Identifying Pregnant Women With Disabilities and Maternal and Newborn Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Pregnant women with disabilities are at higher risk of poor pregnancy and birth outcomes. Different methods for identifying disability may affect estimates of health disparities in this population. Objective: To compare pregnancy and birth outcomes among pregnant women using different ways of identifying maternal disability. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of linked vital records and maternal and newborn claims for Medicaid-insured live births from January 2010 to December 2014 in Texas. Data analysis was conducted from October 2023 to May 2024. Exposure: Births grouped into 5 maternal cohorts: no identified disability, disability benefits enrollment only, disability diagnostic code only, both benefits enrollment and a diagnostic code, and either disability benefits or a diagnostic code. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mode of delivery (cesarean) and severe maternal morbidity (SMM) were identified from maternal claims. Low birthweight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), and small for gestational age (SGA) were identified from birth certificates. Modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimators was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) for the association of each of the 5 outcomes with disability group status. Results: Among 921 218 births (mean [SD] maternal age at birth, 25.1 [5.7] years), 895 201 (97.2%) were to mothers with no disability, 6160 (0.7%) were to mothers enrolled in disability benefits only, 17 742 (1.9%) were to mothers with a disability diagnostic code only, 2115 (0.2%) were to mothers with both benefits enrollment and a disability code, and 26 017 (2.8%) were to mothers meeting either disability definition. Compared with those without disabilities, those with only disability diagnostic codes had the highest rates for cesarean delivery (306 589 births [34.3%] vs 7658 births [43.2%]), LBW (750 058 births [8.4%] vs 869 births [14.2%]), and PTB (92 807 births [10.4%] vs 977 births [15.9%]). Compared with those with no disability, the adjusted relative risks were highest in the diagnostic codes only group for cesarean delivery (aRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24), LBW (aRR, 1.77, 95% CI, 1.71-1.84), and PTB (aRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.62-1.74). The risk for SMM (aRR, 4.82; 95% CI, 3.96-5.86) and SGA (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66) were highest in those with both benefits enrollment and a disability code. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, disability was associated with adverse outcomes, regardless of definition. However, the burden of disparities was dependent on how disability was defined, suggesting that the assessment of disability-associated health risks should consider how disability is conceptualized.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».