The Impact of Maternal Obesity and Excessive Gestational Weight Gain on Maternal and Infant Outcomes in Maine: Analysis of Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Results from 2000 to 2010.

The objective of this study is to understand the relationships between prepregnancy obesity and excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS) data from Maine for 2000-2010 were used to determine associations between demographic, socioeconomic, and health behavioral variables and maternal and infant outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on the independent variables of age, race, smoking, previous live births, marital status, education, BMI, income, rurality, alcohol use, and GWG. Dependent variables included maternal hypertension, premature birth, birth weight, infant admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and length of hospital stay of the infant. Excessive prepregnancy BMI and excessive GWG independently predicted maternal hypertension. A high prepregnancy BMI increased the risk of the infant being born prematurely, having a longer hospital stay, and having an excessive birth weight. Excessive GWG predicted a longer infant hospital stay and excessive birth weight. A low pregnancy BMI and a lower than recommended GWG were also associated with poor outcomes: prematurity, low birth weight, and an increased risk of the infant admitted to ICU. These findings support the importance of preconception care that promotes achievement of a healthy weight to enhance optimal reproductive outcomes.

11-year trends in pregnancy-related health indicators in Maine, 2000-2010.

The objective of this study is to understand health and demographic trends among mothers and infants in Maine relative to the goals of Healthy People 2020. Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS) data from Maine for 2000-2010 were used to determine yearly values of pregnancy-related variables. Means (for continuous variables) and percentages (for categorical variables) were calculated using the survey procedures in SAS. Linear trend analysis was applied with study year as the independent variable. The slope and significance of the trend were then calculated. Over the study period, new mothers in Maine became better educated but the fraction of households with incomes <$20,000/year remained stagnant. Maternal prepregnancy BMI increased. Average pregnancy weight gain decreased but the number of women whose pregnancy weight gain was within the recommended range was unchanged. The rates of smoking and alcohol consumption (before and during pregnancy) increased. The Caesarean section rate rose and the fraction of infants born premature (<37 wks gestation) or underweight (<2500 gms) remained unchanged. The fraction of infants who were breast-fed increased. These results suggest that, despite some positive trends, Maine faces significant challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 goals.

New options for child health surveillance by state health departments.

Until recently there were no child health surveillance instruments available to state health departments for children 1-14 years old. In recent years, several states have developed new surveillance instruments. This article includes information about examples of four types of child health surveys: (1) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) follow-back survey [phone-based in Colorado]; (2) Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) re-interviews [PRAMS-based in Rhode Island]; (3) elementary school child health survey combined with dental screening and physical measurements of height and weight [school-based in Maine]; and (4) freestanding elementary school survey [school-based in Oregon]. The PRAMS-based survey was moderate in expense but addressed only issues related to 2 year olds. The phone-based survey was the most expensive but addressed issues of children 1-14 years old. The school-based surveys were moderate in expense, logistically complex, and were least likely to provide robust generalizable data.

Abused women disclose partner interference with health care: an unrecognized form of battering.

BACKGROUND: Some providers observe that partners interfere with health care visits or treatment. There are no systematic investigations of the prevalence of or circumstances surrounding partner interference with health care and intimate partner violence (IPV). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether abused women report partner interference with their health care and to describe the co-occurring risk factors and health impact of such interference. DESIGN: A written survey of women attending health care clinics across 5 different medical departments (e.g., emergency, primary care, obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, addiction recovery) housed in 8 hospital and clinic sites in Metropolitan Boston. PARTICIPANTS: Women outpatients (N = 2,027) ranging in age, 59% White, 38% married, 22.6% born outside the U.S. MEASUREMENT: Questions from the Severity of Violence and Abuse Assessment Scale, the SF-36, and questions about demographics. RESULTS: One in 20 women outpatients (4.6%) reported that their partners prevented them from seeking or interfered with health care. Among women with past-year physical abuse (n = 276), 17% reported that a partner interfered with their health care in contrast to 2% of women without abuse (adjusted odds ratios [OR] = 7.5). Further adjusted risk markers for partner interference included having less than a high school education (OR = 3.2), being born outside the U.S. (OR = 2.0), and visiting the clinic with a man attending (OR = 1.9). Partner interference raised the odds of women having poor health (OR = 1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Partner interference with health care is a significant problem for women who are in abusive relationships and poses an obstacle to health care. Health care providers should be alert to signs of patient noncompliance or missed appointments as stemming from abusive partner control tactics.

Community preferences for health states associated with intimate partner violence.

BACKGROUND: One in 4 women is affected by intimate partner violence in her lifetime. This article reports on a cross-sectional survey to estimate community preferences for health states resulting from intimate partner violence. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of data from a convenience sample of 93 abused and 138 nonabused women (231 total) recruited for in-person interviews from hospital outpatient department waiting rooms in metropolitan Boston, Massachusetts. SF-12 data were converted to utilities to describe community-perspective preferences for health states associated with intimate partner violence. Linear regression analysis was used to explore the association between violence and utility while controlling for other health and demographic factors. RESULTS: Median utility for intimate partner violence was between 0.58 and 0.63 on a scale of 0 (equivalent to death) to 1.0 (equivalent to optimal health), with a range from 0.64 to 0.66 for less severe violence to 0.53 to 0.62 for more severe violence. The data do not reveal whether violence itself is responsible for lower utility or whether a constellation of factors contributes to disutility experienced by women victims of abuse. DISCUSSION: The utility of health states experienced by women exposed to intimate partner violence is substantially diminished compared with optimal health and even other health conditions. These values quantify the substantial negative health impact of the experience of intimate partner violence in terms that allow comparison across diseases. They can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the benefits and potential returns from resources allocated to violence prevention and intervention efforts.

Assessing intimate partner violence in health care settings leads to women's receipt of interventions and improved health.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether disclosure of violence to health care providers and the receipt of interventions relate to women's exit from an abusive relationship and to their improved health. METHODS: A volunteer sample of 132 women outpatients who described intimate partner violence during the preceding year were recruited from multiple hospital departments and community agencies in suburban and urban metropolitan Boston. Through in-person interviews, women provided information on demographics, past year exposure to violence, past year receipt of interventions, and whether they disclosed partner violence to their health care provider. They also described their past month health status with the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and further questions. RESULTS: Of the 132 women, 44% had exited the abusive relationship. Among those who were no longer with their partner, 55% received a domestic violence intervention (e.g. advocacy, shelter, restraining order), compared with 37% of those who remained with their partner. Talking to their health care provider about the abuse increased women's likelihood of using an intervention (odds ratio [OR]=3.9). Those who received interventions were more likely to subsequently exit (OR=2.6) and women no longer with the abuser reported better physical health based on SF-12 summary scores (p=0.05) than women who stayed. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers may make positive contributions to women's access to intimate partner violence services. Intimate partner violence interventions relate to women's reduced exposure to violence and better health.

Intimate partner violence and patient screening across medical specialties.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) across different medical specialties and health care sites in one metropolitan area, describe demographic characteristics of women with abusive partners, characterize health care provider assessment of IPV, and describe patient characteristics associated with health care assessment for partner violence. METHODS: Women (N = 2,465) completed written surveys about partner violence and health care screening for violence in the waiting rooms of five types of health care settings (obstetrician/gynecologist office, emergency department, primary care office, pediatrics, and addiction recovery) across eight different hospitals in the greater Boston area. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 62%. The 12-month prevalence rate of IPV was 14%, with 37% disclosing lifetime prevalence. The highest rates of recent IPV were disclosed in the hospital-based addiction recovery unit (36%) and in emergency departments (17%). Adjusted demographic risk characteristics for IPV included age (younger than 24 years), low income, and unemployment. Health care providers were more likely to discuss IPV with low-income women than with middle- or high-income women but were no more likely to assess violence within the youngest age group. Among women who disclosed abuse to their health care provider, 50% reported receiving direct interventions or services as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Using the same instrument and protocol, different rates of IPV and detection of IPV were found across medical departments, with the highest rates in emergency departments and an addiction recovery program. It is especially important for assessment of IPV to include young women who present to medical departments.

Adverse health behaviors and the detection of partner violence by clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health problem in the United States, and victims are commonly encountered in medical settings. Many barriers exist to clinician-initiated screening for IPV. However, smoking and problem drinking are conditions that clinicians commonly screen for and both have been strongly associated with IPV in prior studies. By estimating the predicted probability of 12-month and lifetime IPV for a given patient based on whether she presents with these conditions, our study gives clinicians information that can help them identify patients at risk for IPV. METHODS: A cross-sectional written patient survey was administered to 2386 female patients at 8 different health care settings in the Greater Boston (Mass) metropolitan area. The probabilities of 12-month and lifetime IPV were estimated based on the women's self-report of smoking and drinking behaviors. RESULTS: A woman who neither smoked nor engaged in problem drinking had a 10% probability of IPV in the preceding 12 months and a 39% chance of IPV in her lifetime. Smoking increased the probability to 14% and 49%, respectively. Problem drinking resulted in a doubling of the predicted probability of 12-month IPV to 21%, with a lifetime probability of 43%. When both conditions were present, the effects were additive, with a woman having a 27% probability of experiencing IPV in the preceding 12 months and 54% chance of IPV in her lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of smoking or problem drinking should raise clinicians' suspicion for IPV. This paradigm should not replace direct questioning about IPV but may aid in the detection of abuse in patient populations.