Willi Horner-Johnson1, Frances M Biel2, Blair G Darney3, Aaron B Caughey2. 1. Institute on Development and Disability, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: hornerjo@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; National Institute of Public Health, Center for Health Systems Research, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although it is likely that childbearing among women with disabilities is increasing, no empirical data have been published on changes over time in the numbers of women with disabilities giving birth. Further, while it is known that women with disabilities are at increased risk of cesarean delivery, temporal trends in cesarean deliveries among women with disabilities have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: To assess time trends in births by any mode and in primary cesarean deliveries among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual/developmental disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked vital records and hospital discharge data from all deliveries in California, 2000-2010 (n = 4,605,061). We identified women with potential disabilities using ICD-9 codes. We used descriptive statistics and visualizations to examine time patterns. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association between disability and primary cesarean delivery, stratified by year. RESULTS: Among all women giving birth, the proportion with a disability increased from 0.27% in 2000 to 0.80% in 2010. Women with disabilities had significantly elevated odds of primary cesarean delivery in each year, but the magnitude of the odds ratio decreased over time from 2.60 (95% CI = 2.25 = 2.99) in 2000 to 1.66 (95% CI = 1.51-1.81) in 2010. CONCLUSION: Adequate clinician training is needed to address the perinatal care needs of the increasing numbers of women with disabilities giving birth. Continued efforts to understand cesarean delivery patterns and reasons for cesarean deliveries may help guide further reductions in proportions of cesarean deliveries among women with disabilities relative to women without disabilities.
BACKGROUND: Although it is likely that childbearing among women with disabilities is increasing, no empirical data have been published on changes over time in the numbers of women with disabilities giving birth. Further, while it is known that women with disabilities are at increased risk of cesarean delivery, temporal trends in cesarean deliveries among women with disabilities have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: To assess time trends in births by any mode and in primary cesarean deliveries among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual/developmental disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked vital records and hospital discharge data from all deliveries in California, 2000-2010 (n = 4,605,061). We identified women with potential disabilities using ICD-9 codes. We used descriptive statistics and visualizations to examine time patterns. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association between disability and primary cesarean delivery, stratified by year. RESULTS: Among all women giving birth, the proportion with a disability increased from 0.27% in 2000 to 0.80% in 2010. Women with disabilities had significantly elevated odds of primary cesarean delivery in each year, but the magnitude of the odds ratio decreased over time from 2.60 (95% CI = 2.25 = 2.99) in 2000 to 1.66 (95% CI = 1.51-1.81) in 2010. CONCLUSION: Adequate clinician training is needed to address the perinatal care needs of the increasing numbers of women with disabilities giving birth. Continued efforts to understand cesarean delivery patterns and reasons for cesarean deliveries may help guide further reductions in proportions of cesarean deliveries among women with disabilities relative to women without disabilities.
Authors: Mona T Lydon-Rochelle; Victoria L Holt; Vicky Cárdenas; Jennifer C Nelson; Thomas R Easterling; Carolyn Gardella; William M Callaghan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Monika Mitra; Karen M Clements; Jianying Zhang; Lisa I Iezzoni; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Linda M Long-Bellil Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Barbara J Stoll; Nellie I Hansen; Edward F Bell; Michele C Walsh; Waldemar A Carlo; Seetha Shankaran; Abbot R Laptook; Pablo J Sánchez; Krisa P Van Meurs; Myra Wyckoff; Abhik Das; Ellen C Hale; M Bethany Ball; Nancy S Newman; Kurt Schibler; Brenda B Poindexter; Kathleen A Kennedy; C Michael Cotten; Kristi L Watterberg; Carl T D'Angio; Sara B DeMauro; William E Truog; Uday Devaskar; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Claire Z Kalpakjian; Jodi M Kreschmer; Mary D Slavin; Pamela A Kisala; Elisabeth H Quint; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Natalie Jenkins; Tamara Bushnik; Dagmar Amtmann; David S Tulsky; Roxanne Madrid; Rebecca Parten; Michael Evitts; Carolyn L Grawi Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.681