Cesarean birth and adverse birth outcomes among sub-populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

BACKGROUND: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are at higher risk than their non-DHH counterparts of experiencing adverse birth outcomes. There is a lack of research focusing on social, linguistic, and medical factors related to being DHH which may identify groups of DHH people who experience more inequity. OBJECTIVE: Examine difference in prevalence of cesarean and adverse birth outcomes among diverse sub-groups of DHH people. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHH birthing people in the U.S. who gave birth within the past 10 years. The sample was predominantly white, college educated, and married. We assessed cesarean birth and three adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, and NICU admission post-delivery. DHH-specific variables were genetic etiology of hearing loss, preferred language (i.e., American Sign Language, English, or bilingual), severity of hearing loss, age of onset of hearing loss, and self-reported quality of perinatal care communication. We estimated prevalence, 95 % confidence intervals, and unadjusted prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of our sample reported a cesarean birth. Overall, there were no significant differences in prevalence across the outcome variables with respect to preferred language, genetic etiology, severity, and age of onset. Poorer perinatal care communication quality was associated with higher prevalence of preterm birth (PR = 2.37) and NICU admission (PR = 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no evidence supporting differences in obstetric outcomes among DHH birthing people across medical factors related to deafness. Findings support the important role of communication access for DHH people in healthcare environments.

Development and psychometric validation of the Pandemic-Related Traumatic Stress Scale for children and adults.

To assess the public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, investigators from the National Institutes of Health Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) research program developed the Pandemic-Related Traumatic Stress Scale (PTSS). Based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) acute stress disorder symptom criteria, the PTSS is designed for adolescent (13-21 years) and adult self-report and caregiver-report on 3-12-year-olds. To evaluate psychometric properties, we used PTSS data collected between April 2020 and August 2021 from non-pregnant adult caregivers (n = 11,483), pregnant/postpartum individuals (n = 1,656), adolescents (n = 1,795), and caregivers reporting on 3-12-year-olds (n = 2,896). We used Mokken scale analysis to examine unidimensionality and reliability, Pearson correlations to evaluate relationships with other relevant variables, and analyses of variance to identify regional, age, and sex differences. Mokken analysis resulted in a moderately strong, unidimensional scale that retained nine of the original 10 items. We detected small to moderate positive associations with depression, anxiety, and general stress, and negative associations with life satisfaction. Adult caregivers had the highest PTSS scores, followed by adolescents, pregnant/postpartum individuals, and children. Caregivers of younger children, females, and older youth had higher PTSS scores compared to caregivers of older children, males, and younger youth, respectively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Perinatal Outcomes during versus Prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Role of Maternal Depression and Perceived Stress: A Report from the ECHO Program.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on perinatal outcomes while accounting for maternal depression or perceived stress and to describe COVID-specific stressors, including changes in prenatal care, across specific time periods of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Data of dyads from 41 cohorts from the National Institutes of Health Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes Program (N = 2,983) were used to compare birth outcomes before and during the pandemic (n = 2,355), and a partially overlapping sample (n = 1,490) responded to a COVID-19 questionnaire. Psychosocial stress was defined using prenatal screening for depression and perceived stress. Propensity-score matching and general estimating equations with robust variance estimation were used to estimate the pandemic's effect on birth outcomes. RESULTS: Symptoms of depression and perceived stress during pregnancy were similar prior to and during the pandemic, with nearly 40% of participants reporting mild to severe stress, and 24% reporting mild depression to severe depression. Gestations were shorter during the pandemic (B = - 0.33 weeks, p = 0.025), and depression was significantly associated with shortened gestation (B = - 0.02 weeks, p = 0.015) after adjustment. Birth weights were similar (B = - 28.14 g, p = 0.568), but infants born during the pandemic had slightly larger birth weights for gestational age at delivery than those born before the pandemic (B = 0.15 z-score units, p = 0.041). More women who gave birth early in the pandemic reported being moderately or extremely distressed about changes to their prenatal care and delivery (45%) compared with those who delivered later in the pandemic. A majority (72%) reported somewhat to extremely negative views of the impact of COVID-19 on their life. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort, we detected no effect of COVID-19 on prenatal depression or perceived stress. However, experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic in pregnancy was associated with decreases in gestational age at birth, as well as distress about changes in prenatal care early in the pandemic. KEY POINTS: · COVID-19 was associated with shortened gestations.. · Depression was associated with shortened gestations.. · However, stress during the pandemic remained unchanged.. · Most women reported negative impacts of the pandemic..

Postpartum Hospital Readmissions Among Massachusetts Women Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.

Objectives: Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) women are at a higher risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes compared with other women. However, little is known about postpartum outcomes among DHH women. The objective was to compare the risk of postpartum hospitalizations for DHH compared with non-DHH women and the leading indications for postpartum admissions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from the 1998-2017 Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System and identified 3,546 singleton deliveries to DHH women and 1,381,439 singleton deliveries to non-DHH women. We used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the first hospital admission and ≥2 hospital admissions between DHH and non-DHH women within 1-42, 43-90, and 91-365 days after delivery. Results: DHH women had a higher risk for any hospital admissions across all periods (hazard ratios [HR] = 1.84; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.46-2.34 within 1-42 days; HR = 2.76; 95%CI 1.99-3.83 within 43-90 days; and HR = 3.10; 95%CI 2.66-3.60 91-365 days) after childbirth compared with non-DHH women. They had an almost seven times higher risk for repeated hospital admissions within 43-90 days (HR = 6.84; 95%CI 1.66-28.21) and nearly four times higher the risk within 91-365 days (HR = 3.63; 95%CI 2.00-6.59) after delivery compared with non-DHH women. The leading indications for readmission among DHH women included: conditions complicating the puerperium/hemorrhage and soft tissues disorders. Conclusion: Compared with other women, DHH women had significantly higher readmissions across all postpartum periods and for repeated admissions >42 days. Leading postpartum indications were distinct from those of non-DHH women.

Contraceptive Provision and Quality Care Measures for Insured Individuals in Massachusetts Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contraceptive provision and contraceptive care quality measures for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and compare these outcomes to those individuals who are not. METHODS: We conducted a claims analysis with data from the 2014 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database. Among premenopausal enrollees aged 15-44, we determined provision of any contraception (yes or no) and provision by contraception type: prescription contraception (pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm), long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) devices, and permanent contraception (tubal sterilization). We compared these outcomes by deaf or hard-of-hearing status (yes or no). The odds of contraceptive provision were calculated with regression models adjusted for age, Medicaid insurance, a preventive health visit, and deaf or hard-of-hearing status. We calculated contraceptive care quality measures, per the U.S. Office of Population Health, as the percentage of enrollees who used: 1) LARC methods or 2) most effective or moderately effective methods (tubal sterilization, pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm). RESULTS: We identified 1,171,838 enrollees at risk for pregnancy; 13,400 (1.1%) were deaf or hard of hearing. Among individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing, 31.4% were provided contraception (23.5% prescription contraception, 5.4% LARC, 0.7% tubal sterilization). Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96) than individuals who were not deaf or hard of hearing. The percentage of individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing who received most effective or moderately effective methods was less than that for individuals who were not (24.2% vs 26.3%, P<.001). There were no differences in provision of LARC or permanent contraception by deaf and hard-of-hearing status. CONCLUSION: Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception than individuals who were not; factors underlying this pattern need to be examined. Provision of LARC or permanent contraception did not differ by deaf or hard-of-hearing status. These findings should be monitored and compared with data from states with different requirements for contraceptive coverage.

The vaginal microbiota, high-risk human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cytology: results from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the vaginal microbiota, high-risk human papillomavirus infection, and abnormal cervical cytology has not been well characterized. Our objective was to characterize the vaginal microbiota in a stratified random sample of women from a population-based study in Appalachia. METHODS: We analyzed a random sample of 308 women in the Community Access, Resources and Education: Project 3 study across 16 clinics in Ohio and West Virginia. Using Illumina MiSeq sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons, we characterized the vaginal microbiota among (I) 109 women randomly chosen with abnormal cervical cytology (i.e., the majority were atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (n=55) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (n=45) while n=6 were high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and n=3 were atypical glandular cells); (II) 110 high-risk human papillomavirus infection only without cytologic abnormality; and (III) 89 women from a stratified random sample without cytologic abnormalities (negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy or any human papillomavirus infection). Among the women with abnormal cervical cytology (n=109), 80 had human papillomavirus infection, the majority of which were positive for a high-risk type (n=61). RESULTS: Nearly all of the women were non-Hispanic White (94.5%), and the mean age was 26 (IQR=21-39) years. Women with abnormal cervical cytology or who were HPV+ were more likely to have a diverse vaginal microbiota characterized by higher Gardnerella vaginalis relative abundance, compared to women without cytologic abnormalities whose communities were more likely to be Lactobacillus spp. dominant (P<0.04). Women without cytologic abnormalities had a higher prevalence of L. iners dominated communities than women with abnormal cervical cytology and HR HPV+ respectively (P<0.04), and L. gasseri relative abundance was differentially greater among these women compared to women with abnormal cervical cytology or who were high-risk HPV+ (Linear discriminant analysis effect size =4.17; P=0.0009). After adjustment for age, white race, current smoking, and ≥2 male partners in the last year, however, we did not detect differences in the vaginal microbiota community states across the three outcome groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to women without cytologic abnormalities, the vaginal microbiota of women with abnormal cervical cytology or who were high-risk HPV+ were characterized by a diverse community with increased relative abundance of G. vaginalis and reduced relative abundance of L. gasseri. However, these differences were attenuated after adjustment for other factors. Further study and validation of these differences for prognostic use is warranted.

Environmental Exposure History and Vulvodynia Risk: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for vulvodynia continue to be elusive. We evaluated the association between past environmental exposures and the presence of vulvodynia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The history of 28 lifetime environmental exposures was queried in the longitudinal population-based Woman-to-Woman Health Study on the 24-month follow-up survey. Relationships between these and vulvodynia case status were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 1585 women completed the 24-month survey, the required covariate responses, and questions required for case status assessment. Screening positive as a vulvodynia case was associated with history of exposures to home-sprayed chemicals (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides-odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-3.58, p < 0.0001), home rodent poison and mothballs (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.25-2.09, p < 0.001), working with solvents and paints (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.68-3.70, p < 0.0001), working as a housekeeper/maid (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.42-3.00, p < 0.0001), working as a manicurist/hairdresser (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14-3.53, p < 0.05), and working at a dry cleaning facility (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08-4.19, p < 0.05). When classified into nine individual environmental exposure categories and all included in the same model, significant associations remained for four categories (home-sprayed chemicals, home rodent poison or mothballs, paints and solvents, and working as a housekeeper). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary evaluation suggests a positive association between vulvodynia and the reported history of exposures to a number of household and work-related environmental toxins. Further investigation of timing and dose of environmental exposures, relationship to clinical course, and treatment outcomes is warranted.

Use of Reversible Contraceptive Methods Among U.S. Women with Physical or Sensory Disabilities.

CONTEXT: Women with disabilities experience a higher rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes than women without disabilities. Preventing or delaying pregnancy when that is the best choice for a woman is a critical strategy to reducing pregnancy-related disparities, yet little is known about current contraceptive use among women with disabilities. METHODS: A cohort of 545 reproductive-age women with physical disabilities (i.e., difficulty walking, climbing, dressing or bathing) or sensory disabilities (i.e., difficulty with vision or hearing) was identified from among participants in the 2011-2013 National Survey of Family Growth. Those at risk for unplanned pregnancy were categorized by whether they were using highly effective reversible contraceptive methods (IUD, implant), moderately effective ones (pill, patch, ring, injectable), less effective ones (condoms, withdrawal, spermicides, diaphragm, natural family planning) or no method. Multinomial regression was conducted to examine the association between disability and type of contraceptive used. RESULTS: Some 39% of women with disabilities were at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and 27% of those at risk were not using contraceptives. The presence of disability was associated with decreased odds of using highly effective methods or moderately effective methods, rather than less effective ones (odds ratio, 0.6 for each), but had no association with using no method. CONCLUSION: There is a significant need to reduce contraceptive disparities related to physical or sensory disabilities. Future research should explore the extent to which contraceptive use differs by type and severity of disability, as well as identify contextual factors that contribute to any identified differences.

Female sterilization is more common among women with physical and/or sensory disabilities than women without disabilities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Female sterilization accounts for 50% of all contraceptive use in the U.S. The extent to which U.S. women with physical and/or sensory disabilities have undergone female sterilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the prevalence of sterilization for women with physical/sensory disabilities, and compare this to the prevalence for women without disabilities. We also compared use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods between women with and without disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2013, a population-based survey of U.S. women aged 15-44. Bivariate comparisons between women with and without disabilities by female sterilization and LARC use were conducted using chi-square tests. Using logistic regression, we estimated the odds of female sterilization based upon disability status. RESULTS: Women with physical/sensory disabilities accounted for 9.3% of the total sample (N = 4966). Among women with disabilities only, 28.2% had undergone female sterilization, representing 1.2 million women nationally. LARC use was lower among women with disabilities than those without disabilities (5.4%, 9.3%, respectively, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, insurance, marital status, parity, and self-reported health, women with disabilities had higher odds of sterilization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: The odds of female sterilization is higher among women with physical/sensory disabilities than those without disabilities. Future research is necessary to understand factors contributing to this finding, including possible underutilization of LARC methods.

State breastfeeding worksite statutes. breastfeeding rates and. .

BACKGROUND: State worksite breastfeeding statutes are thought to play a role in increasing rates of breastfeeding duration, which remain below Healthy People 2010 goals. As of 2010 24 states including the District of Columbia had such worksite statutes. Of these only 18 required both break time and a site. This preliminary analysis assessed if infants born in states with worksite breastfeeding statutes had longer breastfeeding duration. METHODS: Using the 2009 National Immunization Survey we analyzed infants comparing breastfeeding duration at 6 months with type of worksite breastfeeding statute in place, while adjusting for year enacted and other state characteristics (years since founding of state breastfeeding coalition, breastfeeding supportive hospital practices). Other covariates included maternal and infant characteristics. Only those infants whose mothers were at least 18 years old and who had not changed state of residence since birth were included (n=16,145). RESULTS: Although requiring a site and/or break time for breastfeeding increased the likelihood of breastfeeding at 6 months (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.35; p=0.002), after accounting for other factors this relationship remained positive but was not significant (adjusted odd ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.24). Because all mothers, not just those in or returning to the workforce, were included in the analysis this relationship could be underestimated. Breastfeeding at 6 months was associated with being from a state that had had a breastfeeding coalition for a longer period of time (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.49; p<0001). CONCLUSIONS: State worksite breastfeeding statutes alone may not directly affect breastfeeding duration. Analysis of breastfeeding duration using the multiple levels of the social-ecological model is a potentially useful approach to understanding the impact of state breastfeeding statutes. The impact of state breastfeeding coalitions warrants further study.