Differences in Prenatal Care by Presence and Type of Maternal Disability

Preconception health risks by presence and type of disability among U.S. women

BACKGROUND

Poor preconception health may contribute to adverse perinatal outcomes among women with disabilities. While prior research has found higher prevalence of preconception health risks among women with versus without disabilities, existing U.S. studies have not assessed how preconception health risks may differ by disability type. Understanding such differences is relevant for informing and targeting efforts to improve health opportunities and optimize pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study examined preconception health in relation to disability type among reproductive-age women in the United States.

METHODS

We analyzed 2016-2019 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to estimate the prevalence of 19 preconception health risk among non-pregnant women 18-44 years of age. We used modified Poisson regression to compare women with different types of disability to non-disabled women. Disability categories included: 1) hearing difficulty only; 2) vision difficulty only; 3) physical/mobility difficulty only; 4) cognitive difficulty only; 5) multiple or complex disabilities (including limitations in self-care or independent living activities). Multivariable analyses adjusted for other sociodemographic characteristics such as age and marital status.

RESULTS

Women with each disability type experienced a higher prevalence of indicators associated with poor preconception health compared to women with no disabilities. The number and extent of health risks varied substantially by disability type. Women with cognitive disabilities and women with multiple or complex disabilities experienced the greatest risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing the specific preconception health risks experienced by women with different types of disabilities may help reduce adverse perinatal outcomes for disabled women and their infants.

Perinatal health framework for people with intellectual disability

We propose a framework for guiding research on perinatal health in people with intellectual disability (ID). We developed this framework based on the perinatal health framework for people with physical disabilities, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities conceptual framework of human functioning, disability reproductive justice framework, trauma-informed care, and socio-ecological model. The framework reflects health outcomes of birthing people with ID and their infants that result from interactions of factors across the life course at policy (health, social, and disability policies), community (attitudes, social and physical environment), institutional (health care delivery-related factors, access to information/resources), interpersonal (social determinants of health/histories of trauma, social support, interactions with service-providers), and individual levels (demographics, intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, health conditions, genetic factors, psychosocial factors, health behaviors). This framework will facilitate research to identify factors leading to perinatal health disparities in people with ID and development and evaluation of resources to address them.

Prenatal Care Experiences of Childbearing People With Disabilities in Ontario, Canada

OBJECTIVE

To explore the care experiences of childbearing people with physical, sensory, and/or intellectual/developmental disabilities during pregnancy.

DESIGN

Descriptive qualitative.

SETTING

Ontario, Canada, where physician and midwifery care during pregnancy are provided at no direct cost to residents.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one people with physical, sensory, and/or intellectual/developmental disabilities (who self-identified as cisgender women [n = 29] and trans or nonbinary persons [n = 2]) who gave birth in the last 5 years.

METHODS

We recruited childbearing people with disabilities through disability and parenting organizations, social media, and our team's networks. Using a semistructured guide, we conducted in-person and virtual (e.g., telephone or Zoom) interviews with childbearing people with disabilities in 2019 to 2020. We asked participants about the services they accessed during pregnancy and if services met their needs. We used a reflexive thematic analysis approach to analyze interview data.

RESULTS

Across disability groups, we identified four common themes: Unmet Accommodation Needs, Lack of Coordinated Care, Ableism, and Advocacy as a Critical Resource. We found that these experiences manifested in unique ways based on disability type.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest the need for accessible, coordinated, and respectful prenatal care for people with disabilities, with the requirements of such care depending on the needs of the individual person with a disability. Nurses can play a key role in identifying the needs and supporting people with disabilities during pregnancy. Education and training for nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and other prenatal care providers should focus on disability-related knowledge and respectful prenatal care.

Comparison of the use of prenatal care services and the risk of preterm birth between pregnant women with disabilities and those without disabilities: A nationwide cohort study

Objective

The difficulties faced by pregnant women with disabilities in accessing health care may make them less likely to receive prenatal care. The aims of this study were to compare the number of prenatal services and the risk of preterm birth between pregnant women with and without disabilities.

Methods

A total of 2999 pregnant women aged ≥20 years with birth records in 2011-2014 in Taiwan were enrolled. Data were obtained from the Registration File for Physical and Mental Disabilities and the National Health Insurance Research Database. A 1:4 matching between pregnant women with disabilities and those without disabilities was performed. The logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was used to analyze.

Results

The median of prenatal care services used by pregnant women with disabilities was 9.00 (interquartile range, IQR: 2.00). Pregnant women with disabilities used fewer services than those without disabilities (median, 10.00; IQR: 1.00). The disabled group (8.44%) had a significantly higher proportion of preterm births than did the non-disabled group (5.40%). The disabled group was at a 1.30 times higher risk of preterm births than was the non-disabled group.

Conclusions

Pregnant women with disabilities used significantly fewer prenatal care services and had a significantly higher risk of preterm birth than pregnant women without disabilities.

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.

Perinatal Health Risks And Outcomes Among US Women With Self-Reported Disability, 2011-19

Women with disabilities experience elevated risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Most studies have inferred disabilities from diagnosis codes, likely undercounting disabilities. We analyzed data, including self-reported disability status, from the National Survey of Family Growth for the period 2011-19. We compared respondents with and without disabilities on these characteristics: smoking during pregnancy, delayed prenatal care, preterm birth, and low birthweight. A total of 19.5 percent of respondents who had given birth reported a disability, which is a much higher prevalence than estimates reported in US studies using diagnosis codes. Respondents with disabilities were twice as likely as those without disabilities to have smoked during pregnancy (19.0 percent versus 8.9 percent). They also had 24 percent and 29 percent higher risk for preterm birth and low birthweight, respectively. Our findings suggest that studies using diagnosis codes may represent only a small proportion of pregnancies among people with disabilities. Measurement and analysis of self-reported disability would facilitate better understanding of the full extent of disability-related disparities, per the Affordable Care Act.

Severe maternal morbidity and other perinatal complications among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual and developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Little is known about severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among women with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed differences in SMM and other perinatal complications by presence and type of disability. We hypothesised that SMM and other complications would be more common in births to women with disabilities than to women without disabilities.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of California births from 2000 to 2012, using birth and death certificate data linked with hospital discharge data. We included singleton deliveries with gestational age of 23-42 weeks. We classified women as having any disability or not and identified disability type (physical, hearing, vision, intellectual/developmental disabilities [IDD]). Our primary outcome was a composite indicator of SMM. Secondary outcomes included additional perinatal complications: gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, venous thromboembolism, chorioamnionitis, puerperal endometritis and mental health disorders complicating pregnancy, childbirth or the puerperium. We used modified Poisson regression to obtain covariate-adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of disability status and type with SMM and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 5,787,090 deliveries, 33,044 (0.6%) were to women with disabilities. Of these, 311 per 10,000 were complicated by SMM, compared with 84 per 10,000 deliveries to women without disabilities. In multivariable analyses, risk of SMM for births to women with disabilities was nearly three times that for women without disabilities (RR 2.84, 95% CI 2.67, 3.02). Proportion and risk of SMM were greatest for vision disability (793 per 10,000; RR 4.04, 95% CI 3.41, 4.78). Secondary outcomes were also more common among women with disabilities. In particular, more than a third of births to women with IDD (37.4%) were complicated by mental health disorders (versus 2.2% for women without disabilities).

CONCLUSION

As hypothesised, SMM and other perinatal complications were more common among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities.

Neonatal Outcomes of Mothers With a Disability

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of neonatal complications among women with a disability.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study comprised all hospital singleton livebirths in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Newborns of women with a physical (N = 144 187), sensory (N = 44 988), intellectual or developmental (N = 2207), or ≥2 disabilities (N = 8823) were each compared with 1 593 354 newborns of women without a disability. Outcomes were preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks, small for gestational age birth weight (SGA), large for gestational age birth weight, neonatal morbidity, and mortality, neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), and NICU admission. Relative risks were adjusted for social, health, and health care characteristics.

RESULTS

Risks for neonatal complications were elevated among newborns of women with disabilities compared with those without disabilities. Adjusted relative risks were especially high for newborns of women with an intellectual or developmental disability, including preterm birth <37 weeks (1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.58), SGA (1.37, 1.24-1.59), neonatal morbidity (1.42, 1.27-1.60), NAS (1.53, 1.12-2.08), and NICU admission (1.53, 1.40-1.67). The same was seen for newborns of women with ≥2 disabilities, including preterm birth <37 weeks (1.48, 1.39-1.59), SGA (1.13, 1.07-1.20), neonatal morbidity (1.28, 1.20-1.36), NAS (1.87, 1.57-2.23), and NICU admission (1.35, 1.29-1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a mild to moderate elevated risk for complications among newborns of women with disabilities. These women may need adapted and enhanced preconception and prenatal care, and their newborns may require extra support after birth.

Formal and Informal Supports for Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities During Pregnancy

This article explores the role of formal and informal supports for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) throughout their pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum experiences. Data from qualitative interviews with women with IDD (n = 16) were analyzed. Results showed that formal supports aided in planning, transportation, advocacy, and providing emotional support throughout pregnancy. Informal supports helped with errands, comfort, and emotional encouragement. The community surrounding these women facilitated communication with providers, self-empowerment regarding health choices, and increased preparedness for parenthood. Findings indicate the importance of encouraging and sustaining both formal and informal supports during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum to improve pregnancy and parenting experiences for women with IDD.

Continuity of primary care and prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities in Ontario: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Women with disabilities experience elevated risks for pregnancy complications and report barriers accessing prenatal care. Emerging evidence highlights the significant role primary care providers play in promoting preventive services like prenatal care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between continuity of primary care (COC) and prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based study using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. The study population included 15- to 49-year-old women with physical (n = 106,555), sensory (n = 32,194), intellectual/developmental (n = 1515), and multiple (n = 6543) disabilities who had a singleton livebirth or stillbirth in 2003-2017 and ≥ 3 primary care visits < 2 years before conception. COC was measured using the Usual Provider of Care Index. Nominal logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for prenatal care adequacy, measured using the Revised-Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, for women with low versus moderate/high COC, controlling for other social and medical characteristics.

RESULTS

Women with disabilities with low COC, versus those with moderate/high COC, had increased odds of no (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29-1.56), inadequate (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16-1.23), and intensive prenatal care (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.25) versus adequate. In additional analyses, women with low COC and no/inadequate prenatal care were the most socially disadvantaged among the cohort, and those with low COC and intensive prenatal care had the greatest medical need.

CONCLUSION

Improving primary care access for women with disabilities, particularly those experiencing social disadvantage, could lead to better prenatal care access.

Clinician-reported barriers to providing perinatal care to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Background

Research suggests that women with intellectual and developmental disabilities are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Further, they report unmet perinatal care needs. This qualitative study examined clinician perspectives on barriers to providing perinatal care to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Method

We conducted semi-structured interviews and one focus group with US obstetric care clinicians (n=17). We used a content analysis approach to code data and analyse them for larger themes and relationships.

Results

The majority of participants were white, non-Hispanic, and female. Participants reported barriers providing care to pregnant women with intellectual and developmental disabilities across individual (e.g., communication challenges), practice (e.g., identification of disability status), and system levels (e.g., lack of clinician training).

Conclusions

Clinician training and evidence-based guidelines for perinatal care of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as services and supports during pregnancy are needed.

The Use of Self-Reported Functional Limitation to Examine Pregnancy and Reproductive Health Experiences in a National Sample of Women

Context:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

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.

Prenatal Care Adequacy Among Women With Disabilities: A Population-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

This study examines prenatal care adequacy among women with physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities, compared with that among women without disabilities.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada was completed. The study population comprised women with physical (n=83,752), sensory (n=25,685), intellectual/developmental (n=1,219), and multiple (n=4,966) disabilities and women without disabilities (n=953,766), with a birth in 2003-2017. Analyses were conducted in 2020. Women with disabilities were identified using algorithms applied to healthcare encounters before conception. The main outcome was prenatal care adequacy, measured using the Revised Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to compute the AORs and 95% CIs for no, inadequate, and intensive (versus adequate) care comparing each disability group with women without disabilities, adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics.

RESULTS

Women with physical disabilities, compared with those without disabilities, had increased odds of intensive prenatal care (AOR=1.22, 95% CI=1.19, 1.24) and decreased odds of no prenatal care (AOR=0.94, 95% CI=0.89, 0.99) versus adequate care. Women with sensory disabilities had increased odds of intensive (AOR=1.11, 95% CI=1.08, 1.14), inadequate (AOR=1.06, 95% CI=1.02, 1.09), and no (AOR=1.24, 95% CI=1.14, 1.35) prenatal care. Women with intellectual/developmental disabilities had increased odds of inadequate (AOR=1.25, 95% CI=1.08, 1.44) and no (AOR=1.64, 95% CI=1.16, 2.34) prenatal care. Women with multiple disabilities had increased odds of intensive (AOR=1.41, 95% CI=1.32, 1.51) and inadequate (AOR=1.14, 95% CI=1.05, 1.22) prenatal care.

CONCLUSIONS

There are variations in prenatal care adequacy by maternal disability status. Disparities in prenatal care access for women with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual/developmental disabilities, need to be addressed.

Pregnancy-related outcomes among women with physical disabilities: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Disability among women of reproductive age is common; many of these women desire children and do not have impaired fertility.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the epidemiological literature on perinatal health outcomes among women with physical disabilities.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline and CINAHL for articles published January 2009-April 2020 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Eligible studies were observational, quantitative, and reported on physical disabilities in association with prenatal, perinatal, postpartum, and/or infant health outcomes. We included studies that grouped physical and non-physical disabilities, such as surveys that queried only about general daily life limitations. We excluded case reports, descriptive studies without comparison groups, and studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Data extraction was done using predefined data fields.

SYNTHESIS

All authors were involved in screening activities, data extraction, and/or quality assessment (rating and areas for bias).

RESULTS

A total of 2650 articles were evaluated, of which sixteen met inclusion criteria (8 cross-sectional studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies). Assessments of disability status and perinatal outcomes widely varied across studies. Studies were rated as poor (n = 8) or fair quality (n = 8). Findings suggested that women with physical disabilities were at risk of several adverse outcomes, including caesarean delivery, infections, preterm complications, and maternal post-delivery hospitalisations, while their infants may be at risk of low birthweight and small-for-gestational age. Women classified as having complex/severe disabilities were often observed to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to women with less severe disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Research assessing how physical, functional, and medical restrictions influence health outcomes among women with physical disabilities, from preconception through postpartum, is limited. Longitudinal studies with comprehensive data collection that accurately identify women with physical disabilities are critical to understanding their reproductive health risks and outcomes.

Birth intentions among US fathers with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Men's birth intention is an indicator of their sexual health and plays an important role for their child's health and development; however, birth intendedness in fathers with disabilities has been unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines disparities in birth intendedness among fathers with and without disabilities and explores whether the differences vary by marital status or race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Data from the 2011-2017 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) were used to examine pregnancy intendedness for fathers with (n = 380) and without disabilities (n = 1,324) about their last birth in the five years preceding the interview. Multinomial regression models estimated the odds ratios of fathers' disability status on birth intention controlling for covariates. Interaction effects of disability status by marital status or race/ethnicity were also tested.

RESULTS

Fathers with disabilities were 1.89 (95% CI = 1.21, 2.95) times as likely to report their last birth as unwanted versus intended compared to those without disabilities after adjusting for covariates. Although married fathers without disabilities were less likely to report unintended birth than their unmarried counterparts, the protective effect of marriage was not evident among fathers with disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Disabled fathers are at a higher risk of unintended birth compared to nondisabled fathers. These findings highlight the need to increase access to family planning services for disabled men. Further research is needed to better understand the risk factors that contribute to disabled fathers' unintended birth and how these are linked to their child and family well-being.

Health of Newborns and Infants Born to Women With Disabilities: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Women with disabilities are at elevated risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications. However, there has not been a synthesis of literature on the neonatal and infant health outcomes of their offspring.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the association between maternal disability and risk for adverse neonatal and infant health outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to January 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they reported original data on the association between maternal physical, sensory, or intellectual and/or developmental disabilities and neonatal or infant health outcomes; had a referent group of women with no disabilities; were peer-reviewed journal articles or theses; and were written in English.

DATA EXTRACTION

We used standardized instruments to extract data and assess study quality. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models were used for pooled analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies, representing 20 distinct cohorts, met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses revealed that newborns of women with physical, sensory, and intellectual and/or developmental disabilities were at elevated risk for low birth weight and preterm birth, with smaller numbers of studies revealing elevated risk for other adverse neonatal and infant outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies had moderate (n = 9) or weak quality (n = 17), with lack of control for confounding a common limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

In future work, researchers should explore the roles of tailored preconception and perinatal care, along with family-centered pediatric care particularly in the newborn period, in mitigating adverse outcomes among offspring of women with disabilities.

Enhanced Doula Support to Improve Pregnancy Outcomes Among African American Women With Disabilities

Aim

This article is a meta-analysis of studies examining the influence of doula support on birth outcomes among African American women with disabilities. While an estimated 11% of women in their childbearing years are impacted by some type of disability, mothers with disabilities are faced with risks during pregnancy. When risks in addition to maternal disability are present, mothers may encounter extra barriers that impede receipt of effective care.

Method

A meta-analysis of studies revealed women with disabilities are at risk for poor birth outcomes. Specifically, women of color living in poverty-stricken areas are at a greater risk for adverse birth outcomes.

Results

As a result of adverse experiences related to birth, mothers may experience levels of traumatic stress. To advocate for better pregnancy and birth outcomes, the intervention of doula support is emphasized.

Conclusion

There is a widely recognized need to promote better pregnancy outcomes among African American women to address disproportionate birth outcomes. Strategies to enhance doula support among African American women with disabilities are offered. Implications include future research surrounding the development of a training program for doulas specific to disability, trauma-informed care, and maternal mental health.

Prolonged postpartum length of hospital stay among women with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have found higher proportions of cesarean deliveries and longer postpartum hospital stays among women with disabilities compared to women without disabilities. However, no research has assessed how length of stay may differ for women with different types of disability while also considering mode of delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of disability status and disability type with length of stay, taking into account disability-related differences in mode of delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked maternal and infant hospital discharge and vital records data for all births in California between 2000 and 2012 (n = 6,745,201). We used multivariable regression analyses to assess association of disability status and type with prolonged length of stay (>2 days for vaginal delivery or >4 days for cesarean) while controlling for covariates.

RESULTS

Women with disabilities had significantly elevated adjusted odds of prolonged length of stay compared to women without disabilities (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.32-1.49). Adjusted odds were highest for women with vision disabilities (aOR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.46-1.90), followed by women with IDD (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.30-1.80), and women with physical disabilities (aOR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.32-1.50). Women with hearing disability had the lowest adjusted odds of prolonged length of stay (aOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.03-1.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged length of stay did not appear to be due solely to the higher proportion of cesarean deliveries in this population. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for prolonged length of stay among women with disabilities and develop strategies to assist women with disabilities in preparing for and recovering from childbirth.

Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Women with disabilities are increasingly becoming pregnant, and growing evidence suggests maternal disability may be associated with increased risk for perinatal complications.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to examine the association between maternal disabilities and risk for perinatal complications.

STUDY DESIGN

Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2018 for full-text publications in English on pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications in women with any disability and those with physical, sensory, and intellectual and developmental disabilities specifically. Searches were limited to quantitative studies with a comparison group of women without disabilities. Reviewers used standardized instruments to extract data from and assess the quality of included studies. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were generated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models for outcomes with data available from ≥3 studies.

RESULTS

The review included 23 studies, representing 8,514,356 women in 19 cohorts. Women with sensory (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 2.85, 95% confidence interval, 0.79-10.31) and intellectual and developmental disabilities (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.58) had elevated but not statistically significant risk for gestational diabetes. Women with any disability (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.45, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.82) and intellectual and developmental disabilities (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.77, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.60) had increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; risk was elevated but not statistically significant for women with sensory disabilities (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 2.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.43). Women with any (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.31, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.68), physical (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.13), and intellectual and developmental disabilities (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.29, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.63) had increased risk for cesarean delivery; risk among women with sensory disabilities was elevated but not statistically significant (pooled unadjusted odds ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.93). There was heterogeneity in all analyses, and 13 studies had weak-quality ratings, with lack of control for confounding being the most common limitation.

CONCLUSION

Evidence that maternal disability is associated with increased risk for perinatal complications demonstrates that more high-quality research is needed to examine the reasons for this risk and to determine what interventions could be implemented to support women with disabilities during the perinatal period.

Miscarriage Occurrence and Prevention Efforts by Disability Status and Type in the United States

Background: Very little is known about early pregnancy loss in women with disabilities. To address this gap, we analyzed nationally representative data on miscarriage and receipt of care focused on miscarriage prevention among women with and without disabilities. Materials and Methods: We used 2011-2015 National Survey of Family Growth data on women with at least one completed pregnancy within the past 5 years. Bivariate and multivariate analyses assessed the association of six disability categories (any, hearing, vision, cognitive, physical, independent living) with miscarriage occurrence and receipt of services intended to prevent miscarriage. Results: Our analytic sample included 3,843 women with 5,776 completed pregnancies within the past 5 years. Overall, 31.63% of women with disabilities and 21.83% of women without disabilities had had a miscarriage within the past 5 years. Compared to women without disabilities, women with any, cognitive, physical, and independent living disability had higher adjusted odds of experiencing miscarriage (any disability aOR = 1.65 [95% CI: 1.21-2.25]). These women also had higher odds of receiving services to prevent miscarriage compared with women without disabilities (any disability aOR = 1.71 [95% CI: 1.20-2.45]). Among women who received services, higher proportions of women with any, vision, physical, or independent living disability received recommendations for bed rest (e.g., 65.007% of women with independent living disability vs. 33.98% of women without disability, p = 0.018). Conclusions: In a representative sample of U.S. women, we found significant differences in the odds of miscarriage and in receipt of care to prevent miscarriage between women with and without disabilities. Further research is needed to understand why women with disabilities are more likely to experience a miscarriage. Such research is important for informing care recommendations.

Contraceptive Practices and Reproductive Health Considerations for Adolescent and Adult Women with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

Whereas progress has been made on increasing access to comprehensive healthcare for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), disparities continue in health outcomes, including those related to the reproductive health of adolescent and adult women with I/DD. This review summarizes reproductive care considerations for adolescent and adult women with I/DD and current practices regarding the delivery of contraceptive services to these women. Forty-seven (47) articles based on research conducted in the US between 1999 and 2019 were selected for inclusion in the review. Primary themes discussed include (1) common reproductive health concerns for adolescent and adult women with I/DD, other than pregnancy prevention; (2) contraceptive methods and disability-related concerns; (3) informed consent and reproductive decision-making; and (4) provider knowledge and education. The management of menses and hormonal dysregulation were identified as concerns that providers encounter among patients with I/DD and their families. Disability-related concerns with regard to use of contraception in general and considerations regarding certain methods in particular include challenges with prescription adherence, physical effects of hormonal therapies, drug interactions for individuals with additional health conditions, and legal and ethical concerns involved with decision-making and consent. The results of this review also suggest that focused efforts in partnership with health care providers may be needed to address barriers that adolescent and adult women with I/DD face when trying to obtain quality reproductive health services and contraceptive guidance.