The time is now: addressing implicit bias in obstetrics and gynecology education

Educational guidelines on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics biases in medical education

A commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in medical education requires addressing both explicit and implicit biases based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics and the intersectionality with other identities. Heterosexism and heteronormative attitudes contribute to health and healthcare disparities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual individuals. Student, trainee, and faculty competencies in medical education curricula regarding the care of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual patients and those who are gender nonconforming or born with differences of sex development allow for better understanding and belonging within the clinical learning environment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning, intersex, asexual learners and educators. The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics issued a call to action to achieve a future free from racism and bias through inclusivity in obstetrics and gynecology education and healthcare, which led to the creation of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Guidelines Task Force. The task force initially addressed racism, racial- and ethnicity-based bias, and discrimination in medical education and additionally identified other groups that are subject to bias and discrimination, including sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristic identities, persons with disabilities, and individuals with various religious and spiritual practices. In this scholarly perspective, the authors expand on previously developed guidelines to address sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics bias, heterosexism, and heteronormative attitudes in obstetrics and gynecology educational products, materials, and clinical learning environments to improve access and equitable care to vulnerable individuals of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual community.

The Role of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospitalist in the Changing Landscape of Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice

As the field of obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) evolves, the role of the Ob/Gyn hospitalists has become increasingly integrated into the framework of the specialty. Ob/Gyn hospitalists take on essential responsibilities as competent clinicians in emergent situations and as hospital leaders: maintaining standard of care, collaborating with community practitioners and care teams, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and contributing to educational initiatives. The impact of the Ob/Gyn hospitalists is positive for patients, fellow clinicians, and institutions. As the field continues to change and the Ob/Gyn hospitalist develops as an established subspecialty, further research evaluating its role remains essential.

Pregnancy outcomes of forced migrants in the Netherlands: A national registry-based study

Background

The rise of global forced migration urges healthcare systems to respond to the needs of forced migrants (FM) during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, comprehensive data on the health outcomes of pregnant FM in destination countries remain scarce. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancy in this specific migrant population on a national scale in the Netherlands and to explore differences from other populations.

Methods

The Dutch perinatal registry was linked to national migration data to analyze pregnancy outcomes in FM (2014-2019), using non-migrants (NM) and resident migrants (RM) as reference populations. We reported outcome rates (% [95 % CI]) for a range of primary and secondary pregnancy outcomes. Primary outcomes included perinatal mortality, small for gestational age infants (SGA), preterm birth, and emergency cesarean section (CS), for which we also calculated the crude relative risk (RR [95 % CI]) of FM compared to NM and RM. In addition, we conducted binary logistic regression analyses on primary outcomes to report adjusted odds ratios (aORs [95 % CIs]) while controlling for multiple births, maternal age and parity.

Findings

Compared to the NM group, the FM group had increased risks of perinatal mortality (RR 1.50 [95 % CI 1.20-1.88]), SGA (1.65 [1.59-1.71], and emergency CS (1.19 [1.13-1.25]). Compared to RM, FM still had elevated risks of SGA (1.17 [1.13-1.22]). In contrast, the risk of preterm birth was lower in FM than in NM (0.81 [0.76-0.86]) and RM (0.83 [0.77-0.88]). These differences were confirmed in the adjusted analysis. Differences in secondary outcomes included higher rates of late antenatal care in FM (29.4 % [28.5-30.3]) than in NM (6.7 % [6.6-6.9]) and RM (15.5 % [15.1-15.9]). Rates of planned CS were similarly elevated (14.3 % [95 % CI 13.7-14.8] versus 7.·8 % [7.7-7.8] and 9.6 % [9.5-9.7]), while FM had lower rates of postpartum hemorrhage (3.9 % [3.6-4.2]) versus 6.8 % [6.8-6.9] and 5.7 % [5.6-5.9]).

Conclusion

This first Dutch registry-based study demonstrated increased risks of multiple, though not all, adverse pregnancy outcomes in forced migrants. Our results emphasize the imperative to further unravel and address migration-related disparities, dismantle structural barriers to health among forced migrants, and improve the inclusivity of data systems. Collaborative policy, clinical practice, and research efforts are essential to ensure equitable care for every individual, regardless of migration status.

Florida Doulas' Perspectives on Their Role in Reducing Maternal Morbidity and Health Disparities

BACKGROUND

Maternal mortality rates continue to rise in the United States. Considerable racial disparities exist, as Black women face two to three times the risks of dying from pregnancy-related complications compared with white women. Doulas have been associated with improved maternal outcomes. This study aimed to 1) investigate Florida doulas' perspectives and influence on severe maternal morbidity/mortality and related inequities, as well as 2) identify opportunities for actionable change. The social ecological model, which acknowledges how individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy factors intersect, informed our analysis.

METHODS

This qualitative study included seven online in-depth interviews and seven focus groups with doulas (N = 31) in Florida. Interview guides investigated how doulas perceive their role in the context of a) maternal morbidity and b) health disparities.

RESULTS

Doulas associated maternal morbidity and health disparities with Black pregnant people, identifying racism as a major contributor. Doulas identified their role as one that most often intersects with the individual and interpersonal levels of the social ecological model. Doulas report providing positive social surveillance and emotional support, contributing education and resources, and championing for advocacy in health care settings. Actionable steps recommended by doulas to further mitigate health disparities include the integration of implicit bias training into doula certification programs, increasing public health funding to bolster a doula workforce that can serve racial and ethnic communities, establishing doula-hospital partnerships to improve relational communication, providing tailored resources for clients featuring representative messaging, and doulas' continued engagement in positive social surveillance of their clients.

CONCLUSIONS

Doulas perceived their role as integral to mitigating maternal morbidity and health disparities, particularly in the context of supporting and advocating for birthing persons on all levels of the social ecological model. Equitable access to doulas for low-income and/or minoritized populations may be one key strategy to improve maternal health equity.

Risk of Severe Maternal Morbidity Associated with Maternal Comorbidity Burden and Social Vulnerability

OBJECTIVE

 We evaluated the associations of the obstetric comorbidity index (OB-CMI) and social vulnerability index (SVI) with severe maternal morbidity (SMM).

STUDY DESIGN

 Multicenter retrospective cohort study of all patients who delivered (gestational age > 20 weeks) within a university health system from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. OB-CMI scores were assigned to patients using clinical documentation and diagnosis codes. SVI scores, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), were assigned to patients based on census tracts. The primary outcome was SMM, based on the 21 CDC indicators. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to model the odds of SMM as a function of OB-CMI and SVI while adjusting for maternal race and ethnicity, insurance type, preferred language, and parity.

RESULTS

 In total, 73,518 deliveries were analyzed. The prevalence of SMM was 4% (n = 2,923). An association between OB-CMI and SMM was observed (p < 0.001), where OB-CMI score categories of 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 were associated with higher odds of SMM compared with an OB-CMI score category of 0. In the adjusted model, there was evidence of an interaction between OB-CMI and maternal race and ethnicity (p = 0.01). After adjusting for potential confounders, including SVI, non-Hispanic Black patients had the highest odds of SMM among patients with an OB-CMI score category of 1 and ≥4 compared with non-Hispanic White patients with an OB-CMI score of 0 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.08-3.66 and aOR = 10.07, 95% CI: 8.42-12.03, respectively). The association between SVI and SMM was not significant on adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

 OB-CMI was significantly associated with SMM, with higher score categories associated with higher odds of SMM. A significant interaction between OB-CMI and maternal race and ethnicity was identified, revealing racial disparities in the odds of SMM within each higher OB-CMI score category. SVI was not associated with SMM after adjusting for confounders.

KEY POINTS

· OB-CMI was significantly associated with SMM.. · Racial disparities were seen within each OB-CMI score group.. · SVI was not associated with SMM on adjusted analysis..

Obstetric violence is a misnomer

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Reconsidering the use of urine drug testing in reproductive settings

The urine drug test is ubiquitous within reproductive healthcare settings. Although the test can have evidence-based use for a patient and clinician, in practice, it is often applied in ways that are driven by bias and stigma, do not correctly inform decisions about clinical aspects of patient care, and cause devastating ripple effects through social and legal systems. This paper proposes a framework of guiding questions to prompt reflection on (1) the question the clinical team is trying to answer, (2) whether a urine drug test answers the question at hand, (3) how testing benefits compare with the associated risks, (4) a more effective tool for clinical decision-making if the urine drug test does not meet the standards for use, and (5) individual and institutional biases affecting decision-making. We demonstrate the use of this framework using 3 common uses of the urine drug test within abortion care and labor and delivery settings.

The APGO Academic Scholars and Leaders Program: Supporting obstetrics and gynecology faculty development for 20 years

PURPOSE

We evaluate the impacts of the Academic Scholars and Leaders (ASL) Program in achieving 3 key objectives: treatment of education as a scholarly pursuit, improved education leadership, and career advancement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report on the twenty-year experience of the ASL Program-a national, longitudinal faculty development program of the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology (APGO) covering instruction, curriculum development/program evaluation, assessment/feedback, leadership/professional development, and educational scholarship. We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of ASL participants who graduated in 1999-2017. We sought evidence of impact using Kirkpatrick's 4-level framework. Descriptive quantitative data were analyzed, and open-ended comments were organized using content analysis.

RESULTS

64% (260) of graduates responded. The vast majority (96%) felt the program was extremely worthwhile (Kirkpatrick level 1). Graduates cited learned skills they had applied to their work, most commonly curricular development (48%) and direct teaching (38%) (Kirkpatrick 2&3 A). Since participation, 82% of graduates have held institutional, education-focused leadership roles (Kirkpatrick 3B). Nineteen percent had published the ASL project as a manuscript and 46% additional education papers (Kirkpatrick 3B).

CONCLUSIONS

The APGO ASL program has been associated with successful outcomes in treatment of education as a scholarly pursuit, education leadership, and career advancement. Going forward, APGO is considering ways to diversify the ASL community and to support educational research training.