41-22.68); and CD (OR 4.82, 95% CI 2.81-8.27). CONCLUSION: Severe obstetric morbidity did not differ between singleton and multifetal gestations among gestational carrier pregnancies. However, multifetal gestation was associated with increased odds of neonatal morbidity, CD, and PTB. This information may be useful when counseling prospective gestational carriers and intended parents.

Obstetric morbidity in gestational carrier pregnancies: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: We sought to characterize severe obstetric morbidity among women who are gestational carriers compared to other patients. METHODS: This was a population-based study comparing gestational carrier pregnancies to non-surrogate pregnancies (non-surrogate IVF pregnancies, all non-gestational carrier pregnancies, and a cohort of matched controls) delivering in Utah between 2009 and 2018, using birth certificate data. Our primary outcome was a composite of severe morbidity, including death, ICU admission, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, transfusion, and unplanned hysterectomy. Our secondary outcomes were cesarean delivery (CD) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. RESULTS: During the study period, 361 gestational carrier pregnancies and 509,015 other pregnancies resulted in live births. Severe morbidity was less common among gestational carrier pregnancies than IVF pregnancies (1.7% versus 5.5%, odds ratio [OR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.70), but was not different when compared to all other pregnancies (1.0%, OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.72-3.60), or a cohort of matched controls (1.0%, OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.55-3.40). CD was less common among gestational carrier pregnancies than IVF pregnancies, but not different than all other pregnancies or matched controls. While frequency of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy was lower among gestational carrier pregnancies than IVF pregnancies, it was higher than all other women who delivered and comparable to matched controls. CONCLUSION: Severe obstetric morbidity is uncommon among gestational carrier pregnancies. Women who are gestational carriers are at lower risk of morbidity and CD than others who conceive through IVF and do not appear to be at increased risk compared to matched controls.

Association of differential symptoms of stress to hair cortisol and cortisone concentrations among pregnant women in Kenya.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize the stress experienced by pregnant women in Kenya and assess the relationship between perceived stress and stress-related biomarkers of cortisol and cortisone.Background: Kenyan women are exposed to multiple stressors that may result in chronic stress. However, antenatal stress has not been examined and characterized in Kenya; nor has the relationship between pregnant women's self-reported stress and stress biomarkers been established.Methods: One hundred and fifty women were recruited between 22 and 28 weeks gestation. Participants completed the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and a sociodemographic questionnaire. Hair samples were obtained for analysis of cortisol and cortisone. Factor analysis was used to extract unique clusters of stress symptoms from items in the PSS. Regression models were computed to examine relationships of stress to cortisone and cortisol, controlling for obstetric risk.Results: Mean age of the women was 25 years (SD = 5, ±16-41). Their degree of perceived stress and cortisol/cortisone concentrations both indicated moderate levels of stress. There was no association between general perceived stress and either hair cortisol or cortisone. However, factor analysis of the PSS identified three clusters of stress symptoms and one cluster - a woman's negative frame of mind regarding life and inefficacy in handling its problems - was associated with higher levels of cortisone (ß= -.231, p = 0.011).Conclusions: Specific stress symptoms may have unique relationships to specific biomarkers and be more useful in assessment than general perceived stress. Assays of both hair cortisol and cortisone might enable a more comprehensive assessment of glucocorticoid activity and better prediction of health risks from stress.Lay summaryUnderstanding stress among rural pregnant Kenyan women may help in addressing risks during pregnancy that lead to adverse birth outcomes. Findings suggest that a woman's tendency to think negatively about life and to doubt her ability to handle life's problems are symptoms of stress that may contribute to higher levels of stress hormones. Assessing women's specific symptoms of stress and different stress hormones during pregnancy may more effectively identify women who need intervention to reduce their health risk.

Effect of a Patient-Centered Decision Support Tool on Rates of Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery: The PROCEED Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Reducing cesarean delivery rates in the US is an important public health goal; despite evidence of the safety of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, most women have scheduled repeat cesarean deliveries. A decision support tool could help increase trial-of-labor rates. Objective: To analyze the effect of a patient-centered decision support tool on rates of trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and decision quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted in Boston, Chicago, and the San Francisco Bay area. A total of 1485 English- or Spanish-speaking women with 1 prior cesarean delivery and no contraindication to trial of labor were enrolled between January 2016 and January 2019; follow-up was completed in June 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized to use a tablet-based decision support tool prior to 25 weeks' gestation (n=742) or to receive usual care (without the tool) (n=743). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was trial of labor; vaginal birth was the main secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes focused on maternal and neonatal outcomes and decision quality. Results: Among 1485 patients (mean age, 34.0 [SD, 4.5] years), 1470 (99.0%) completed the trial (n = 735 in both randomization groups) and were included in the analysis. Trial-of-labor rates did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups (43.3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted absolute risk difference, -2.78% [95% CI, -7.80% to 2.25%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.05]). There were no statistically significant differences in vaginal birth rates (31.8% in both groups; adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.04% [95% CI, -4.80% to 4.71%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.16]) or in any of the other 6 clinical maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. There also were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in the 5 decision quality measures (eg, mean decisional conflict scores were 17.2 and 17.5, respectively; adjusted mean difference, -0.38 [95% CI, -1.81 to 1.05]; scores >25 are considered clinically important). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with 1 previous cesarean delivery, use of a decision support tool compared with usual care did not significantly change the rate of trial of labor. Further research may be needed to assess the efficacy of this tool in other clinical settings or when implemented at other times in pregnancy.

Cluster randomized trial of a patient-centered contraceptive decision support tool, My Birth Control.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests the need for improvement in the patient-centeredness and comprehensiveness of contraceptive counseling. My Birth Control is a tablet-based decision support tool designed to improve women's experience of contraceptive counseling and to help them select contraceptive methods that are consistent with their values and preferences. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of My Birth Control on contraceptive continuation, experience of contraceptive care, and decision quality. STUDY DESIGN: Using a cluster randomized design, randomized at the provider level, patient participants interested in starting or changing contraception interacted with My Birth Control before their family planning visit (intervention) or received usual care (control). A postvisit survey assessed experience of care method satisfaction, decision quality, and contraceptive knowledge. Surveys at 4 and 7 months assessed the primary outcome of contraceptive continuation, along with method use, satisfaction, and unintended pregnancy. Mixed-effects logistic regression models with multiple imputation for missing data were used to examine the effect of treatment assignment. RESULTS: Twenty-eight providers participated and 758 patients enrolled between December 5, 2014, and February 5, 2016. Participants were racially/ethnically diverse; less than a quarter self-identified as white. No effect was found on 7-month continuation (56.6% and 59.6% for intervention and control group respectively, odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.22). However, assignment to the intervention group increased reporting of the greatest Interpersonal Quality of Family Planning score (66.0% vs 57.4%, odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.05), the greatest scores on the informed decision and uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale (50.5% vs 43.2%, odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.80 and 41.6% vs 33.3%, odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.05), and greater knowledge. CONCLUSION: My Birth Control had no effect on contraceptive continuation. The intervention did enhance the experience of contraceptive counseling and informed decision making, as well as contraceptive knowledge., The intervention's effect on patient experience is important, particularly given the personal nature of contraceptive decision making and the social and historical context of family planning care.

Hospital bans on trial of labor after cesarean and antepartum transfer of care.

BACKGROUND: Hospital policies restricting access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) are prevalent. Many women with a previous cesarean birth are affected by these bans, but there are limited data on the effect of these bans and whether women would consider changing delivery hospitals in the setting of a real or hypothetical TOLAC ban. METHODS: This was a survey of TOLAC-eligible women receiving prenatal care at four hospitals where TOLAC is available, and 1 non-TOLAC site. Participants were asked about their likelihood of switching hospitals to pursue TOLAC if it were unavailable. Women at the non-TOLAC site had their medical records reviewed to ascertain final location and approach to delivery. RESULTS: A total of 297 women were interviewed, 48 from the non-TOLAC site. 162 (54%) participants indicated they would transfer care if TOLAC were unavailable. Among women at the non-TOLAC site, 57% who indicated an intention to switch hospitals did so. In a multivariable logistic regression model, variables associated with transferring care included race/ethnicity other than Latina (aOR 25.20 [95% CI 2.23-284.26]), being unaware of the TOLAC ban (19.81 [1.99-196.64]), and perceiving that a close friend/relative thought they should undergo TOLAC (17.31 [1.70-176.06]). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of women with prior cesarean would consider transferring care if TOLAC became unavailable, and more than 1 of 3 of women at a non-TOLAC site transferred care. More research is needed on the impact of TOLAC bans and how to facilitate transfer for those who desire TOLAC.

Risk of preterm birth by maternal age at first and second pregnancy and race/ethnicity.

We examined the risk of preterm birth (PTB, <37 weeks' gestation) in a second pregnancy and analyzed the extent to which this risk varies by maternal age and race/ethnicity. The sample included nulligravida mothers in California who delivered two singletons between 2005 and 2011. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of PTB in the second pregnancy. Within each race/ethnicity stratum, women delivering term infants in their first pregnancy and between 25 and 34 years old for both pregnancies served as the referent group. There were 2,90,834 women included in the study. Among women who delivered their first infant at term, the odds of delivering their second infant early differed by race and age. Hispanic, Black and Asian non-Hispanic women who were <18 years for both pregnancies were at higher odds of having a PTB in their second pregnancy (adjusted odds ratios 1.7, 3.3 and 2.9, respectively). Asian non-Hispanic women who were <18 years for their first delivery at term and between 18 and 24 years for their second delivery, or were >34 years for both, were also at higher odds of delivering their second baby prematurely (adjusted odds ratios 1.9 and 1.3, respectively). Women who deliver their first infant at <37 weeks of gestation are at 3 to 7 times higher odds of delivering their second infant preterm. Providers should consider including information about these risks in counseling their patients.

Women's beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations.

BACKGROUND: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that a pelvic examination be offered to asymptomatic women after an informed discussion with their provider. Although the adverse health outcomes that the examination averts were not delineated, the organization stated that it helps establish open communication between patients and physicians. Recent surveys have focused on obstetrician-gynecologists' attitudes and beliefs about the examination, but the perspectives of women have not been well-characterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to better understand women's beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations. STUDY DESIGN: We completed structured interviews with 262 women who were 21-65 years old who agreed to participate in a 50-minute interview about cervical cancer screening. Recruitment took place in outpatient women's clinics at a public hospital and an academic medical center in San Francisco, CA. Women were shown an illustration of a bimanual pelvic examination and asked a series of closed-ended questions: if they knew why it was performed, if it reassured them of their health, and if they believed it helped establish open communication with their provider. Women were asked an open-ended question about their perception of the examination's purpose. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic predictors of responses. RESULTS: Approximately one-half of the participants (56%) stated that they knew the examination's purpose. The most frequently cited reason was assurance of normalcy. Most of participants (82%) believed that the examination reassured them of their health. Approximately two-thirds of the participants (62%) believed that the examination helps establish open communication with their provider. In multivariate analyses, older age (≥45 years) independently predicted a higher likelihood of a belief that they knew the examination's purpose (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-5.6) and a belief that it facilitates open communication (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.9). Non-white race also was associated with a belief that the examination helps facilitate open communication between patients and providers (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.1). CONCLUSION: Approximately one-half of the women who participated in our study reported not knowing the purpose of the pelvic examination, yet most of them believed it to be of some value, especially reassurance of health. To achieve shared, informed decision-making, clinicians will need to communicate better to their patients the examination's purpose.

Effect of professional society recommendations on women's desire for a routine pelvic examination.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Physicians strongly recommends against performing pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women, citing evidence of harm (false-positive testing, unnecessary surgery) and no evidence of benefit. In contrast, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women beginning at age 21 years, citing expert opinion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate if providing women with professional societies' conflicting statements about pelvic examinations (recommendations and rationales) would influence their desire for a routine examination. STUDY DESIGN: We recruited 452 women ages 21-65 years from 2 women's clinics to participate in a 50-minute face-to-face interview about cervical cancer screening that included a 2-phase study related to pelvic examinations. In the first phase, 262 women were asked about their desire for the examination without being provided information about professional societies' recommendations. In the second phase, 190 women were randomized to review summaries of the American College of Physicians or American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement followed by an interview. RESULTS: First-phase participants served as the referent: 79% (208/262) indicated they would want a routine examination if given a choice. In the second phase, a similar percentage of women randomized to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists summary had this desire (82%: 80/97; adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.70). Women randomized to the American College of Physicians summary, however, were less likely to indicate they would opt for an examination (39%: 36/93; adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.21). Overall, 94% (179/190) believed the potential benefits and harms should be discussed prior to the examination. CONCLUSION: Providing women with a professional society's recommendation advising against routine pelvic examinations substantially reduced their desire to have one. Educational materials are needed to ensure women's informed preferences and values are reflected in decisions about pelvic examinations.

Women should decide which conditions matter.

Providing reliable prenatal screening performance estimates is critical for patient counseling and policy-making. Women who choose prenatal screening for aneuploidy are likely to be concerned not only with the common aneuploidies but with all causes of intellectual disability and serious birth defects. Sequential prenatal screening (combined serum and ultrasound testing) for aneuploidy detection commonly is offered as a primary screening test. Among women identified as screen positive, cell-free (cf)DNA has been added recently as a secondary, noninvasive screening option, before the consideration of invasive diagnostic testing (eg, amniocentesis and karyotype). With the anticipation of lower costs in the future, cfDNA might be an alternative to sequential screening in the general population. Sequential and cfDNA tests are both noninvasive, and both identify common aneuploidies. Screening via cfDNA detects more common chromosome abnormalities (eg, trisomy 21, sex trisomies). Sequential screening can identify other aneuploidies (eg, triploidy), as well as chromosome abnormalities associated with fetal structural abnormalities. When the advantages and disadvantages of routine sequential screening with routine cfDNA screening are compared, one important measure is the proportion and severity of chromosome abnormalities identified. When reporting these detection rates, authors need to carefully consider the impact of multiple well-described biases. For women to make informed choices in situations of this type, determining reliable comparative performance estimates is crucial.

Cell-free DNA vs sequential screening for the detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities.

BACKGROUND: Sequential and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening are both tests for the common aneuploidies. Although cfDNA has a greater detection rate (DR) for trisomy 21, sequential screening also can identify risk for other aneuploidies. The comparative DR for all chromosomal abnormalities is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare sequential and cfDNA screening for detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in a general prenatal cohort. STUDY DESIGN: The performance of sequential screening for the detection of chromosome abnormalities in a cohort of patients screened through the California Prenatal Screening Program with estimated due dates between August 2009 and December 2012 was compared with the estimated DRs and false-positive rates (FPRs) of cfDNA screening if used as primary screening in this same cohort. DR and FPR for cfDNA screening were abstracted from the published literature, as were the rates of "no results" in euploid and aneuploid cases. Chromosome abnormalities in the entire cohort were categorized as detectable (trisomies 13, 18, and 21, and sex chromosome aneuploidy), or not detectable (other chromosome abnormalities) by cfDNA screening. DR and FPR were compared for individual and all chromosome abnormalities. DR and FPR for the cohort were compared if "no results" cases were considered "screen negative" or "screen positive" for aneuploidy. DR and FPR rates were compared by use of the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Of 452,901 women who underwent sequential screening during the time period of the study, 2575 (0.57%) had a fetal chromosomal abnormality; 2101 were detected for a DR of 81.6%, and 19,929 euploid fetuses had positive sequential screening for an FPR rate of 4.5%. If no results cases were presumed normal, cfDNA screening would have detected 1820 chromosome abnormalities (70.7%) with an FPR of 0.7%. If no results cases were considered screen positive, 1985 (77.1%) cases would be detected at a total screen positive rate of 3.7%. In either case, the detection rate of sequential screening for all aneuploidies in the cohort was greater than cfDNA (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: For primary population screening, cfDNA provides lower DR than sequential screening if considering detection of all chromosomal abnormalities. Assuming that no results cfDNA cases are high-risk improves cfDNA detection but with a greater FPR. cfDNA should not be adopted as primary screening without further evaluation of the implications for detection of all chromosomal abnormalities and how to best evaluate no results cases.

Preferences regarding contemporary prenatal genetic tests among women desiring testing: implications for optimal testing strategies.

OBJECTIVES: To compare utilities for prenatal testing outcomes among women inclined to continue their pregnancy despite abnormal results versus those inclined to terminate and to analyze how differences affect optimal prenatal testing strategies. METHOD: Time tradeoff utilities for 23 outcomes were elicited from 281 women. We compared utilities based on termination inclination and applied them to a decision-analytic framework. RESULTS: Of participants, 46.6% indicated that they would 'definitely' or 'probably' continue their pregnancy despite results indicating an intellectual disability. These women assigned higher utilities to abnormal testing results and having a child with an intellectual disability than women who would probably or definitely terminate. Primary cell-free DNA screening had the most quality-adjusted life years for women inclined to continue their pregnancy but yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1 685 449. Multiple marker screening with either cell-free DNA or diagnostic testing as follow-up had an ICER of $9037. Primary diagnostic testing resulted in the most quality-adjusted life years for women inclined to terminate, with an ICER of $111 776. CONCLUSION: Women seeking testing vary in prenatal testing outcome preferences and termination inclinations in the context of results indicating an intellectual disability. How they envision utilizing prenatal testing information impacts their optimal testing strategy. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Two practice models in one labor and delivery unit: association with cesarean delivery rates.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the association between labor and delivery practice model and cesarean delivery rates at a community hospital. STUDY DESGIN: This was a retrospective cohort study of 9381 singleton live births at 1 community hospital, at which women were provided labor and delivery care under 1 of 2 distinct practice models: a traditional private practice model and a midwife-physician laborist practice model. Cesarean rates were compared by practice model, adjusting for potential sociodemographic and clinical confounders. Statistical comparisons were performed using the χ(2) test and multivariable logistical regression. RESULTS: Compared with women managed under the midwife/laborist model, women in the private model were significantly more likely to have a cesarean delivery (31.6% vs 17.3%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73-2.58). Women with nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex gestations also were more likely to have a cesarean delivery if they were cared for in the private model (29.8% vs 15.9%; P < .001; aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.58) as were women who had a prior cesarean delivery (71.3% vs 41.4%; P < .001; aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.74-5.88). CONCLUSION: In this community hospital setting, a midwife-physician laborist practice model was associated with lower cesarean rates than a private practice model.