Eric Rubenstein1, Deborah B Ehrenthal2, Jenna Nobles3, David C Mallinson4, Lauren Bishop5, Marina C Jenkins6, Hsiang-Hui Kuo2, Maureen S Durkin7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin Madison, USA. Electronic address: erubens@bu.edu. 2. Department of Population Health Science, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, USA. 3. Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin Madison, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Science, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, USA; Population Research Center, University of Texas-Austin, USA. 5. Sandra Rosenbaum Department of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. 6. Department of Population Health Science, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, USA. 7. Department of Population Health Science, University of Wisconsin Madison, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face stigma and inequity surrounding opportunity and care during pregnancy. Little work has quantified fertility rates among women with IDD which prevents proper allocation of care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to cross-sectionally describe fertility patterns among women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in 10-years of Medicaid-linked birth records. STUDY DESIGN: Our sample was Medicaid-enrolled women with live births in Wisconsin from 2007 to 2016. We identified IDD through prepregnancy Medicaid claims. We calculated general fertility-, age-specific-, and the total fertility-rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for women with and without IDD and generated estimates by year and IDD-type. RESULTS: General fertility rate in women with IDD was 62.1 births per 1000 women with IDD (95% CI 59.2, 64.9 per 1000 women) and 77.1 per 1000 for women without IDD (95% CI: 76.8, 77.4 per 1000 women). General fertility rate ratio was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.9). Total fertility was 1.80 births per woman with IDD and 2.05 births per woman without IDD (rate ratio: 0.89 95% CI: 0.5, 1.5). Peak fertility occurred later for autistic women (30-34 years), compared with women with other IDD (20-24 years). CONCLUSION: In Wisconsin Medicaid, general fertility rate of women with IDD was lower than women without IDD: the difference was attenuated when accounting for differing age distributions. Results highlight the disparities women with IDD face and the importance of allocating pregnancy care within Medicaid.
BACKGROUND: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face stigma and inequity surrounding opportunity and care during pregnancy. Little work has quantified fertility rates among women with IDD which prevents proper allocation of care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to cross-sectionally describe fertility patterns among women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in 10-years of Medicaid-linked birth records. STUDY DESIGN: Our sample was Medicaid-enrolled women with live births in Wisconsin from 2007 to 2016. We identified IDD through prepregnancy Medicaid claims. We calculated general fertility-, age-specific-, and the total fertility-rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for women with and without IDD and generated estimates by year and IDD-type. RESULTS: General fertility rate in women with IDD was 62.1 births per 1000 women with IDD (95% CI 59.2, 64.9 per 1000 women) and 77.1 per 1000 for women without IDD (95% CI: 76.8, 77.4 per 1000 women). General fertility rate ratio was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.9). Total fertility was 1.80 births per woman with IDD and 2.05 births per woman without IDD (rate ratio: 0.89 95% CI: 0.5, 1.5). Peak fertility occurred later for autistic women (30-34 years), compared with women with other IDD (20-24 years). CONCLUSION: In Wisconsin Medicaid, general fertility rate of women with IDD was lower than women without IDD: the difference was attenuated when accounting for differing age distributions. Results highlight the disparities women with IDD face and the importance of allocating pregnancy care within Medicaid.
Authors: Mollie E Wood; Szu-Ta Chen; Krista F Huybrechts; Brian T Bateman; Kathryn J Gray; Ellen W Seely; Yanmin Zhu; Helen Mogun; Elisabetta Patorno; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Eric Rubenstein; Julie Daniels; Laura A Schieve; Deborah L Christensen; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Catherine E Rice; Amanda V Bakian; Maureen S Durkin; Steven A Rosenberg; Russell S Kirby; Li-Ching Lee Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Hilary K Brown; Simon Chen; Astrid Guttmann; Susan M Havercamp; Susan Parish; Joel G Ray; Lesley A Tarasoff; Simone N Vigod; Adele Carty; Yona Lunsky Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Eric Rubenstein; Laura Schieve; Lisa Wiggins; Catherine Rice; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Deborah Christensen; Maureen Durkin; Julie Daniels; Li-Ching Lee Journal: Res Dev Disabil Date: 2018-09-15
Authors: Ami Tint; Hilary K Brown; Simon Chen; Meng-Chuan Lai; Lesley A Tarasoff; Simone N Vigod; Susan Parish; Susan M Havercamp; Yona Lunsky Journal: Autism Date: 2021-01-19