Differences in Perinatal Outcomes of Birthing People in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Marriages

Sexual orientation disparities in gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Sexual minority (SM) individuals (e.g., those with same-sex attractions/partners or who identify as lesbian/gay/bisexual) experience a host of physical and mental health disparities. However, little is known about sexual orientation-related disparities in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP; gestational hypertension [gHTN] and preeclampsia).

OBJECTIVE

To estimate disparities in GDM, gHTN and preeclampsia by sexual orientation.

METHODS

We used data from the Nurses' Health Study II-a cohort of nurses across the US enrolled in 1989 at 25-42 years of age-restricted to those with pregnancies ≥20 weeks gestation and non-missing sexual orientation data (63,518 participants; 146,079 pregnancies). Our primary outcomes were GDM, gHTN and preeclampsia, which participants reported for each of their pregnancies. Participants also reported their sexual orientation identity and same-sex attractions/partners. We compared the risk of each outcome in pregnancies among heterosexual participants with no same-sex experience (reference) to those among SM participants overall and within subgroups: (1) heterosexual with same-sex experience, (2) mostly heterosexual, (3) bisexual and (4) lesbian/gay participants. We used modified Poisson models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), fit via weighted generalised estimating equations, to account for multiple pregnancies per person over time and informative cluster sizes.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of each outcome was ≤5%. Mostly heterosexual participants had a 31% higher risk of gHTN (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03, 1.66), and heterosexual participants with same-sex experience had a 31% higher risk of GDM (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13, 1.50), compared to heterosexual participants with no same-sex experience. The magnitudes of the risk ratios were high among bisexual participants for gHTN and preeclampsia and among lesbian/gay participants for gHTN.

CONCLUSIONS

Some SM groups may be disparately burdened by GDM and HDP. Elucidating modifiable mechanisms (e.g., structural barriers, discrimination) for reducing adverse pregnancy outcomes among SM populations is critical.

Differences in medically assisted reproduction use by sexual identity and partnership: a prospective cohort of cisgender women

STUDY QUESTION

Does medically assisted reproduction (MAR) use among cisgender women differ among those with same-sex partners or lesbian/bisexual identities compared to peers with different-sex partners or heterosexual identities?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Women with same-sex partners or lesbian/bisexual identities are more likely to utilize any MAR but are no more likely to use ART (i.e. IVF, reciprocal IVF, embryo transfer, unspecified ART, ICSI, and gamete or zygote intrafallopian transfer) compared to non-ART MAR (i.e. IUI, ovulation induction, and intravaginal or intracervical insemination) than their different-sex partnered and completely heterosexual peers.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Sexual minority women (SMW) form families in myriad ways, including through fostering, adoption, genetic, and/or biological routes. Emerging evidence suggests this population increasingly wants to form genetic and/or biological families, yet little is known about their family formation processes and conception needs.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The Growing Up Today Study is a US-based prospective cohort (n = 27 805). Participants were 9-17 years of age at enrollment (1996 and 2004). Biennial follow-up is ongoing, with data collected through 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Cisgender women who met the following criteria were included in this sample: endorsed ever being pregnant; attempted a pregnancy in 2019 or 2021; and endorsed either a male- or female-sex partner OR responded to questions regarding their sexual identity during their conception window. The main outcome was any MAR use including ART (i.e. procedures involving micromanipulation of gametes) and non-ART MAR (i.e. nonmanipulation of gametes). Secondary outcomes included specific MAR procedures, time to conception, and trends across time. We assessed differences in any MAR use using weighted modified Poisson generalized estimating equations.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among 3519 participants, there were 6935 pregnancies/pregnancy attempts and 19.4% involved MAR. A total of 47 pregnancies or pregnancy attempts were among the same-sex partnered participants, while 91 were among bisexual participants and 37 among lesbian participants. Participants with same-sex, compared to different-sex partners were almost five times as likely to use MAR (risk ratio [95% CI]: 4.78 [4.06, 5.61]). Compared to completely heterosexual participants, there was greater MAR use among lesbian (4.00 [3.10, 5.16]) and bisexual (2.22 [1.60, 3.07]) participants compared to no MAR use; mostly heterosexual participants were also more likely to use ART (1.42 [1.11, 1.82]) compared to non-ART MAR. Among first pregnancies conceived using MAR, conception pathways differed by partnership and sexual identity groups; differences were largest for IUI, intravaginal insemination, and timed intercourse with ovulation induction. From 2002 to 2021, MAR use increased proportionally to total pregnancies/pregnancy attempts; ART use was increasingly common in later years among same-sex partnered and lesbian participants.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our results are limited by the small number of SMW, the homogenous sample of mostly White, educated participants, the potential misclassification of MAR use when creating conception pathways unique to SMW, and the questionnaire's skip logic, which excluded certain participants from receiving MAR questions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Previous studies on SMW family formation have primarily focused on clinical outcomes from ART procedures and perinatal outcomes by conception method, and have been almost exclusively limited to European, clinical samples that relied on partnership data only. Despite the small sample of SMW within a nonrepresentative study, this is the first study to our knowledge to use a nonclinical sample of cisgender women from across the USA to elucidate family formation pathways by partnership as well as sexual identity, including pathways that may be unique to SMW. This was made possible by our innovative approach to MAR categorization within a large, prospective dataset that collected detailed sexual orientation data. Specifically, lesbian, bisexual, and same-sex partnered participants used both ART and non-ART MAR at similar frequencies compared to heterosexual and different-sex partnered participants. This may signal differential access to conception pathways owing to structural barriers, emerging conception trends as family formation among SMW has increased, and a need for conception support beyond specialized providers and fertility clinics.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under award number R01MD015256. Additionally, KRSS is supported by NCI grant T32CA009001, AKH by the NCI T32CA057711, PC by the NHLBI T32HL098048, BM by the Stanford Maternal Child Health Research Institute Clinical Trainee Support Grant and the Diversity Fellowship from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Research Institute, BGE by NICHD R01HD091405, and SM by the Thomas O. Pyle Fellowship through the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation and Harvard University, NHLBI T32HL098048, NIMH R01MH112384, and the William T. Grant Foundation grant number 187958. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The first author recently had a leadership role in the not-for-profit program, The Lesbian Health Fund, a research fund focused on improving the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ women and girls. The fund did not have any role in this study and the author's relationship with the fund did not bias the findings of this manuscript.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Gynecologic Care for Sexual and Gender Minority Patients

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, are a diverse population with a wide spectrum of gynecologic needs. Institutionalized cisheteronormativity, stigmatization, lack of provider training, and fear of discrimination contribute to health disparities in this patient population. In this article, we review key topics in the gynecologic care of SGM patients and provide strategies to enable gynecologists to provide SGM people with equitable and inclusive full spectrum reproductive health care.

"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

Mapping the scientific literature on obstetrical and perinatal health among sexual and gender minoritised (SGM) childbearing people and their infants: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sexual and gender minoritised (SGM) populations are disproportionately impacted by multilevel risk factors for obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, including structural (eg, stigma, discrimination, access to care) and individual risk factors (eg, partner violence, poor mental health, substance use). Emerging evidence shows SGM childbearing people have worse obstetrical outcomes and their infants have worse perinatal outcomes, when compared with their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts; this emerging evidence necessitates a comprehensive examination of existing literature on obstetrical and perinatal health among SGM people. The goal of this scoping review is to comprehensively map the extent, range and nature of scientific literature on obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes among SGM populations and their infants. We aim to summarise findings from existing literature, potentially informing clinical guidelines on perinatal care, as well as highlighting knowledge gaps and providing directions for future research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and report findings according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We will conduct a broad systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies will include peer-reviewed, empirical, English-language publications pertaining to obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes of SGM people or their infants. No temporal or geographical limitations will be applied to the search. Studies conducted in all settings will be considered. Records will be managed, screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Study characteristics, key findings and research gaps will be presented in tables and summarised narratively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6fg4a/.

Adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes in sexual minority women from the National Survey of Family Growth

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined how multiple marginalized identities are associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, especially for Black and Hispanic sexual minority women. Sexual minorities are people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). The purpose of this study was to examine differences in adverse pregnancy (i.e., miscarriage) and birth outcomes (i.e., preterm birth, low birthweight, and stillbirth) in a national sample of women by race and ethnicity, and sexual minority status (LGBT identification and same-sex sexual behavior).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The unit of analysis was pregnancy, not participants. In this study, we examined pregnancies to participants who identified as heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual, by race and Hispanic ethnicity. We also studied sexual behaviors to categorize participants as women who have sex with women (WSW) and women who have sex with men (WSM). Outcomes included preterm birth, low birthweight, miscarriage, and stillbirth. We employed logistic and linear regression analyses for analyses using STATA.

RESULTS

We studied 53,751 pregnancies, and 9% of these occurred in people who identified as heterosexual, but had engaged in sexual activity with a female partner (heterosexual-WSW), 7% in those identifying as bisexual, and 1% to women who identified as lesbian. Pregnancies ended in preterm birth (10.7%) and low birthweight (9.0%), stillbirths (2-4%), and miscarriages (17-21%) in sexual minority women. We observed that pregnancies reported by Hispanic lesbian women had a higher birthweight (β = 10.71, SE = 4.1, p-value = 0.01) compared to infants born to Hispanic heterosexual-WSM. Pregnancies to lesbian women were significantly more likely to end in stillbirth (aRR = 3.58, 95% CI 1.30,9.79) compared to heterosexual-WSM. No significant differences were noted in risk of adverse birth outcomes by sexual orientation for NH Black or Hispanic women.

CONCLUSION

In this sample, preterm births were less likely to occur among heterosexual-WSW than in heterosexual-WSM. Pregnancies to lesbians and bisexual women were more likely to end in miscarriage or stillbirth than heterosexual WSM. Lesbian Hispanic women reported higher birthweights compared to heterosexual-WSM Hispanic women. More research should be done to further understand these findings.

Sexual and/or gender minority disparities in obstetrical and birth outcomes

BACKGROUND

Many sexual and/or gender minority individuals build families through pregnancy and childbirth, but it is unknown whether they experience different clinical outcomes than those who are not sexual and/or gender minority individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate obstetrical and birth outcomes comparing couples who are likely sexual and/or gender minority patients compared with those who are not likely to be sexual and/or gender minority patients.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a population-based cohort study of live birth hospitalizations during 2016 to 2019 linked to birth certificates in California. California changed its birth certificate in 2016 to include gender-neutral fields such as "parent giving birth" and "parent not giving birth," with options for each role to specify "mother," "father," or "parent." We classified birthing patients in mother-mother partnerships and those who identified as a father in any partnership as likely sexual and/or gender minority and classified birthing patients in mother-father partnerships as likely not sexual and/or gender minority. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression models to estimate the risk ratios for associations between likely sexual and/or gender minority parental structures and outcomes. The models were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation selected by causal diagrams. We replicated the analyses after excluding multifetal gestations.

RESULTS

In the final birthing patient sample, 1,483,119 were mothers with father partners, 2572 were mothers with mother partners, and 498 were fathers with any partner. Compared with birthing patients in mother-father partnerships, birthing patients in mother-mother partnerships experienced significantly higher rates of multifetal gestation (adjusted risk ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-4.4), labor induction (adjusted risk ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.3), postpartum hemorrhage (adjusted risk ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.6), severe morbidity (adjusted risk ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8), and nontransfusion severe morbidity (adjusted risk ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9). Severe morbidity was identified following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "severe maternal morbidity" index. Gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean delivery, preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation), low birthweight (<2500 g), and low Apgar score (<7 at 5 minutes) did not significantly differ in the multivariable analyses. No outcomes significantly differed between father birthing patients in any partnership and birthing patients in mother-father partnerships in either crude or multivariable analyses, though the risk of multifetal gestation was nonsignificantly higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.7). The adjusted risk ratios for the outcomes were similar after restriction to singleton gestations.

CONCLUSION

Birthing mothers with mother partners experienced disparities in several obstetrical and birth outcomes independent of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. Birthing fathers in any partnership were not at a significantly elevated risk of any adverse obstetrical or birth outcome considered in this study.