U.S. Healthcare Provider Views and Practices Regarding Planned Birth Setting.

AbstractBackground: Little is known about U.S. healthcare provider views and practices regarding evidence, counseling, and shared decision-making about in-hospital versus out-of-hospital birth settings. METHODS: We conducted 19 in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews of eight obstetricians, eight midwives, and three pediatricians from across the United States. Interviews explored healthcare providers' interpretation of the current evidence and their personal and professional experiences with childbirth within the existing medical, ethical, and legal context in the United States. RESULTS: Themes emerged concerning risks and benefits, decision-making, and patient-provider power dynamics. Collectively, the narratives illuminated fundamental ideological tensions between in- and out-of-hospital providers arising from divergent assignment of value to described risks and benefits. The majority of physicians focused on U.S.-specific data demonstrating increased neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with delayed access to hospital-based interventions, thereby justifying hospital birth as the standard of care. By contrast, midwives emphasized data demonstrating fewer interventions and superior maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-income European countries, where out-of-hospital birth is more common for low-risk birthing people. A key gap in counseling was revealed, as no interviewees offered anticipatory counseling regarding birth setting options. Providers directly and indirectly illustrated the propensity for asymmetric power relations between birth providers and pregnant people, especially in hospital settings. CONCLUSIONS: The narratives highlight the common goal of optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes despite tensions arising from divergent prioritization of specific maternal and neonatal risks. Our findings suggest opportunities to foster collaboration and optimize outcomes via mutual respect and improved integration of care.

A Systematic Review of Vitamin D and Fibroids: Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Treatment.

Uterine fibroids are the most common tumor of reproductive-age women worldwide and cause significant morbidity in affected women. Vitamin D has emerged as a potential therapy for uterine fibroids based on experimental and epidemiologic evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of uterine fibroids and its efficacy for prevention and treatment of fibroids. A comprehensive search was conducted of Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to March 2022. English-language publications that evaluated vitamin D and uterine fibroids in humans, whether experimental or clinical, were considered. The search yielded 960 publications, and 89 publications met inclusion criteria: 23 preclinical studies, 25 clinical studies, and 41 review articles. Preclinical studies indicated that the vitamin D receptor was decreased in fibroid cells. Vitamin D treatment of fibroid cells decreased proliferation, extracellular matrix protein expression, and Wnt/ß-catenin signaling. Fourteen clinical studies (n = 3535 participants) assessed serum vitamin D level in women with ultrasound-proven fibroids, and all found an inverse correlation between serum vitamin D level and presence of fibroids. Five clinical studies (n = 472 patients) evaluated treatment of fibroids with vitamin D. Four of five studies showed vitamin D significantly inhibited fibroid growth. One pilot study (n = 109 patients) of vitamin D for secondary prevention of fibroids demonstrated smaller recurrent fibroids in the treated group. These studies provide evidence for vitamin D as a therapy for uterine fibroids and underscore the need for well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Fractional CO2 Laser Treatment Outcomes for Pediatric Hypertrophic Burn Scars.

Carbon dioxide ablative fractional laser (CO2-AFL) therapy has not been widely adopted in pediatric burn care given limited outcomes literature and no established guidelines on laser treatment protocols. We present our experience to further elucidate the clinical role of CO2-AFL therapy for pediatric hypertrophic burn scars. We conducted a prospective cohort study of pediatric burn patients undergoing CO2-AFL treatment of hypertrophic, symptomatic burn scars at a tertiary care regional burn center during a 2-year period. Scars were assessed before each treatment using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a validated, subjective, comprehensive scar assessment tool. We treated 49 pediatric patients for a total of 180 laser sessions. Burn severity was full thickness (63.6%) or deep partial thickness (47.7%). Observer-rated POSAS scores revealed statistically significant improvements in pigment, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area after one treatment with continued improvement until the last laser session. Patient-rated POSAS revealed statistically significant improvements in color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity after laser treatments. Total POSAS improved from 89.6 ± 17.5 to 76.6 ± 16.8 (P < .0001) after one treatment with further improvement to 69.2 ± 14.9 (P < .0001) at the final laser session. We found convincing evidence that CO2-AFL therapy improves hypertrophic burn scars on both patient- and observer-rated scales confirming statistical and clinical significance to both providers and families. These findings demonstrate that CO2-AFL can improve hypertrophic burn scars in pediatric patients providing a lower risk alternative to invasive therapies and a more immediate, efficacious alternative to more conservative scar treatments.