Differences in Healthcare Utilization in Women with and without Inflammatory Bowel Diseases During Preconception, Pregnancy and Postpartum: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Compared to those without inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], women with IBD may have increased healthcare utilization during pregnancy and postpartum, though this remains to be confirmed. We aimed to characterize this healthcare use between these groups. METHODS: Administrative databases were accessed to identify women [aged 18-55 years] with and without IBD who had a live, singleton pregnancy between 2003 and 2018. Differences in emergency department [ED] visits, hospitalizations and prenatal care during 12 months preconception, pregnancy and 12 months postpartum were characterized. Multivariable negative binomial regression was performed to report incidence rate ratios [IRRs] with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]. Covariates included maternal age at conception, location of residence, socioeconomic status and maternal comorbidity. RESULTS: In total, 6163 women with IBD [9158 pregnancies] and 1091 013 women without IBD [1729 411 pregnancies] were included. Women with IBD were more likely to visit the ED [IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18] and be hospitalized [IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.21] during pregnancy, and visit the ED [IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27] and be hospitalized [IRR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32] during postpartum. On unadjusted analysis, women with IBD were more likely to be hospitalized for venous thromboembolic events. There was no difference in healthcare use in preconception. Finally, women with IBD also had a greater number of prenatal visits during pregnancy and were more likely to receive a first-trimester prenatal visit. CONCLUSION: Women with IBD have increased healthcare utilization during pregnancy and postpartum. Efforts should be made to increase ambulatory care access during this period, which in turn may reduce this health-services utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".