Identifying reproductive-aged women with physical and sensory disabilities in administrative health data: A systematic review

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy among females with disabilities: a population-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Up to 40% of patients aged ≤55 years undergo concomitant bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy, with practice variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy occurring along the lines of patient health and social factors. Disability is common in premenopausal women and is an important determinant of reproductive health more broadly; however, studies on bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates among women with disabilities are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether the use of concomitant bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy differs by preexisting disability status in adult females aged ≤55 years.

STUDY DESIGN

This population-based cross-sectional study used data from the 2016-2019 US National Inpatient Sample. Females undergoing inpatient hysterectomy for a benign gynecologic indication (n=74,315) were classified as having physical (6.1%), sensory (0.1%), intellectual or developmental (0.2%), or multiple (0.2%) disabilities and compared with those without a disability. Logistic regression was used to estimate risk ratios for differences in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates by disability status, adjusted for patient and clinical factors. Models were stratified by potentially avoidable or potentially appropriate bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy based on the presence of clinical indications for ovarian removal and by age group.

RESULTS

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy occurred in 26.0% of females without a disability, with rates clearly elevated in those with a physical (33.2%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14) or intellectual or developmental (31.1%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.64) disability, possibly elevated in those with multiple disabilities (38.2%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.45), and similar in those with a sensory disability (31.2%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.13). The results were similar but with lower statistical precision for potentially avoidable and potentially appropriate bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, which occurred in 9.1% and 17.0% of females without a disability, respectively. The largest differences in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates among women with any disability were observed in the perimenopausal 45- to 49-year age group.

CONCLUSION

Females with disabilities experienced elevated concomitant bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates at the time of benign hysterectomy, particularly those with an intellectual or developmental disability and those of perimenopausal age, although some estimates were imprecise. Equity-focused physician training in surgical counseling and research into the epidemiology and experiences of gynecologic conditions among females with a disability may be beneficial.

Disability and in-hospital breastfeeding practices and supports in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Breastfeeding provides infants with nutrients required for optimal growth and development. We aimed to examine breastfeeding practices and supports that promote exclusive breastfeeding during the birth hospital stay among birthing parents with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, intellectual or developmental disabilities, and multiple disabilities compared with those without a disability.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study was done in Ontario, Canada. We accessed and analysed health administrative data from ICES and the Better Outcomes Registry & Network. We included all birthing parents aged 15-49 years who had a singleton livebirth between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2018. The study outcomes were breastfeeding practices and supports that promoted exclusive breastfeeding during the birth hospital stay, conceptualised based on WHO-UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines. Individuals with a physical disability, sensory disability, intellectual or developmental disability, or two or more (multiple) disabilities, identified using diagnostic algorithms, were compared with individuals without disabilities on the opportunity to initiate breastfeeding, in-hospital breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge, skin-to-skin contact, and provision of breastfeeding assistance. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using modified Poisson regression.

FINDINGS

Our cohort included 634 111 birthing parents, of whom 54 476 (8·6%) had a physical disability, 19 227 (3·0%) had a sensory disability, 1048 (0·2%) had an intellectual or developmental disability, 4050 (0·6%) had multiple disabilities, and 555 310 (87·6%) had no disability. Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely than those without a disability to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (adjusted RR 0·82, 95% CI 0·76-0·88), any in-hospital breastfeeding (0·85, 0·81-0·88), exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge (0·73, 0·67-0·79), skin-to-skin contact (0·90, 0·87-0·94), and breastfeeding assistance (0·85, 0·79-0·91). Those with multiple disabilities were less likely to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (0·93, 0·91-0·96), any in-hospital breastfeeding (0·93, 0·92-0·95), exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge (0·90, 0·87-0·93), skin-to-skin contact (0·93, 0·91-0·95), and breastfeeding assistance (0·95, 0·92-0·98). Differences for individuals with a physical or sensory disability only were mostly non-significant.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show disparities in breastfeeding outcomes between individuals without a disability and individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities or multiple disabilities, but not individuals with physical or sensory disabilities. There is a need for further research on the factors that contribute to breastfeeding intentions, practices, and supports in people with intellectual or developmental disabilities and multiple disabilities, especially factors that affect breastfeeding decision making.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health and the Canada Research Chairs Program.

Disability and Interpersonal Violence in the Perinatal Period

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of interpersonal violence experienced by pregnant and postpartum individuals with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, or intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities, and to examine whether a prepregnancy history of interpersonal violence puts individuals with disabilities, at excess risk of interpersonal violence in the perinatal period.

METHOD

This population-based study included all individuals aged 15-49 years with births in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2019. Individuals with physical (n=147,414), sensory (n=47,459), intellectual or developmental (n=2,557), or multiple disabilities (n=9,598) were compared with 1,594,441 individuals without disabilities. The outcome was any emergency department visit, hospital admission, or death related to physical, sexual, or psychological violence between fertilization and 365 days postpartum. Relative risks (RRs) were adjusted for baseline social and health characteristics. Relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) was estimated from the joint effects of disability and prepregnancy violence history; RERI>0 indicated positive interaction.

RESULTS

Individuals with physical (0.8%), sensory (0.7%), intellectual or developmental (5.3%), or multiple disabilities (1.8%) were more likely than those without disabilities (0.5%) to experience perinatal interpersonal violence. The adjusted RR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.31-1.50) in those with physical disabilities, 2.39 (95% CI 1.98-2.88) in those with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.66-2.30) in those with multiple disabilities. Having both a disability and any violence history produced a positive interaction for perinatal interpersonal violence (adjusted RERI 0.87; 95% CI 0.47-1.29).

CONCLUSION

The perinatal period is a time of relative high risk for interpersonal violence among individuals with pre-existing disabilities, especially those with a history of interpersonal violence.

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.

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Background:

Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity.

Results:

Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14–2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability.

Interpretation:

Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

Meeting AT needs in humanitarian crises: The current state of provision

Humanitarian coordination systems increasingly recognize and aim to respond to the needs of people with disabilities within populations affected by crises, spurred on by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which was adopted in 2006. Many agencies state their aim to meet the requirements of the CRPD using a "twin track" approach: ensuring the inclusion of people with disabilities in mainstream provision, alongside targeted support for their needs, which may include the need for Assistive Technology (AT). However, there is very little evidence of AT provision in humanitarian settings, which is a specific and urgent need for many people including the elderly and people with disabilities, and an implicit requirement of Article 11 of the CRPD and World Health Assembly resolution on improving access to assistive technology. There is also little evidence of effective mechanisms for AT provision in humanitarian settings. This is despite high and growing levels of unmet AT need in crises, and despite the legally binding requirement in the CRPD to provide AT for those who need it. AT provision faces unique challenges in humanitarian settings. This paper discusses the evidence available in the literature for the scale and quality of AT provision interventions in crises, and what is known about the challenges and facilitators of provision. We conducted a search of the academic literature and retained literature that reported on any form of AT provision following crisis, where international humanitarian response was in place, published in English between January 2010 and June 2020. We found very few examples in that academic literature of systematic and coordinated AT provision at the acute stage of crisis, and even less in the preparedness and post-acute stages. However, it is difficult to assess whether this is the result of insufficient academic attention or reflects a lack of provision. The small body of academic literature that describes AT provision in humanitarian settings paints a picture of small-scale provision, specialized to single types of impairments, and delivered by predominantly by NGOs. We also conducted a search of the gray literature, using the same inclusion criteria, in two countries: Afghanistan and South Sudan (case studies forthcoming). This gray literature provided supplementary evidence of the types of AT providers and AT provision available in those protracted crises. There are very few examples of how AT services can be scaled up (from a very low baseline) and maintained sustainably within a strengthened health system. The literature also describes more examples of provision of assistive products for mobility over assistive products for other impairments. If the paucity of literature on AT provision in humanitarian settings is a reflection of the scale of provision, this implies a deficiency in humanitarian response when it comes to providing people with AT needs with the essential products and services to which they have a right, and which will enable their access to basic, life-saving assistance. We conclude by providing recommendations for urgent actions that the AT and humanitarian community must take to fill this critical gap in the provision of essential products and services for a potentially marginalized and excluded group.

Development and Internal Validation of a Disability Algorithm for Multiple Sclerosis in Administrative Data

Objective: We developed and internally validated an algorithm for disability status in multiple sclerosis (MS) using administrative data.

Methods: We linked administrative data from Manitoba, Canada to a clinical dataset with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores for people with MS. Clinical EDSS scores constituted the reference standard. We created candidate indicators using the administrative data. These included indicators based on use of particular health care services (home care, long-term care, rehabilitation admission), use of specific diagnostic codes (such as spasticity, quadriplegia), and codes based on use of Employment and Income Insurance. We developed algorithms to predict severe disability (EDSS ≥6.0), and to predict disability as a continuous measure. We manually developed algorithms, and also employed regression approaches. After we selected our preferred algorithms for disability, we tested their association with health care use due to any cause and infection after potential confounders.

Results: We linked clinical and administrative data for 1,767 persons with MS, most of whom were women living in urban areas. All individual indicators tested had specificities >90% for severe disability, and all but a diagnosis of visual disturbance had positive predictive values (PPV) >70%. The combination of home care or long-term care use or rehabilitation admission had a sensitivity of 61.9%, specificity of 90.76%, PPV of 70.06% and negative predictive of 87.21%. Based on regression modeling, the best-performing algorithm for predicting the EDSS as a continuous variable included age, home care use, long-term care admission, admission for rehabilitation, visual disturbance, other paralytic syndromes and spasticity. The mean difference between observed and predicted values of the EDSS was −0.0644 (95%CI −0.1632, 0.0304). Greater disability, whether measured using the clinical EDSS or either of the administrative data algorithms was similarly associated with increased hospitalization rates due to any cause and infection.

Conclusion: We developed and internally validated an algorithm for disability in MS using administrative data that may support population-based studies that wish to account for disability status but do not have access to clinical data sources with this information. We also found that more severe disability is associated with increased health care use, including due to infection.

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.

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.