A Scoping Review of Patient-Centered Perinatal Contraceptive Counseling.

INTRODUCTION: Contraceptive counseling during the perinatal period is an important component of comprehensive perinatal care. We synthesized research about contraceptive counseling during the perinatal period, which has not previously been systematically compiled. METHODS: We developed search criteria to identify articles listed in PubMed, Embase, and Popline databases published between 1992 and July 2022 that address patients' preferences for, and experiences of, perinatal contraceptive counseling, as well as health outcomes associated with this counseling. Search results were independently reviewed by multiple reviewers to assess relevance for the present review. Methods were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-four articles were included in the final full text review. Of the included articles, 10 included implementation and evaluation of a contraceptive counseling method or protocol, and 24 evaluated preferences for or experiences of existing contraceptive counseling in the perinatal period. Common themes included the acceptability of contraceptive counseling in the peripartum and postpartum periods, and a preference for contraceptive counseling at some point during the antenatal period and before the inpatient hospital experience, and direct provider-patient discussion instead of video or written material. Multiple studies suggest that timing, content, and modality should be individualized. In general, avoiding actual or perceived directiveness and providing multi-modal counseling that includes both written educational materials and patient-provider conversations was desired. DISCUSSION: The perinatal period constitutes a critical opportunity to provide contraceptive counseling that can support pregnant and postpartum people's management of their reproductive futures. The reviewed studies highlight the importance of patient-centered approach to providing this care, including flexibility of timing, content, and modality to accommodate individual preferences.

Group Multimodal Prenatal Care and Postpartum Outcomes.

Importance: An increasing body of evidence suggests equivalent if not improved postpartum outcomes of in-person group prenatal care compared with individual prenatal care. However, research is needed to evaluate outcomes of group multimodal prenatal care (GMPC), with groups delivered virtually in combination with individual in-person office appointments to collect vital signs and conduct other tests compared with individual multimodal prenatal care (IMPC) delivered through a combination of remotely delivered and in-person visits. Objective: To compare postpartum outcomes between GMPC and IMPC. Design, Setting, and Participants: A frequency-matched longitudinal cohort study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated health care delivery system. Participants included 424 individuals who were pregnant (212 GMPC and 212 frequency-matched IMPC controls (matched on gestational age, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and maternal age) receiving prenatal care between August 17, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Participants completed a baseline survey before 14 weeks' gestation and a follow-up survey between 4 and 8 weeks post partum. Data analysis was performed from January 3, 2022, to March 4, 2024. Exposure: GMPC vs IMPC. Main Outcome Measures: Validated instruments were used to ascertain postpartum psychosocial outcomes (stress, depression, anxiety) and perceived quality of prenatal care. Self-reported outcomes included behavioral outcomes (breastfeeding initiation, use of long-acting reversible contraception), satisfaction with prenatal care, and preparation for self and baby care after delivery. Primary analyses included all study participants in the final cohort. Three secondary dose-stratified analyses included individuals who attended at least 1 visit, 5 visits, and 70% of visits. Log-binomial regression and linear regression analyses were conducted. Results: The final analytic cohort of 390 participants (95.6% follow-up rate of 408 singleton live births) was racially and ethnically diverse: 98 (25.1%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 88 (22.6%) Hispanic, 17 (4.4%) non-Hispanic Black, 161 (41.3%) non-Hispanic White, and 26 (6.7%) multiracial participants; median age was 32 (IQR, 30-35) years. In the primary analysis, after adjustment, GMPC was associated with a 21% decreased risk of perceived stress (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.94) compared with IMPC. Findings were consistent in the dose-stratified analyses. There were no significant differences between GMPC and IMPC for other psychosocial outcomes. While in the primary analyses there was no significant group differences in perceived quality of prenatal care (mean difference [MD], 0.01; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.15) and feeling prepared to take care of baby at home (ARR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23), the dose-stratified analyses documented higher perceived quality of prenatal care (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.31) and preparation for taking care of baby at home (ARR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13-1.43) for GMPC among those attending 70% of visits. No significant differences were noted in patient overall satisfaction with prenatal care and feeling prepared for taking care of themselves after delivery. Conclusions: In this cohort study, equivalent and, in some cases, better outcomes were observed for GMPC compared with IMPC. Health care systems implementing multimodal models of care may consider incorporating virtual group prenatal care as a prenatal care option for patients.

Neonatal outcomes associated with in utero cannabis exposure: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The full spectrum of associations between in utero cannabis exposure and adverse neonatal outcomes is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between in utero cannabis exposure and neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This population-based retrospective cohort study of singleton births among Kaiser Permanente Northern California members (January 1, 2011-July 31, 2020) included parent-infant dyads in which the pregnant parent was screened for cannabis use as part of standard prenatal care, generally upon entrance into care. Data were ascertained from electronic health records. Generalized estimating equation models were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, other non-cannabis prenatal substance use, medical and mental health comorbidities, and adequacy of prenatal care. In utero cannabis exposure was defined as self-reported use since becoming pregnant and/or a positive urine toxicology test for cannabis at any time during pregnancy (yes/no; primary exposure). Frequency of use was self-reported and categorized as daily, weekly, monthly or less, never, or unknown (secondary exposure). Neonatal outcomes included low birthweight, small for gestational age, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and infant respiratory support. RESULTS: Of 364,924 infants, 22,624 (6.2%) were exposed to cannabis in utero. After adjustment for potential confounders, including in utero exposure to other substances, in utero exposure to cannabis was associated with greater odds of low birthweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.28), small for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.30), preterm birth (<37 weeks; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.13), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.11). There was a suggestive association with early preterm birth (<34 weeks; adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.23; P=.055), but no significant association with respiratory support (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.18). Dose-response analysis found an increasing likelihood of low birthweight and small for gestational age with increasing frequency of prenatal cannabis use by the pregnant individual. Sensitivity analyses further supported an increased likelihood of low birthweight and small for gestational age, although associations with other outcomes did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In utero cannabis exposure was associated with increased likelihood of low birthweight, small for gestational age, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Clinicians should counsel individuals who are pregnant or considering pregnancy about the potential adverse neonatal health outcomes associated with prenatal cannabis use.

Association between maternal prenatal cannabis use and missed child preventive care visits in an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California.

The periodicity of well-child visits recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes the importance of continuity of care in health management. Exposure to cannabis in utero has been associated with adverse development, and adherence to well-child visits is critical for earlier detection and intervention. To assess whether maternal prenatal cannabis use was associated with missed well-child visits in the first three years after birth we conducted a longitudinal cohort study in Kaiser Permanente Northern California of pregnant individuals and their children born between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018. Maternal prenatal cannabis use was defined as any self-reported cannabis use since becoming pregnant and/or a positive urine toxicology test for cannabis during pregnancy. Well-child visits were defined as an encounter for a well-child visit or physical exam and categorized into seven time periods from birth to 36 months. Modified Poisson regression models were conducted. Of the 168,589 eligible pregnancies, 3.4% screened positive for maternal prenatal cannabis use. Compared to no use, maternal prenatal cannabis use was associated with more missed well-child visits at every time period; (missed 12-month visit: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.43, 95%CI: 1.32-1.54; missed 3-year visit: aRR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.11-1.20). Maternal prenatal cannabis use was also associated with missing two or more well-child visits through 36 months of age (35.8% among cannabis users vs. 23.0% among non-users, Χ2p < .001). Educating pregnant individuals who use cannabis on the importance of well-child visits may benefit children's health and development.