Charlan D Kroelinger1, Mary D Brantley2, Taleria R Fuller2, Ekwutosi M Okoroh2, Michael J Monsour2, Shanna Cox2, Wanda D Barfield2. 1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: ckroelinger@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of risk-appropriate maternal care is for high-risk pregnant women to receive specialized obstetrical services in facilities equipped with capabilities and staffing to provide care or transfer to facilities with resources available to provide care. In the United States, geographic access to critical care obstetrics varies. It is unknown whether this variation in proximity to critical care obstetrics differs by race, ethnicity, and region. OBJECTIVE: We examined the geographic access, defined as residence within 50 miles of a facility capable of providing risk-appropriate critical care obstetrics services for women of reproductive age, by distribution of race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive spatial analysis was used to assess geographic distance to critical care obstetrics for women of reproductive age by race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed geographically: nationally, by the Department of Health and Human Services regions, and by all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Dot density analysis was used to visualize geographic distributions of women by residence and critical care obstetrics facilities across the United States. Proximity analysis defined the proportion of women living within an approximate 50-mile radius of facilities. Source data included the 2015 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau and the 2015 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. RESULTS: Geographic access to critical care obstetrics was the greatest for Asian and Pacific Islander women of reproductive age (95.8%), followed by black (93.5%), Hispanic (91.4%), and white women of reproductive age (89.1%). American Indian and Alaska Native women had more limited geographic access (66%) in all regions. Visualization of proximity to critical care obstetrics indicated that facilities were predominantly located in urban areas, which may limit access to women in frontier or rural areas of states including nationally recognized reservations where larger proportions of white women and American Indian and Alaska Native women reside, respectively. CONCLUSION: Disparities in proximity to critical care obstetrics exist in rural and frontier areas of the United States, which affect white women and American Indian and Alaska Native women, primarily. Examining insurance coverage, interstate hospital referral networks, and transportation barriers may provide further insight into critical care obstetrics accessibility. Further exploring the role of other equity-based measures of access on disparities beyond geography is warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The goal of risk-appropriate maternal care is for high-risk pregnant women to receive specialized obstetrical services in facilities equipped with capabilities and staffing to provide care or transfer to facilities with resources available to provide care. In the United States, geographic access to critical care obstetrics varies. It is unknown whether this variation in proximity to critical care obstetrics differs by race, ethnicity, and region. OBJECTIVE: We examined the geographic access, defined as residence within 50 miles of a facility capable of providing risk-appropriate critical care obstetrics services for women of reproductive age, by distribution of race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive spatial analysis was used to assess geographic distance to critical care obstetrics for women of reproductive age by race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed geographically: nationally, by the Department of Health and Human Services regions, and by all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Dot density analysis was used to visualize geographic distributions of women by residence and critical care obstetrics facilities across the United States. Proximity analysis defined the proportion of women living within an approximate 50-mile radius of facilities. Source data included the 2015 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau and the 2015 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. RESULTS: Geographic access to critical care obstetrics was the greatest for Asian and Pacific Islander women of reproductive age (95.8%), followed by black (93.5%), Hispanic (91.4%), and white women of reproductive age (89.1%). American Indian and Alaska Native women had more limited geographic access (66%) in all regions. Visualization of proximity to critical care obstetrics indicated that facilities were predominantly located in urban areas, which may limit access to women in frontier or rural areas of states including nationally recognized reservations where larger proportions of white women and American Indian and Alaska Native women reside, respectively. CONCLUSION: Disparities in proximity to critical care obstetrics exist in rural and frontier areas of the United States, which affect white women and American Indian and Alaska Native women, primarily. Examining insurance coverage, interstate hospital referral networks, and transportation barriers may provide further insight into critical care obstetrics accessibility. Further exploring the role of other equity-based measures of access on disparities beyond geography is warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
critical care obstetrics; equity; frontier; health disparities; hospital; obstetrical care; region; risk-appropriate care; rural; women of reproductive age
Authors: William A Grobman; Jennifer L Bailit; Madeline Murguia Rice; Ronald J Wapner; Uma M Reddy; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Jay D Iams; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Dwight J Rouse; Sean C Blackwell; Jorge E Tolosa; J Peter VanDorsten Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mary D Brantley; Nicole L Davis; David A Goodman; William M Callaghan; Wanda D Barfield Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joshua B Brown; Matthew R Rosengart; Timothy R Billiar; Andrew B Peitzman; Jason L Sperry Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Julia T Caldwell; Chandra L Ford; Steven P Wallace; May C Wang; Lois M Takahashi Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Scott M Sasser; Richard C Hunt; Mark Faul; David Sugerman; William S Pearson; Theresa Dulski; Marlena M Wald; Gregory J Jurkovich; Craig D Newgard; E Brooke Lerner Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2012-01-13
Authors: Charlan D Kroelinger; Marion E Rice; Ekwutosi M Okoroh; Carla L DeSisto; Wanda D Barfield Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Sara C Handley; Molly Passarella; Heidi M Herrick; Julia D Interrante; Scott A Lorch; Katy B Kozhimannil; Ciaran S Phibbs; Elizabeth E Foglia Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01