Female Medicaid Enrollees with Disabilities and Discussions with Health Care Providers About Contraception/Family Planning and Sexually Transmitted Infections

The Right to Sexuality, Reproductive Health, and Found a Family for People with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

Although sexuality, reproductive health, and starting a family are human rights that should be guaranteed for all citizens, they are still taboo issues for people with intellectual disability (ID), and even more so for women with ID. This paper systematically reviews the current qualitative and quantitative evidence on the rights of people with ID in regard to Articles 23 (right to home and family) and 25 (health, specifically sexual and reproductive health) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). A systematic review of the current literature, following PRISMA 2020, was carried out in ERIC, PsychInfo, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and Web of Science. In all, 151 articles were included for review. The studies were categorized into six themes: attitudes, intimate relationships, sexual and reproductive health, sexuality and sex education, pregnancy, and parenthood. There are still many barriers that prevent people with ID from fully exercising their right to sexuality, reproductive health, and parenthood, most notably communicative and attitudinal barriers. These findings underline the need to continue advancing the rights of people with ID, relying on Schalock and Verdurgo's eight-dimensional quality of life model as the ideal conceptual framework for translating such abstract concepts into practice and policy.

Risk of adverse neonatal outcomes among pregnant women with disabilities

BACKGROUND

To compare risk of neonatal morbidities between women with and without documented disability and to evaluate mediation of these associations by pre-term birth and caesarean delivery.

METHODS

Using data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (2002-2008; n = 223 385), we evaluated risk of 22 neonatal outcomes among singleton deliveries using ICD-9 codes to define physical (n = 1733), sensory (n = 250) and intellectual disability (n = 91). Adjusted relative risk (aRR) was estimated for each outcome among each category of disability, and among women with any disability using Poisson regression models with robust variance. Causal mediation methods evaluated pre-term birth and caesarean delivery as mediators.

RESULTS

Compared with no disability, neonates of women with any disability had higher risk of nearly all neonatal outcomes, including pre-term birth (aRR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.62-1.94), small for gestational age (SGA) (aRR = 1.25; CI 1.11-1.41), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (aRR = 1.70; CI 1.54-1.87), seizures (aRR = 2.81; CI 1.54-5.14), cardiomyopathy (aRR = 4.92; CI 1.15-20.95), respiratory morbidities (aRR ranged from 1.33-2.08) and death (aRR = 2.31; CI 1.38-3.87). Women with disabilities were more likely to have a maternal indication for pre-term delivery, including pre-pregnancy diabetes (aRR = 3.80; CI 2.84-5.08), chronic hypertension (aRR = 1.46; CI 0.95-2.25) and severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia (aRR = 1.47; CI 1.19-1.81). Increased risk varied but was generally consistent across all disability categories. Most outcomes were partially mediated by pre-term birth, except SGA, and heightened risk remained for NICU admissions, respiratory distress syndrome, anaemia and a composite of any adverse outcome (aRR = 1.21; CI 1.10-1.32).

CONCLUSION

Neonates of women with disabilities were at higher risk of a broad range of adverse neonatal outcomes, including death. Risks were not fully explained by pre-term birth.

Reproductive and pregnancy health care for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities face poorer reproductive and pregnancy outcomes partially due to health care inequity. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review of reproductive and pregnancy related health care among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed three databases for keywords pertaining to pregnancy, reproductive health, and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted full text. We synthesised included papers, identifying common themes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six papers met review criteria. Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities had lower fertility rates and were less likely to receive adequate sexual education compared to peers. While most women received prenatal care, uptake was lower and received later than women without intellectual and developmental disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancy-related health care is often lacking for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. There are gaps inhibiting our understanding which prevents action to reduce health disparities.

Preconception Health Characteristics of Women with Disabilities in Ontario: A Population-Based, Cross-Sectional Study

Background: There is growing recognition that preconception health, defined as the health of all reproductive-age individuals, impacts reproductive and perinatal outcomes. Although women with disabilities are becoming pregnant at increasing rates, little is known about their preconception health. Our objective was to describe the preconception health characteristics of women with physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities and compare these characteristics with women without disabilities. Materials and Methods: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of 15- to 44-year-old women with physical (n = 253,184), sensory (n = 93,170), intellectual/developmental (n = 8,986), and multiple disabilities (n = 29,868), and women without these disabilities (n = 2,307,822) using Ontario health administrative data (2017-2018). We described preconception health variables related to social determinants of health, physical health status, psychosocial well-being, history of assault, medication use, and continuity of primary care and compared women with and without disabilities in crude and age-standardized analyses, with standardized differences >0.10 indicating clinically meaningful results. Results: Women with physical, sensory, intellectual/developmental, and multiple disabilities had poorer preconception health than women without disabilities. Disparities were pronounced for physical health status, psychosocial well-being, use of potentially teratogenic medications, and history of assault. Of all groups, women with intellectual/developmental disabilities had the greatest disparities. Conclusion: Further research is needed to identify contributors to poor preconception health among women with disabilities and to develop tailored preconception health interventions to meet their unique needs and experiences.