Search

Background: African refugee women in the United States are at risk of poor reproductive health outcomes; however, examination of reproductive health outcomes in this population remains inadequate. We compared: (1) prepregnancy health and prenatal behavior; (2) prenatal history and prenatal care utilization; and (3) labor and birth outcomes between African refugee women and U.S.-born Black and White women. Methods: A secondary data analysis of enhanced electronic birth certificate data was used. Univariate comparisons using chi-squared tests for dichotomous variables and analysis of variance and/or Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables were conducted for Refugee versus Black versus White women. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: From 2007 to 2016, 789 African refugee, 17,487 Black, and 59,615 White women in our population gave birth. African refugees experienced more favorable health outcomes than U.S.-born groups on variables examined. Compared to U.S.-born women, African refugee women had fewer prepregnancy health risks (p < 0.001), fewer preterm births (p < 0.001), fewer low birth weight infants (p < 0.001), and higher rates of vaginal deliveries (p < 0.001). These favorable outcomes occurred despite later initiation of prenatal care (p < 0.001) and lower scores of prenatal care adequacy among refugee women compared to U.S.-born groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The healthy immigrant effect appears to extend to reproductive health outcomes in our studied population of African refugee women. However, based on our data, targeted, culturally-congruent education surrounding family planning and prenatal care is recommended. Insight from reproductive health care experiences of African refugee women can provide understanding of the protective factors contributing to the healthy immigrant effect in reproductive health outcomes, and knowledge gained can be utilized to improve outcomes in other at-risk groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To estimate the incidence and risk of complications associated with a fetal scalp electrode and to determine whether its application in the setting of operative vaginal delivery was associated with increased neonatal morbidity.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: Twelve clinical centers with 19 hospitals across nine American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists US districts.Population: Women in the USA.Methods: We evaluated 171 698 women with singleton deliveries ≥ 23 weeks of gestation in a secondary analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study between 2002 and 2008, after excluding conditions that precluded fetal scalp electrode application such as prelabour caesarean delivery. Secondary analysis limited to operative vaginal deliveries ≥ 34 weeks of gestation was also performed.Main Outcome Measures: Incidences and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals of neonatal complications were calculated, controlling for maternal characteristics, delivery mode and pregnancy complications.Results: Fetal scalp electrode was used in 37 492 (22%) of deliveries. In non-operative vaginal delivery, fetal scalp electrode was associated with increased risk of injury to scalp due to birth trauma (1.2% versus 0.9%; adjusted odds ratios 1.62; 95% confidence intervals 1.41-1.86) and cephalohaematoma (1.0% versus 0.9%; adjusted odds ratios 1.57; 95% confidence intervals 1.36-1.83). Neonatal complications were not significantly different comparing fetal scalp electrode with vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery and vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery alone or comparing fetal scalp electrode with forceps-assisted vaginal delivery and forceps-assisted vaginal delivery alone.Conclusions: We found increased neonatal morbidity with fetal scalp electrode though the absolute risk was very low. It is possible that these findings reflect an underlying indication for its use. Our findings support the use of fetal scalp electrodes when clinically indicated.Tweetable Abstract: Neonatal risks associated with fetal scalp electrode use were low (injury to scalp 1.2% and cephalohaematoma 1.0%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various factors related to the cesarean delivery (CD in the U.S. including its increased rate, its impact on postpartum hemorrhage and decreased use of operative vaginal delivery. As mentioned, rate of CD has increased to 60 percent from 20 percent in the U.S. Other topics discussed includes improved neonatal results of CD, amnioinfusion and trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC).

Objectives The accuracy of maternal morbidity estimates from hospital discharge data may be influenced by incomplete identification of deliveries. In maternal/infant health studies, obstetric deliveries are often identified only by the maternal outcome of delivery code (International Classification of Diseases code = V27). We developed an enhanced delivery identification method based on additional delivery-related codes and compared the performance of the enhanced method with the V27 method in identifying estimates of deliveries as well as estimates of maternal morbidity. Methods The enhanced and standard V27 methods for identifying deliveries were applied to data from the 1998–2004 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample, an annual nationwide representative survey of U.S. hospitalizations. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from logistic regression were used to examine predictors of deliveries not identified using the V27 method. Results The enhanced method identified 958,868 (3.4%) more deliveries than the 27,128,539 identified using the V27 code alone. Severe complications including major puerperal infections (OR = 3.1, 95% CI 2.8–3.4), hysterectomy (OR = 6.0, 95% CI 5.3–6.8), sepsis (OR = 11.9, 95% CI 10.3–13.6) and respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 16.6, 95% CI 14.4–19.2) were strongly associated with deliveries not identified by the V27 method. Nationwide prevalence rates of severe maternal complications were underestimated with the V27 method compared to the enhanced method, ranging from 9% underestimation for major puerperal infections to 40% underestimation for respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Deliveries with severe obstetric complications may be more likely to be missed using the V27 code. Researchers should be aware that selecting deliveries from hospital stay records by V27 codes alone may affect the accuracy of their findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care practitioners and researchers commonly call for greater reliance on evidence as a means to achieve improvement in quality of care. Systematic reviews provide a means to accelerate the use of evidence-based clinical interventions and public health practices. The extent to which these time- and resource-intensive systematic reviews currently address critical maternal health priorities in the intrapartum period is unclear. This analysis summarises key maternal health and research priorities, maps these priorities to existing reviews, identifies gaps in the literature that can be addressed with systematic reviews, and highlights key methodological concerns in conducting systematic reviews. The analysis draws on published data on maternal morbidities and an overview of 108 systematic reviews in Medline in the past 5 years using the MeSH terms ‘Delivery, Obstetric,’ to draw the links between health priorities, research priorities, existing evidence and missing evidence. Key causes of morbidity during labour and delivery in the United States include haemorrhage, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, obstetric trauma and infection. Analyses of maternal morbidity and mortality suggest that key concerns include racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes and the prevention of adverse events. Systematic reviews, however, generally tend to focus on the reduction of harms associated with interventions, are frequently limited to randomised designs, and do not address issues of health disparities. The results suggest that advances in evidence-based care in maternal health require that systematic reviews address issues of prevention of adverse events, include a larger variety of study designs when necessary and pay closer attention to health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]