Drivers of variation in postpartum opioid prescribing across hospitals participating in a statewide maternity care quality collaborative.

BACKGROUND: We describe variation in postpartum opioid prescribing across a statewide quality collaborative and assess the proportion due to practitioner and hospital characteristics. METHODS: We assessed postpartum prescribing data from nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births between January 2020 and June 2021 included in the clinical registry of a statewide obstetric quality collaborative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Mixed effect logistic regression and linear models adjusted for patient characteristics and assessed practitioner- and hospital-level predictors of receiving a postpartum opioid prescription and prescription size. Relative contributions of practitioner and hospital characteristics were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of 40,589 patients birthing at 68 hospitals, 3.0% (872/29,412) received an opioid prescription after vaginal birth and 87.8% (9812/11,177) received one after cesarean birth, with high variation across hospitals. In adjusted models, the strongest patient-level predictors of receiving a prescription were cesarean birth (aOR 899.1, 95% CI 752.8-1066.7) and third-/fourth-degree perineal laceration (aOR 25.7, 95% CI 17.4-37.9). Receiving care from a certified nurse-midwife (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.82) or family medicine physician (aOR 0.60, 95%CI 0.39-0.91) was associated with lower prescribing rates. Hospital-level predictors included receiving care at hospitals with <500 annual births (aOR 4.07, 95% CI 1.61-15.0). A positive safety culture was associated with lower prescribing rates (aOR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.88). Much of the variation in postpartum prescribing was attributable to practitioners and hospitals (prescription receipt: practitioners 25.1%, hospitals 12.1%; prescription size: practitioners 5.4%, hospitals: 52.2%). DISCUSSION: Variation in postpartum opioid prescribing after birth is high and driven largely by practitioner- and hospital-level factors. Opioid stewardship efforts targeted at both the practitioner and hospital level may be effective for reducing opioid prescribing harms.

Use of Opioid-Sparing Protocols and Perceived Postpartum Pain in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder and Chronic Prenatal Opioid Exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-sparing protocols reduce postpartum opioid prescribing in opioid-naïve patients; however, patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and complex pain needs who may benefit from these protocols are typically excluded from them. We assessed postpartum pain experiences of patients with OUD and chronic prenatal opioid exposure after implementation of an opioid-sparing protocol. METHODS: A phone survey assessed postpartum pain experiences for people with chronic prenatal opioid exposure who delivered between January 2020 and August 2021 at an academic hospital. Analyses included descriptive statistics, qualitative content analysis, and a joint display comparing themes. RESULTS: Of 25 patients, 18 (72%) participated; most were non-Hispanic White (100%, 18/18), publicly insured (78%, 14/18), multiparous (78%, 14/18), with OUD (100%, 18/18). No patients with a vaginal birth received an opioid prescription; half (4/8) with a cesarean birth received one at discharge. Over one-third (7/18, 39%) reported poor pain control (≥ 5/10) in the hospital and one week post-discharge; scores were higher for cesarean versus vaginal birth. Qualitative sub-analyses of open-ended responses revealed patient perceptions of postpartum pain and treatment. The most effective strategies, stratified by birth type and pain level, ranged from non-opioid medications for vaginal births and minor pain to prescription opioids for cesarean births and moderate-to-intense pain. DISCUSSION: Postpartum opioid prescribing for patients with chronic prenatal opioid use was low for vaginal and cesarean birth following implementation of an opioid-sparing protocol. Patients with OUD reported good pain management with opioid-sparing pain regimens; however, many reported poorly controlled pain immediately postpartum. Future work should assess approaches to postpartum pain management that minimize the risks of opioid medication-particularly in at-risk groups.

What is already known on this subject? Opioid-sparing protocols can reduce postpartum opioid prescribing in opioid-naïve patients; however, there are currently no clear guidelines for opioid prescribing for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the postpartum period.What this study adds?Postpartum opioid prescribing for patients with chronic prenatal opioid use was less than the national average and one-third of patients reported poor pain control. Opioid-sparing protocols postpartum should be expanded to patients with OUD to improve pain control and minimize risks associated with opioid medication.

Postpartum Opioid Prescribing in Patients with Opioid Use Prior to Birth.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe opioid prescribing patterns for pregnant patients with a history of or active opioid use to inform postpartum pain management strategies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients with a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) or chronic pain seen at a single outpatient clinic specializing in opioid use and OUD in pregnancy from January 2019 to August 2021. Patient characteristics, delivery outcomes, and opioid prescribing information were collected through electronic health record fields. We used descriptive statistics to characterize differences in receipt of an opioid prescription, prescription size, and receipt of a prescription refill across three patient groups: patients with OUD on medication, patients with OUD maintaining abstinence, and patients with chronic pain using opioids. In the study period, the institutional average rate of opioid prescribing after cesarean and vaginal birth were 80.0 and 2.8%, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients included in this study, 46 (66.7%) had a history of OUD on medication, 14 (20.3%) had a history of OUD maintaining abstinence, and 9 (13.0%) had a history of chronic pain. Receipt of an opioid prescription after childbirth was more common after cesarean birth (12/23, 52.2%) than vaginal birth (3/46, 6.5%). Refills were common in patients who received an opioid proscription (cesarean: 5/12, 41.7%; vaginal: 1/3, 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Compared with institutional averages, postpartum opioid prescribing rates for people with a history of OUD or chronic pain were 50 to 60% lower for cesarean birth and three times higher for vaginal birth. Future work is needed to balance opioid stewardship and harm reduction with adequate pain control in these high-risk populations. KEY POINTS: · Opioid prescribing rates for patients with OUD/chronic pain were 60% lower for cesarean birth than institutional averages.. · Opioid prescribing rates for patients with OUD/chronic pain were three times higher for vaginal birth than institutional averages.. · Refill rates following birth were high overall for cesarean (40%) and vaginal (33%) birth.. · More work is needed to balance opioid prescribing with adequate pain control in high-risk patients..

Retrospective Use of Patients' Characteristics to Assess Variation in Prenatal Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: We used patients' medical and psychosocial risk factors to explore prenatal care utilization and health outcomes to inform prenatal care tailoring. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study assessed patients who gave birth at an academic institution from January 1 to December 31, 2018, using electronic health record (EHR) data. Patients were categorized into four phenotypes based on medical/psychosocial risk factors available in the EHR: Completely low risk; High psychosocial risk only; High medical risk only; and Completely high risk. We examined patient characteristics, visit utilization, nonvisit utilization (e.g., phone calls), and outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, preeclampsia) across groups. RESULTS: Of 4,681 patients, the majority were age 18 to 35 (3,697, 79.0%), White (3,326, 70.9%), multiparous (3,263, 69.7%), and Completely high risk (2,752, 58.8%). More Black and Hispanic patients had psychosocial risk factors than White patients. Patients with psychosocial risk factors had fewer prenatal visits (10, interquartile range [IQR]: 8-12) than those without (11, IQR: 9-12). Patients with psychosocial risk factors experienced less time in prenatal care, more phone calls, and fewer EHR messages across the same medical risk group. Rates of preterm birth and gestational hypertension were incrementally higher with additional medical/psychosocial risk factors. CONCLUSION: Data readily available in the EHR can assess the compounding influence of medical/psychosocial risk factor on patients' care utilization and outcomes. KEY POINTS: · Medical and psychosocial needs in pregnancy can inform patient phenotypes and are associated with prenatal care use and outcomes.. · Patient phenotypes are associated with prenatal care use and outcomes.. · Patients with high psychosocial risk spent less time in prenatal care and had more phone calls in pregnancy.. · Tailored prenatal care models may proactively address differences in patient's needs..

Feasibility and acceptability of a toolkit-based process to implement patient-centered, immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception services.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend that maternity systems provide patient-centered access to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (ie, insertion of an intrauterine device or implant during the delivery hospitalization). Hospitals face significant barriers to offering these services, and efforts to improve peripartum contraception care quality have met with mixed success. Implementation toolkits-packages of resources and strategies to facilitate the implementation of new services-are a promising approach for guiding clinical practice change. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a theory-informed toolkit, evaluate the feasibility of toolkit-based implementation of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception care in a single site, and refine the toolkit and implementation process for future effectiveness testing. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-site feasibility study of the toolkit-based implementation of immediate postpartum contraception services at a large academic medical center in 2017 to 2020. Based on previous qualitative work, we developed a theory-informed implementation toolkit. A stakeholder panel selected toolkit resources to use in a multicomponent implementation intervention at the study site. These resources included tools and strategies designed to optimize implementation conditions (ie, implementation leadership, planning, and evaluation; the financial environment; engagement of key stakeholders; patient needs; compatibility with workflow; and clinician and staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes). The implementation intervention was executed from January 2018 to April 2019. Study outcomes included implementation outcomes (ie, provider perceptions of the implementation process and implementation tools [assessed via online provider survey]) and healthcare quality outcomes (ie, trends in prenatal contraceptive counseling, trends in immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive utilization [both ascertained by institutional administrative data], and the patient experience of contraceptive care [assessed via serial, cross-sectional, online patient survey items adapted from the National Quality Forum-endorsed, validated Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling measure]). RESULTS: In the implementation process, among 172 of 401 eligible clinicians (43%) participating in surveys, 70% were "extremely" or "somewhat" satisfied with the implementation process overall. In the prenatal contraceptive counseling, among 4960 individuals undergoing childbirth at the study site in 2019, 1789 (36.1%) had documented prenatal counseling about postpartum contraception. Documented counseling rates increased overall throughout 2019 (Q1, 12.5%; Q4, 51.0%) but varied significantly by clinic site (Q4, range 30%-79%). Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception utilization increased throughout the study period (before implementation, 5.46% of deliveries; during implementation, 8.95%; after implementation, 8.58%). In the patient experience of contraceptive care, patient survey respondents (response rate, 15%-29%) were largely White (344/425 [81%]) and highly educated (309/425 [73%] with at least a 4-year college degree), reflecting the study site population. Scores were poor across settings, with modest improvements in the hospital setting from 2018 to 2020 (prenatal visits, 67%-63%; hospitalization, 45%-58%; outpatient after delivery, 69%-65%). Based on these findings, toolkit refinements included additional resources designed to routinize prenatal contraceptive counseling and support a more patient-centered experience of contraceptive care. CONCLUSION: A toolkit-based process to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive services at a single academic center was associated with high acceptability but mixed healthcare quality outcomes. Toolkit resources were added to optimize counseling rates and the patient experience of contraceptive care. Future research should formally test the effectiveness of the refined toolkit in a multisite, prospective trial.

Comparative effectiveness of sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients giving birth after bariatric surgery: reinterventions and obstetric outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Women of childbearing age comprise approximately 65% of all patients who undergo bariatric surgery in the USA. Despite this, data on maternal reintervention and obstetric outcomes after surgery are limited especially with regard to comparative effectiveness between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, the most common procedures today. METHODS: Using IBM MarketScan claims data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of women ages 18-52 who gave birth after undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with 2-year continuous follow-up. We balanced the cohort on observable characteristics using inverse probability weighting. We utilized multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between procedure selection and outcomes, including risk of reinterventions (revisions, enteral access, vascular access, reoperations, other) or adverse obstetric outcomes (pregnancy complications, severe maternal morbidity, and delivery complications). In all analyses, we controlled for age, U.S. state, and Elixhauser or Bateman comorbidities. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, 1,079 women gave birth within the first two years after undergoing bariatric surgery. Among these women, we found no significant difference in reintervention rates among those who had gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.91-2.21, P = 0.13). We then examined obstetric outcomes in the patients who gave birth after bariatric surgery. Compared to patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, those who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were not significantly more likely to experience any adverse obstetric outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this first national cohort of females giving birth following bariatric surgery, no significant difference was observed in persons who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy with respect to either reinterventions or obstetric outcomes. This suggests possible equipoise between these two procedures with regards to safety within the first two years following a bariatric procedure among women who may become pregnant, but more research is needed to confirm these findings in larger samples.

The evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines in the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to some of the most drastic changes in clinical care delivery ever seen in the United States. Almost overnight, providers of prenatal care adopted virtual visits and reduced visit schedules. These changes stood in stark contrast to the 12 to 14 in-person prenatal visit schedule that had been previously recommended for almost a century. As maternity care providers consider what prenatal care delivery changes we should maintain following the acute pandemic, we may gain insight from understanding the evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines. In this paper, we start by sketching out the relatively unstructured beginnings of prenatal care in the 19th century. Most medical care fell within the domain of laypeople, and childbirth was a central feature of female domestic culture. We explore how early discoveries about "toxemia" created the groundwork for future prenatal care interventions, including screening of urine and blood pressure-which in turn created a need for routine prenatal care visits. We then discuss the organization of the medical profession, including the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In the early 20th century, new data increasingly revealed high rates of both infant and maternal mortalities, leading to a greater emphasis on prenatal care. These discoveries culminated in the first codification of a prenatal visit schedule in 1930 by the Children's Bureau. Surprisingly, this schedule remained essentially unchanged for almost a century. Through the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, significant technological advancements in laboratory testing and ultrasonography, and calls of the National Institutes of Health Task Force for changes in prenatal care delivery in 1989, prenatal care recommendations continued to be the same as they had been in 1930-monthly visits until 28 weeks' gestation, bimonthly visits until 36 weeks' gestation, and weekly visits until delivery. However, coronavirus disease 2019 forced us to change, to reconsider both the need for in-person visits and frequency of visits. Currently, as we transition from the acute pandemic, we should consider how to use what we have learned in this unprecedented time to shape future prenatal care. Lessons from a century of prenatal care provide valuable insights to inform the next generation of prenatal care delivery.

Cost sharing, postpartum contraceptive use, and short interpregnancy interval rates among commercially insured women.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to effective birth control after childbirth may meet many women's preferences and reduce short interpregnancy interval rates. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs for contraception has been reported to increase the use of the most effective methods among women with employer-based insurance, but the prevalence and effects of patient cost sharing for contraception have not been studied during the postpartum period. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association between cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception and postpartum contraception use patterns and pregnancies in the 12 months after delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of commercially insured women undergoing childbirth from 2014 to 2018 using Optum's (Eden Prairie, MN) de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database. This large national database includes nonretired employees and their dependents who are enrolled in health insurance plans sponsored by large- or medium-sized US-based employers. Women with 12 months of continuous enrollment postpartum were included. Childbirth, pregnancy, and contraceptive method (female sterilization, long-acting reversible contraceptives, other hormonal methods, and no prescription method observed) were identified using claims data. Contraceptive use patterns were observed at 3, 6, and 12 months postpartum and adjusted for individual and plan characteristics. Median out-of-pocket costs were $0 for sterilization and other hormonal methods but nonzero for long-acting reversible contraception. We therefore used simple and multivariable logistic regressions to examine the association between plan-level cost sharing (no cost sharing, $0; low cost sharing, >$0-<$200; and high cost sharing, ≥$200 out-of-pocket cost) for any long-acting reversible contraceptive insertion and contraceptive use patterns and short interpregnancy interval rates, controlling for age, household income, race and ethnicity, region, and insurance plan type. RESULTS: Among 25,298 plans with cost sharing data, we identified 172,941 women with continuous enrollment for 12 months postpartum, including 82,500 (47.7%) in no cost sharing, 22,595 (13.1%) in low cost sharing, and 67,846 (39.2%) in high cost sharing plans. The percentage of postpartum women in the study sample using any prescription contraceptive method was 39.5% by 3 months, 43.8% by 6 months, and 46.0% by 12 months. At all time points, postpartum women in no cost sharing plans had a higher predicted probability of long-acting reversible contraceptive use (eg, at 12 months: no cost sharing, 22.0%; low cost-sharing, 17.5%; high cost sharing, 18.3%; P<.001) and a lower predicted probability of no prescription method use (eg, at 12 months: no cost sharing, 51.8%; low cost sharing, 55.0%; high cost sharing, 54.9%; P<.001) than those in low or high cost sharing plans. Predicted probabilities of female sterilization and other hormonal method use did not differ substantively by plan cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception at any time point. The proportion of women experiencing a short interpregnancy interval was low (1.9% by 3 months, 1.9% by 6 months, 2.0% by 12 months) and did not differ by plan cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception at any time point. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs for long-acting reversible contraception influence the method of contraception used by postpartum women with employer-based insurance. Eliminating financial barriers to long-acting reversible contraception access after childbirth may help women initiate their preferred method and increase the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives among interested women who otherwise might utilize less effective methods.

Patient and provider perspectives of a new prenatal care model introduced in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials document the safety and efficacy of reduced frequency prenatal visit schedules and virtual visits, but real-world data are lacking. Our institution created a prenatal care delivery model incorporating these alternative approaches to continue safely providing prenatal care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate institutional-level adoption and patient and provider experiences with the coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-site evaluation of a coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model incorporating a reduced frequency visit schedule and virtual visits deployed at a suburban academic institution on March 20, 2020. We used electronic health record data to evaluate institution-level model adoption, defined as changes in overall visit frequency and proportion of virtual visits in the 3 months before and after implementation. To evaluate the patient and provider experience with the coronavirus disease 2019 model, we conducted an online survey of all pregnant patients (>20 weeks' gestation) and providers in May 2020. Of note, 3 domains of care experience were evaluated: (1) access, (2) quality and safety, and (3) satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed with basic descriptive statistics. Free-text responses coded by the 3 survey domains elucidated drivers of positive and negative care experiences. RESULTS: After the coronavirus disease 2019 model adoption, average weekly prenatal visit volume fell by 16.1%, from 898 to 761 weekly visits; the average weekly proportion of prenatal visits conducted virtually increased from 10.8% (97 of 898) to 43.3% (330 of 761); and the average visit no-show rate remained stable (preimplementation, 4.3%; postimplementation, 4.2%). Of those eligible, 74.8% of providers (77 of 103) and 15.0% of patients (253 of 1690) participated in the surveys. Patient respondents were largely white (180 of 253; 71.1%) and privately insured (199 of 253; 78.7%), reflecting the study site population. The rates of chronic conditions and pregnancy complications also differed from national prevalence. Provider respondents were predominantly white (44 of 66; 66.7%) and female (50 of 66; 75.8%). Most patients and almost all providers reported that virtual visits improved access to care (patients, 174 of 253 [68.8%]; providers, 74 of 77 [96.1%]). More than half of respondents (patients, 124 of 253 [53.3%]; providers, 41 of 77 [62.1%]) believed that virtual visits were safe. Nearly all believed that home blood pressure cuffs were important for virtual visits (patients, 213 of 231 [92.2%]; providers, 63 of 66 [95.5%]). Most reported satisfaction with the coronavirus disease 2019 model (patients, 196 of 253 [77.5%]; providers, 64 of 77 [83.1%]). In free-text responses, drivers of positive care experiences were similar for patients and providers and included perceived improved access to care through decreased barriers (eg, transportation, childcare), perceived high quality of virtual visits for low-risk patients and increased safety during the pandemic, and improved satisfaction through better patient counseling. Perceived drivers of negative care experience were also similar for patients and providers, but less common. These included concerns that unequal access to virtual visits could deepen existing maternity care inequities, concerns that the lack of home devices (eg, blood pressure cuffs) would affect care quality and safety, and dissatisfaction with poor patient-provider continuity and inadequate expectation setting for the virtual visit experience. CONCLUSION: Reduced visit schedules and virtual visits were rapidly integrated into real-world care, with positive experiences for many patients and providers. Future research is needed to understand the health outcomes and care experience associated with alternative approaches to prenatal care delivery across more diverse patient populations outside of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to inform broader health policy decisions.

Prenatal care redesign: creating flexible maternity care models through virtual care.

Each year, nearly 4 million pregnant patients in the United States receive prenatal care-a crucial preventive service that improves pregnancy outcomes for mothers and their children. National guidelines currently recommend 12-14 in-person prenatal visits, a schedule that has remained unchanged since 1930. When scrutinizing the standard prenatal visit schedule, it becomes clear that prenatal care is overdue for a redesign. We have strong evidence of the benefits of prenatal services, such as screening for gestational diabetes and maternal vaccination. However, how to deliver these services is not clear. Studies of prenatal services consistently demonstrate that such care can be delivered in fewer than 14 visits and that patients do not need to visit clinics in person to receive all maternity services. Telemedicine has emerged as a promising care delivery option for patients seeking greater flexibility, and early trials leveraging virtual care and remote monitoring have shown positive maternal and fetal outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Our institution has worked for the past year on a new prenatal care pathway. Our initial work assessed the literature, elicited patient perspectives, and captured the insights of experts in patient-centered care delivery. There are 2 key principles that guide prenatal care redesign: (1) design care delivery around essential services, using in-person care for services that cannot be delivered remotely and offering video visits for other essential services, and (2) creation of flexible services for anticipatory guidance and psychosocial support that allow patients to tailor support to meet their needs through opt-in programs. The rise of coronavirus disease 2019 prompted us to extend this early work and rapidly implement a redesigned prenatal care pathway. In this study, we outline our experience in transitioning to a new prenatal care model with 4 in-person visits, 1 ultrasound visit, and 4 virtual visits (the 4-1-4 prenatal plan). We then explore how insights from this implementation can inform patient-centered prenatal care redesign during and beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

New persistent opioid use after acute opioid prescribing in pregnancy: a nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between opioid prescribing during pregnancy and new persistent opioid use in the year following delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included patients aged 12-55 years in Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database who were undergoing vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery from 2008 to 2016, with continuous enrollment from 2 years before birth to 1 year postdischarge. Women were included if they were opioid naive in pregnancy (ie, did not fill an opioid prescription 2 years to 9 months before delivery) and did not undergo a procedure within the year after discharge. The exposure was filling an opioid prescription in pregnancy. The primary outcome was new persistent opioid use, defined as a pharmacy claim for ≥1 opioid prescription between 4 and 90 days postdischarge and ≥1 prescription between 91 and 365 days postdischarge. Clinical and demographic covariates were included. Analyses included descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for clinical and demographic covariates. RESULTS: Of 158,425 childbirths identified, 101,013 (63.8%) were by vaginal delivery and 57,412 (36.2%) cesarean delivery. Among all patients, 6.0% (9429) filled an opioid prescription during pregnancy. The factors associated with filling an opioid in pregnancy were having a nondelivery procedure in pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 9.60; 95% confidence interval, 8.81-10.47) and having an emergency room visit during pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-2.59). Of women who received an opioid in pregnancy, 4% (379) developed new persistent opioid use. The factors most associated with new persistent opioid use were receiving an opioid prescription during pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 3.45; 95% confidence interval, 3.04-3.92) and filling a peripartum opioid prescription (1 week prior to 3 days postdischarge) adjusted odds ratio, 2.28, 95% confidence interval (2.02-2.57). Though having a procedure during pregnancy was associated with increased receipt of an opioid prescription, it was also associated with reduced new persistent opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.99). CONCLUSION: Women who receive an opioid prescription during pregnancy are more likely to experience new persistent opioid use. Maternity care providers must balance pain management in pregnancy with potential risks of opioids.

Routine Prenatal Care.

The one-size-fits-all model of prenatal care has remained largely unchanged since 1930. New models of prenatal care delivery can improve its efficacy, equity, and experience through tailoring prenatal care to meet pregnant people's medical and social needs. Key aspects of recently developed prenatal care models include visit schedules based on needed services, telemedicine, home measurement of routine pregnancy parameters, and interventions that address social and structural drivers of health. Several barriers that affect the individual, provider, health system, and policy levels must be addressed to facilitate implementation of new prenatal care delivery models.

Elevating the patient voice in contraceptive care quality improvement: A qualitative study of patient preferences for peripartum contraceptive care.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centeredness is an important indicator of peripartum contraceptive care quality. Prior work demonstrates how care fragmentation, provider biases, and other factors sometimes undermine the patient-centeredness and quality of this care. To guide the design of future quality improvement interventions, we explored patient preferences for peripartum contraceptive care. STUDY DESIGN: For this qualitative study, we recruited a convenience sample of individuals receiving prenatal care at the study site and participating in an online survey about their experience of peripartum contraceptive care during February-July 2020. We conducted individual, in-depth, semistructured interviews to assess patients' preferences for peripartum contraceptive care. Using inductive and deductive qualitative content analysis, we evaluated interview data for patient preferences for peripartum contraceptive counseling and organized preferences into domains to inform future quality measurement. RESULTS: Interviews (lasting 7-26 min) included 21 postpartum individuals, who were largely White with high levels of formal education. Many participants described suboptimal care experiences characterized by insufficient information, inadequate centering of patient values, and, occasionally, disrespectful care. We identified four key themes describing patients' desire for (1) comprehensive, anticipatory information from one's peripartum provider; (2) counseling and decision-making that (a) prioritize patient preferences and values and (b) avoid pressure; (3) care that respects patient feelings and wishes; and (4) provider responsiveness to individual patient preferences regarding timing and frequency of counseling. CONCLUSIONS: We newly identify four key domains of patient preferences for peripartum contraceptive care. Additional research is needed to understand peripartum contraceptive care preferences among diverse patient populations. Future research should develop validated measures for evaluating the patient experience of peripartum contraceptive care at scale, as part of ongoing efforts to improve the quality and respectfulness of peripartum care. IMPLICATIONS: Patients want peripartum contraceptive care to provide comprehensive, anticipatory information; elicit and respond to their counseling and decision-making preferences; and demonstrate respect for their wishes.

Understanding social needs in pregnancy: Prospective validation of a digital short-form screening tool and patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health significantly affect health outcomes, yet are infrequently addressed in prenatal care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve the efficiency and experience of addressing social needs in pregnancy through: (1) testing a digital short-form screening tool; and (2) characterizing pregnant people's preferences for social needs screening and management. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a digital short-form social determinants of health screening tool from PRAPARE (Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences), and a survey to query patients' preferences for addressing social needs. Instruments were administered online to peripartum participants, with equal representation of patients with public and private insurance. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the short-form tool vs PRAPARE. Quantitative responses were characterized using descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were analyzed with matrix and thematic coding. Survey data were analyzed by subgroups of historically marginalized populations. RESULTS: A total of 215 people completed the survey. Participants were predominantly White (167; 77.7%) and multiparous (145; 67.4%). Unmet social needs were prevalent with both the short-form tool (77.7%) and PRAPARE (96.7%). The sensitivity (79.3%) and specificity (71.4%) of the short-form screener were high for detecting any social need. Most participants believed that it was important for their pregnancy care team to know their social needs (material: 173, 80.5%; support: 200, 93.0%), and over half felt comfortable sharing their needs through in-person or digital modalities if assistance was or was not available (material: 117, 54.4%; support: 122, 56.7%). Free-text themes reflected considerations for integrating social needs in routine prenatal care. Acceptability of addressing social needs in pregnancy was high among all groups. CONCLUSION: A digital short-form social determinants of health screening tool performs well when compared with the gold standard. Pregnant people accept social needs as a part of routine pregnancy care. Future work is needed to operationalize efficient, effective, patient-centered approaches to addressing social needs in pregnancy.

Barriers to Telemedicine Use: Qualitative Analysis of Provider Perspectives During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine is a promising approach for removing barriers to care and improving access for patients, telemedicine use for many medical specialties has decreased from its peak during the acute COVID-19 public health crisis. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the maintenance of web-based visits-one key component of telemedicine-is critical for ensuring the continuous availability of this service for patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe medical providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to the continued use of web-based visits to inform quality improvement efforts and promote sustainability. METHODS: We performed a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses from a survey of medical providers administered from February 5-14, 2021, at a large, midwestern academic institution, including all providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine (eg, physicians, residents or fellows, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, or nurses) who completed at least 1 web-based visit from March 20, 2020, to February 14, 2021. The primary outcome was the experience of providing web-based visits, including barriers and facilitators to continued usage of web-based visits. Survey questions included 3 major domains: quality of care, technology, and satisfaction. Responses were coded using qualitative content analysis and further analyzed through a matrix analysis to understand the providers' perspectives and elucidate key barriers and facilitators of web-based visit usage. RESULTS: Of 2692 eligible providers, 1040 (38.6%) completed the survey, of whom 702 were providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine. These providers spanned 7 health care professions and 47 clinical departments. The most common professions represented were physicians (486/702, 46.7%), residents or fellows (85/702, 8.2%), and nurse practitioners (81/702, 7.8%), while the most common clinical departments were internal medicine (69/702, 6.6%), psychiatry (69/702, 6.6%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (67/702, 6.4%). The following 4 overarching categories of provider experience with web-based visits emerged: quality of care, patient rapport, visit flow, and equity. Though many providers saw web-based visits as a tool for improving care access, quality, and equity, others shared how appropriate selection of web-based visits, support (eg, patient training, home devices, and broadband access), and institutional and nationwide optimization (eg, relaxation of licensing requirements across state borders and reimbursement for phone-only modalities) were needed to sustain web-based visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate key barriers to the maintenance of telemedicine services following the acute public health crisis. These findings can help prioritize the most impactful methods of sustaining and expanding telemedicine availability for patients who prefer this method of care delivery.

Delivery Strategies for Postpartum Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effects of postpartum health care-delivery strategies on health care utilization and maternal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies in the United States or Canada from inception to November 16, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We used duplicate screening for studies comparing health care-delivery strategies for routine postpartum care on health care utilization and maternal outcomes. We selected health care utilization, clinical, and harm outcomes prioritized by stakeholder panels. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We found 64 eligible studies (50 randomized controlled trials, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies; N=543,480). For general postpartum care, care location (clinic, at home, by telephone) did not affect depression or anxiety symptoms (low strength of evidence), and care integration (by multiple types of health care professionals) did not affect depression symptoms or substance use (low strength of evidence). Providing contraceptive care earlier (compared with later) was associated with greater implant use at 6 months (summary effect size 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.64) (moderate strength of evidence). Location of breastfeeding care did not affect hospitalization, other unplanned care utilization, or mental health symptoms (all low strength of evidence). Peer support was associated with higher rates of any or exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month and any breastfeeding at 3-6 months (summary effect size 1.10-1.22) but not other breastfeeding measures (all moderate strength of evidence). Care by a lactation consultant was associated with higher breastfeeding rates at 6 months (summary effect size 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91) but not exclusive breastfeeding (all moderate strength of evidence). Use and nonuse of information technology for breastfeeding care were associated with comparable rates of breastfeeding (moderate strength of evidence). Testing reminders for screening or preventive care were associated with greater adherence to oral glucose tolerance testing but not random glucose or hemoglobin A 1c testing (moderate strength of evidence). CONCLUSION: Various strategies have been shown to improve some aspects of postpartum care, but future research is needed on the most effective care delivery strategies to improve postpartum health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022309756 .