Dismantling the legacy of failed policy approaches to pregnant people's use of alcohol and drugs

Punitive state policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy and alcohol consumption among pregnant women

This study aimed to determine whether punitive state alcohol policies targeting pregnant women who drink alcohol are associated with decreased alcohol consumption among pregnant women over time. This study used data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (15 states) between 1990 and 2015. A difference-in-difference (DiD) approach was employed to determine whether passage of state laws changed alcohol consumption rates among pregnant women, while controlling for state and time fixed effects. The study specifically examined punitive state alcohol policies that clarify the admissibility of evidence in child welfare proceedings related to prenatal alcohol exposure, focusing on allegations of child abuse, child neglect, child deprivation, or child dependence, as well as proceedings seeking termination of parental rights. Punitive state alcohol policies were not significantly associated with decreased rates of alcohol consumption among pregnant women (+ 1.54%, 95% CI, -1.47-4.55), within 3 years of implementation. State alcohol policies that adopted a punitive stance toward pregnant women who drink alcohol did not result in the reduction of drinking during pregnancy. Given that punitive policies may not effectively reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy, our findings highlight the need for reevaluation and potential reform to better address maternal/child health outcomes.

Punitive legal responses to prenatal drug use in the United States: A survey of state policies and systematic review of their public health impacts

BACKGROUND

Punitive legal responses to prenatal drug use may be associated with unintended adverse health consequences. However, in a rapidly shifting policy climate, current information has not been summarized. We conducted a survey of U.S. state policies that utilize criminal or civil legal system penalties to address prenatal drug use. We then systematically identified empirical studies evaluating these policies and summarized their potential public health impacts.

METHODS

Using existing databases and original statutory research, we surveyed current U.S. state-level prenatal drug use policies authorizing explicit criminalization, involuntary commitment, civil child abuse substantiation, and parental rights termination. Next, we systematically identified quantitative associations between these policies and health outcomes, restricting to U.S.-based peer-reviewed research, published January 2000-December 2022. Results described study characteristics and synthesized the evidence on health-related harms and benefits associated with punitive policies. Validity threats were described narratively.

RESULTS

By 2022, two states had adopted policies explicitly authorizing criminal prosecution, and five states allowed pregnancy-specific and drug use-related involuntary civil commitment. Prenatal drug use was grounds for substantiating civil child abuse and terminating parental rights in 22 and five states, respectively. Of the 16 review-identified articles, most evaluated associations between punitive policies generally (k = 12), or civil child abuse policies specifically (k = 2), and multiple outcomes, including drug treatment utilization (k = 6), maltreatment reporting and foster care entry (k = 5), neonatal drug withdrawal syndrome (NDWS, k = 4) and other pregnancy and birth-related outcomes (k = 3). Most included studies reported null associations or suggested increases in adverse outcome following punitive policy adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of U.S. states have adopted policies that respond to prenatal drug use with legal system penalties. While additional research is needed to clarify whether such approaches engender overt health harms, current evidence indicates that punitive policies are not associated with public health benefits, and therefore constitute ineffective policy.

Substance Use in Pregnancy and Its Impact on Communities of Color

Stigma toward pregnant and postpartum people who use drugs is common and seeks to define addiction as a moral weakness rather than a chronic medical illness that requires resources and treatment. More concerning is the additive impact of substance use and racial discrimination, whose intersections present particularly challenging circumstances. In this article, the authors review the history of substance use in the United States and focus on 3 substances of abuse that illustrate the inequity faced by pregnant person of color who use drugs.

Stigma and self-stigma among women within the context of the german "zero alcohol during pregnancy" recommendation: A qualitative analysis of online forums and blogs

BACKGROUND

In many countries, including Germany, it is recommended to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy to avoid harm to the baby. In this qualitative research study, analysis of online forums was conducted to explore women's perception of the German "zero alcohol during pregnancy" recommendation with regard to stigma and self-stigma.

METHODS

We used a grounded theory approach to analyze online forum discussions on alcohol use during pregnancy. Data consisted of 9 discussion threads from 5 different forums and blogs involving 115 participants in total. We used key concepts developed during analysis and the theory of stigma to interpret the posts.

RESULTS

We identified five key themes: (1) Low alcohol health literacy as a breeding ground for stigmatization; (2) The widespread assumption that maternal abstinence is a prerequisite for being considered a "good mother"; (3) Interpersonal role conflicts and a guilty conscience as a result of stigmatization or self-stigmatization; (4) Paying little attention to the role of psychosocial factors in alcohol consumption, especially regarding partner responsibility during pregnancy.; (5) Understanding the "zero alcohol during pregnancy" recommendation as a complete ban, associated with loss of autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The current method of communicating the "zero alcohol during pregnancy" recommendation may have unintended consequences. Specifically, misconceptions about the harm associated with low alcohol consumption and setting high expectations of motherhood are factors that can contribute to stigma or self-stigma and potentially undermine self-efficacy, help-seeking behavior, and overcoming the barriers to alcohol health literacy.

Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Does Structural and Interpersonal Bias Against Pregnant and Postpartum People With Substance Use Disorders Undermine Parenting Identity?

ABSTRACT

Pregnant and parenting people with substance use disorders are a highly stigmatized group. Structural and interpersonal bias contribute to reluctance to engage in prenatal, postpartum, and well-child care for this population. Two studies described in this issue of the Journal of Addiction Medicine explore the implications of health care provider-family relationships on experience of care for birthing people with substance use disorders and their infants. Patient voices describe how intensive monitoring of infants for sequelae of substance exposure and that being scrutinized as caregivers undermined their confidence as parents, contributed to self-blame, and damaged their trust in health care teams. Data from these studies suggest that the voices of pregnant and parenting individuals need to be present at local, regional, and national levels to mitigate harm when redesigning programs for this population.

Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA

AIMS

We examined relationships between pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA.

METHODS

We merged state-level policy and treatment admissions data for 1992-2019. We aggregated data by state-year to examine effects of nine pregnancy-specific alcohol policies on the number of admissions of pregnant women where alcohol was reported as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance related to the treatment episode (N = 1331). We fit Poisson models that included all policy variables, state-level controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and an offset variable of the number of pregnancies in the state-year to account for differences in population size and fertility.

RESULTS

When alcohol was reported as the primary substance, civil commitment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10-1.89] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04-1.77] were associated with greater treatment admissions. Findings for alcohol as primary, secondary, or tertiary substance were similar for civil commitment [IRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00-1.47], although mandatory warning signs [IRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98] and priority treatment for pregnant women [IRR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99] were associated with fewer treatment admissions. Priority treatment findings were not robust in sensitivity analyses. No other policies were associated with treatment admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies related to greater treatment admissions tend to mandate treatment rather than make voluntary treatment more accessible, raising questions of ethics and effectiveness.

The Postpartum Period: An Opportunity for Alcohol Screening and Counseling to Reduce Adverse Health Impacts

OBJECTIVES

The postpartum period presents an opportunity to engage in discussions about alcohol consumption and related health harms. This study examined the prevalence of alcohol consumption among a sample of postpartum persons with a recent live birth and screening and brief intervention (alcohol SBI) or counseling by their providers.

METHODS

We analyzed 2019 data from a telephone survey conducted 9 to 10 months postpartum among individuals who responded to the standard Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey in 6 states. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated for alcohol consumption and alcohol SBI after birth through up to 10 months postpartum.

RESULTS

Among 1790 respondents, 53.1% reported consuming alcohol postpartum. Among those who drank postpartum, 70.8% reported being asked about alcohol use by a healthcare provider. Slightly more than half of respondents who drank postpartum and were trying to get pregnant (52.4%) or were not using birth control at the time of the survey (59.8%) reported being asked about alcohol use. Approximately 25% of respondents who drank alcohol postpartum were advised about risky alcohol levels by a healthcare provider. Small proportions of individuals who drank alcohol postpartum and were pregnant or trying to get pregnant at the time of the survey were advised to reduce or stop drinking alcohol (10.6% and 2.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest missed opportunities to promote health and prevent adverse alcohol-related health outcomes during the postpartum period through evidence-based tools such as alcohol SBI.

Implementation of State Laws Giving Pregnant People Priority Access to Drug Treatment Programs in the Context of Coexisting Punitive Laws

BACKGROUND

In response to increased prenatal drug use since the 2000s, states have adopted treatment-oriented laws giving pregnant and postpartum people priority access to public drug treatment programs as well as multiple punitive policy responses. No prior studies have systematically characterized these state statutes or examined implementation of state priority access laws in the context of co-existing punitive laws.

METHODS

We conducted legal mapping to examine state priority access laws and their overlap with state laws deeming prenatal drug use to be child maltreatment, mandating reporting of prenatal drug use to child protective services, or criminalizing prenatal drug use. We also conducted interviews with 51 state leaders with expertise on their states' prenatal drug use laws to understand how priority access laws were implemented.

RESULTS

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have a priority access law, and more than 80% of these jurisdictions also have one of the punitive prenatal drug use laws described. Leaders reported major barriers to implementing state priority access laws, including the lack of drug treatment programs, stigma, and conflicts with punitive prenatal drug use laws.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that state laws granting pregnant and postpartum people priority access to drug treatment programs are likely insufficient to significantly increase access to evidence-based drug treatment. Punitive state prenatal drug use laws may counteract priority access laws by impeding treatment seeking. Findings highlight the need to allocate additional resources to drug treatment for pregnant and postpartum people.