Search

Objective We conducted a study to examine the impact of COVID on patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests at the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States. Methods We conducted telephone interviews with 40 patients to examine how the pandemic affected prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing decisions during the initial months of the pandemic in the United States. An interview guide queried experiences with the ability to access information about prenatal genetic testing options and to utilize the tests when desired. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12. Analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory. Results The pandemic did not alter most participants' decisions to undergo prenatal genetic testing. Yet, it did impact how participants viewed the risks and benefits of testing and timing of testing. There was heightened anxiety among those who underwent testing, stemming from the risk of viral exposure and the fear of being alone if pregnancy loss or fetal abnormality was identified at the time of an ultrasound‐based procedure. Conclusion The pandemic may impact patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic tests. More research is needed to determine how best to meet pregnant patients' decision‐making needs during this time., Key Points What is already known about this topic? Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are a core component to the delivery of high‐quality, evidence‐based prenatal care.It is critical that pregnant patients have the information and resources to make an informed decision about a growing array of prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing options.In the decision‐making process, pregnant patients commonly weigh the risks and benefits of gaining genetic information about the fetus with the risks and benefits of the available screens and diagnostic tests. What does this study add? The pandemic has led to significant changes in healthcare delivery and insurance benefits for prenatal genetic testing, raising key questions about how pregnant patient are weighing the risks and benefits of the available prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing options against the risks of COVID exposure by presenting to a healthcare facility for testing.COVID‐19 appears to impact how women view the utility of prenatal genetic testing, including how they weigh the risk and benefits of prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing in addition to when in the pregnancy they may elect to undergo testing.The COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in increased levels of concern and anxiety that may be encountered by pregnant women in the testing process, raising awareness of the need for additional resources to support patients' decision‐making during the pandemic.

Background and Hypothesis: During periviable deliveries, parents are confronted with overwhelming and challenging decisions, about which they may know little. This study aimed to explore qualitatively the language that mothers and important others (IOs) utilize when discussing palliation, or ‘comfort care,’ as a treatment option in the context of periviability. Project Methods: We prospectively recruited pregnant women (and designated IOs) admitted to labor and delivery for a threatened periviable delivery (22-25 weeks GA) at two hospitals between September 2016 and January 2018. Using a semi-structured interview guide, we explored participants’ perceptions of palliation and neonatal treatment options. Women were asked items such as, “How was the choice of resuscitation presented to you?” and “What were the options presented?” Research assistants developed a codebook for the interview transcripts, and NVivo 12 was used for qualitative analysis. Results: Thirty women and 16 IOs were recruited in total. Participants’ descriptions of palliation fell into five broad categories – ‘doing nothing,’ ‘not resuscitating,’ ‘withdrawal of care,’ ‘implicit comfort care,’ and ‘explicit comfort care.’ The majority of parents perceived comfort care not as a distinct treatment option, but rather as the absence of treatment. Several barriers to the comprehension of comfort care were observed, including subjects’ unfamiliarity with the terminology or the inability to remember its explanation during antenatal consultation. Parents described comfort care with either neutral or negative connotations, and even those parents able to discuss the concept neutrally chose resuscitation as their preferred treatment option. Conclusion and Potential Impact: This study revealed that many parents facing periviable delivery may lack understanding of comfort care as a neonatal treatment option. These parental perceptions highlight the need to improve counseling efforts in order to maximize parents’ informed decision-making.

Background Prenatal genetic screens, including carrier screening (CS) and aneuploidy screening (AS), comprise an important component of reproductive healthcare delivery. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and patient’s preferences regarding the use of these screens. Yet, it is unclear how to achieve this ideal as prenatal genetic screening options rapidly become more complex and increasingly available to patients. With increased complexity and availability of reproductive testing options, decision-support strategies are critical to prepare patients to consider AS and/or CS. Methods A self-administered survey evaluated knowledge and decision-making preferences for expanded carrier (CS) and aneuploidy (AS) prenatal screening. The survey was administered to participants before their first prenatal visit to assess baseline decision-making needs and preference at the initiation of prenatal care. Analysis was approached as a descriptive process. Results Participants had similar familiarity with the concepts associated with AS compared to CS; mean knowledge scores for CS was 0.59 [possible range 0.00 to 1.00] and 0.55 for AS. Participants reported preferences to learn about a range of conditions, including those with severe or mild impact, childhood-onset, and adult-onset. Decision-making preference with respect to learning about the associated disease phenotypes for the contained on AS and CS panel shifted with the complexity of the panel, with a greater preference to learn about conditions post-test compared pre-test education as panels increased from 5 to 100 conditions. Conclusion Patients’ baseline knowledge of prenatal genetic screens coupled with evolving decision-making preferences presents challenges for the delivery of prenatal genetic screens. This calls for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to support pregnant patients’ decision-making commensurate with advances in prenatal genomics.

Purpose. To measure utility values that describe women’s willingness to tradeoff maternal morbidity for fetal benefit among pregnant and nonpregnant women of reproductive age. Methods. We recruited English-speaking women aged 18 to 45 years in clinical and community-based settings. Eight health states were studied: 4 maternal (healthy, stroke, hysterectomy, death) and 4 neonatal (healthy, severe cerebral palsy [CP], severe mental retardation [MR], death). Utilities were assessed on a subset of 9 pairs of mom/baby delivery outcomes. Participants ranked the 9 pairs of outcomes in order of preference, then standard gamble methods were used to calculate utilities. Numeracy skills were assessed. Results. Utilities were obtained from 477 participants (recruitment rate = 94%). Twenty-one percent were pregnant, 63% were parents, and 54% were African American. Utilities did not differ significantly between pregnant and nonpregnant women or based on numeracy score. The highest (nonhealthy) values were assigned to baby healthy/mom hysterectomy (0.999), baby healthy/mom stroke (0.946), and baby CP/mom healthy (0.940). The lowest values were assigned to baby death/mom hysterectomy (0.203), baby MR/mom death (0.150), and baby death/mom stroke (0.087). Nonwhite participants assigned a significantly higher value to baby MR/mom death ( P = 0.01), baby MR/mom stroke ( P = 0.02), baby MR/mom healthy ( P < 0.01), and baby MR/mom hysterectomy ( P = 0.02) than white participants. Conclusion. When asked to value pairs of maternal/fetal outcomes that required a tradeoff of morbidity and mortality, women tended to assign the highest utility to combinations that resulted in a “healthy baby.” They assigned the lowest values to combinations that resulted in a baby’s death or MR. Our findings highlight the importance of 1) assessing individual preferences and goals of care for pregnancy outcomes and 2) measuring utilities among reproductive-aged women when modeling obstetric decision making.

Objective To describe periviability counseling practices and decision making. Study Design This is a retrospective review of mothers and newborns delivering between 22 and 24 completed weeks from 2011 to 2015 at six U.S. centers. Maternal and fetal/neonatal clinical and maternal sociodemographic data from medical records and geocoded sociodemographic information were collected. Separate analyses examined characteristics surrounding receiving neonatology consultation; planning neonatal resuscitation; and centers' planned resuscitation rates. Results Neonatology consultations were documented for 40, 63, and 72% of 498 mothers delivering at 22, 23, and 24 weeks, respectively. Consult versus no-consult mothers had longer median admission-to-delivery intervals (58.7 vs. 8.7 h, p Conclusion Areas requiring improvement included delivery/content of neonatology consultations, social work support, consideration of centers' patient populations, and opportunities for shared decisions.

To assess women's attitudes and preferences related to recent changes in cervical cancer screening guidelines.We distributed 380 surveys in three University based and Community clinics. Study participants anonymously completed surveys, which included questions related to demographics, cervical cancer, screening practices, risk perception and attitudes towards changing practices.315 women agreed to participate (83%). 60% (185/310) of participants had some college education or higher and 12% (36/305) worked in the medical field. On average, participants answered 4.1 (SD = 1.3) of the 8 knowledge questions correctly. Knowledge scores significantly increased with education level (Kruskal-Wallis test p-value 0.001). The majority (72%, n = 228) reported that they should be screened annually, and that screening should be initiated with the onset of sexual activity (63%, n = 197). Participants that were more knowledgeable of current screening practices were more comfortable extending screening intervals (Kruskal-Wallis test p 0.001).Even among a relatively highly educated population of women, participants had limited knowledge of cervical cancer and current screening guidelines. Many participants reported discomfort with less frequent screening intervals.This study supports the need for improvement in cervical cancer prevention education especially with regards to the new screening guidelines.

Purpose To examine outcomes of a 2-visit protocol for placement of intrauterine or subdermal contraception. Methods We identified all women ages 15 to 27 who received an order for an intrauterine or subdermal contraceptive between January 2014−December 2016. We examined time from order to contraceptive placement and reasons for incomplete orders. Results We identified 1,192 unique patients who received 1,323 orders for intrauterine or subdermal contraceptives; 68% were completed at a second visit. The median time from order to placement was 22 days (interquartile range = 15−35). Of incomplete orders, 41% were related to logistics of a subsequent visit. Twenty-eight percent of patients had a subsequent pregnancy within the study period. Conclusions Efforts to provide same-day access for all contraceptive methods are needed.

California has focused on health equity in the state’s COVID-19 reopening plan. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy assigns each of California’s 58 counties into 1 of 4 tiers based on 2 metrics: test positivity rate and adjusted case rate. To advance to the next less-restrictive tier, counties must meet that tier’s test positivity and adjusted case rate thresholds. In addition, counties must have a plan for targeted investments within disadvantaged communities, and counties with more than 106 000 residents must meet an equity metric. California’s explicit incorporation of health equity into its reopening plan underscores the interrelated fate of its residents during the COVID-19 pandemic and creates incentives for action. This article evaluates the benefits and challenges of this novel health equity focus, and outlines recommendations for other US states to address disparities in their reopening plans.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded across the United States, troubling disparities in mortality have emerged between different racial groups, particularly African Americans and Whites. Media reports, a growing body of COVID-19-related literature, and long-standing knowledge of structural racism and its myriad effects on the African American community provide important lenses for understanding and addressing these disparities. However, troubling gaps in knowledge remain, as does a need to act. Using the best available evidence, we present risk- and place-based recommendations for how to effectively address these disparities in the areas of data collection, COVID-19 exposure and testing, health systems collaboration, human capital repurposing, and scarce resource allocation. Our recommendations are supported by an analysis of relevant bioethical principles and public health practices. Additionally, we provide information on the efforts of Chicago, Illinois’ mayoral Racial Equity Rapid Response Team to reduce these disparities in a major urban US setting.

Objective This study aimed to compare attitudes of providers regarding perinatal management and outcomes for periviable newborns of caregivers at centers with higher resuscitation (HR) and lower resuscitation (LR) rates in the delivery room. Study Design All obstetric and neonatal clinical providers at six U.S. sites were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Survey responses were compared with clinical data collected from a previous retrospective study comparing centers' rates of planned resuscitation. Responses were analyzed by multivariable logistic and linear regression to assess how HR versus LR center respondents differed in management preferences and outcome predictions. Results Paradoxically, HR versus LR respondents, when adjusting for other variables, were less likely to respond that interventions such as antenatal steroids (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–0.88, p Conclusion Despite higher rates of planned resuscitation at 22 and 23 weeks, steroid usage and survival rates did not differ between HR and LR sites. In this subsequent survey, respondents from HR centers had a less favorable outlook on interventions for these newborns than those at LR centers, suggesting that instead of driving practices, attitudes may be more closely associated with experiences of clinical outcomes.

Objective Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. Methods We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. Results Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. Conclusion Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

OBJECTIVE: To examine prospective parents’ perceptions of management options and outcomes in the context of threatened periviable delivery, and the values they apply in making antenatal decisions during this period. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of 46 antenatal interviews conducted at three tertiary-care hospitals with 54 prospective parents (40 pregnant women, 14 partners) who had received counseling for threatened periviable delivery (40 cases). RESULTS: Participants most often recalled being involved in resuscitation, cerclage and delivery mode decisions. Over half (63.0%) desired a shared decision-making role. Most (85.2%) recalled hearing about morbidity and mortality, with many reiterating terms like “brain damage,” “disability,” and “handicap.” The potential for disability influenced decision making to variable degrees. In describing what mattered most, participant spoke of giving their child a “fighting chance;” others voiced concerns about “best interest,” a “healthy baby,” “pain and suffering,” and religious faith. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the importance of presenting clear information on disability and eliciting the factors that parents deem most important in making decisions about periviable birth.

Background Neonatologists have varying counseling practices for women with threatened periviable pregnancies. Previous research has suggested this variability may be influenced by social and economic factors of the mother. Objective The objective of this study was to determine the relative influence of maternal factors in counseling recommendations for periviable pregnancies. Methods A national cohort of neonatologists was sent a web-based survey. Five maternal characteristics were varied across eight vignettes: age, education, race, parity, and pregnancy “intendedness.” Following each vignette, participants reported their likelihood to recommend full resuscitation versus comfort care. Conjoint analysis was used to assess the relative influence of each factor on respondents' recommendations. Results Responses from 328 neonatologists were included. Of the five tested maternal characteristics, parity and intendedness had the highest importance scores (40.2 and 35.0), followed by race, education, and age. If parents requested resuscitation, respondents were highly likely to comply with preferences, with little variation across vignettes. Conclusion Fetal-specific factors such as gestational age and estimated weight are known to influence counseling and decision making for extremely preterm infants. Our results suggest that maternal factors may also influence counseling practices, although physicians are likely to comply with parental preferences regardless of maternal factors. Future research should identify how maternal characteristics impact actual counseling practices.

Shared decision making (SDM)—when clinicians and patients make medical decisions together—is moving swiftly from an ethical ideal toward widespread clinical implementation affecting millions of patients through recent policy initiatives. We argue that policy initiatives to promote SDM implementation in clinical practice carry the risk of several unintended negative consequences if limitations in defining and measuring SDM are not addressed. We urge policy makers to include prespecified definitions of desired outcomes, offer guidance on the tools used to measure SDM in the multitude of contexts in which it occurs, evaluate the impact of SDM policy initiatives over time, review that impact at regular intervals, and revise SDM measurement tools as needed.

Despite medical advances in the care of extremely preterm neonates and growing acceptance of resuscitation at 23 and even 22 weeks gestation, controversy remains concerning the use of antepartum obstetric intervention s that are intended to improve outcomes in the setting of anticipated extremely preterm birth. In the absence of demonstrated benefit at23 weeks gestation and with uncertain benefit at 23 weeks gestation, previous obstetric committee opinions have advised against their use at these gestational ages.The purpose of this study was to review the use of obstetric intervention s at the threshold of viability based on neonatal resuscitation plan and to review the odds of survival to neonatal intensive care unit discharge based on use of obstetric intervention s with adjustment for neonatal factors.This retrospective study of 6 study centers reviewed pregnant patients who were admitted between 22+0/7 and 24+6/7 weeks gestation facing delivery from 2011-2015. Patients with known anomalies or missing data were excluded. Records were reviewed for demographics, resuscitation plan, and obstetric intervention s. Mode of delivery, delivery room care, and final infant dispositions were recorded. Multiple gestations were included as 1 pregnancy in regard to the use of obstetric intervention s and were excluded from survival analysis.Four hundred seventy-eight mothers met the inclusion criteria. When resuscitation was planned, mothers were more likely to receive all conventional obstetric intervention s (antenatal steroids, magnesium sulfate for neuroprotection, tocolytics, and Group Beta Streptococcus prophylaxis), regardless of gestational age at admission, and were more likely to be delivered by cesarean section (P.05). Analyzed as a group, when antenatal steroids, magnesium sulfate, tocolytics and Group Beta Streptococcus prophylaxis were administered, the odds of survival to neonatal intensive care unit discharge increased for newborn infants who were born at 22 (odds ratio, 11.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.405-91.4) and 23 weeks gestation (odds ratio, 15.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.747-64.11; P.05). In singletons, the odds of survival to neonatal intensive care unit discharge was not improved by cesarean delivery vs vaginal delivery, even after adjustment for the use of additional interventions, weight, gender, and gestational age (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.8; P=.912).In this study, when postnatal resuscitation was planned at 22 and 23 weeks gestation, women were more likely to receive antenatal steroids, magnesium sulfate, and antibiotics; provision of this bundle imparted survival benefit at 23 weeks gestation but could not be demonstrated at 22 weeks gestation because of the small sample size. These findings support of neonate-oriented obstetric interventions in the setting of delivery at 23 weeks gestation when resuscitation is planned and further exploration of optimal obstetric care when resuscitation of infants who were born at 22 weeks gestation is anticipated.

Key Points Question What are the cost savings, from the payer’s (insurance) perspective, associated with providing same-day access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for adolescents? Findings In this economic evaluation, same-day LARC placement was associated with overall lower costs ($2016 per patient over 1 year) compared with placement at a subsequent visit ($4133 per patient over 1 year). In addition, numbers of unintended pregnancies and abortions decreased in association with providing same-day LARC placement. Meaning The findings suggest that providing same-day LARC placement may save payers money by preventing unintended pregnancy, and efforts to make this model of care feasible in all clinical settings should be undertaken., This economic evaluation study uses a cost model to analyze Indiana Medicaid’s cost savings associated with providing adolescents with same-day access to long-acting reversible contraception compared with requiring a second visit for placement., Importance Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is considered first-line contraception for adolescents but often requires multiple clinic visits to obtain. Objective To analyze Indiana Medicaid’s cost savings associated with providing adolescents with same-day access to LARC. Design, Setting, and Participants An economic evaluation of cost minimization from the payer’s (Medicaid) perspective was performed from August 2017 through August 2018. The cost model examined the anticipated outcome of providing LARC at the first visit compared with requiring a second visit for placement. The costs and probabilities of clinic visits, devices, device insertions and removals, unintended pregnancy, and births, according to previously published sources, were incorporated into the model. The participants were payers (Medicaid). Main Outcomes and Measures The outcomes were the cost of same-day LARC placement vs LARC placement at a subsequent visit in US dollars, and rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. One-way sensitivity analysis was done. Results Same-day LARC placement was associated with lower overall costs ($2016 per patient over 1 year) compared with LARC placement at a subsequent visit ($4133 per patient over 1 year). Compared with the return-visit strategy, same-day LARC was associated with an unintended pregnancy rate of 14% vs 48% and an abortion rate of 4% vs 14%. Conclusions and Relevance Providing same-day LARC could save costs for Medicaid, largely by preventing unintended pregnancy. Expected cost savings could be used to implement policies that make this strategy feasible in all clinical settings.

Objective To determine whether women know their own cervical cancer screening recommendations after hysterectomy, and to evaluate patients’ understanding of hysterectomy terminology and cervical cancer screening. Methods A 19-item questionnaire was developed and administered to 413 women who had undergone minimally invasive hysterectomy with benign pathology between January 2008 and January 2012. Results A total of 190 women (46%) participated in the survey. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (61%) and had a college education (66%). Fifty-nine percent of respondents knew that a Pap test screens for cervical cancer, and 40% knew that HPV is related to cervical cancer. Eight-four percent understood that Pap screening is recommended if a woman still has a cervix after hysterectomy. Only 67% correctly identified if their cervix had been removed during their own surgery and if they needed future cervical cancer screening per current guidelines. Caucasian race and higher income were significant predictors of hysterectomy and screening knowledge. Conclusion Knowledge regarding Pap tests, HPV, and implications of a supracervical hysterectomy is lacking, even among a post-hysterectomy population. Practical implications Patient educational information is needed to improve perioperative counseling regarding the type of hysterectomy performed and indications for future cervical cancer screening.

To develop and test an Objective Structured Clinical Examination to evaluate the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in periviable counseling among fourth-year OB/GYN residents. Residents counseled a standardized patient presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes at 23 weeks’ gestation. Braddock’s 9-item measure of SDM was adapted to a 10-item scoring rubric; rating each: 0 (absent), 1 (partial), or 2 (complete). Twenty-six residents participated. All provided “complete” discussions of the clinical issue and “complete” or ‘partial’ ratings for informing the woman of her prognosis (62 and 38%, respectively) and addressing her role in decision-making (42 and 50%). Discussions of her goals and preferences were often absent (69 and 62%). Only 42% discussed uncertainties. Critical elements of SDM related to a woman’s values, goals and preferences were not explored when counseling about periviable delivery. Training in SDM is needed to advance communication skills for complex clinical decision-making.

Introduction This study aimed to assess unfulfilled sterilization requests, specifically regarding issues with the Medicaid consent for sterilization, and determine the proportion of women who subsequently received interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum. Methods The authors conducted a prospective observational cohort study of women who gave birth over an 8-month period and requested immediate postpartum sterilization. Records of women with unfulfilled requests were reviewed up to 3 months postpartum to determine rates of postpartum follow-up and interval sterilization. Primary analysis examined unfulfilled sterilization requests associated with the Medicaid consent form and, secondarily, all other reasons for unfulfilled requests, as well as alternative contraceptive methods chosen. Results Of the 334 women who requested immediate postpartum sterilization, 173 (52%) received the requested sterilization and 161 (48%) did not. Among those whose request was unfulfilled, 91 (56.5%) still wanted the procedure, and of those women, more than two-thirds were unable to receive it because of Medicaid consent issues. Within this group, only 6 received interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum; more than one-third received a form of long-acting reversible contraception, and 24.6% did not receive postpartum care. Discussion A sizable proportion of women requesting postpartum sterilization have unfulfilled requests because of an issue with the Medicaid consent and also have a low likelihood of receiving interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum. The Medicaid consent may create barriers for women requesting postpartum sterilization, the vast majority of whom face subsequent barriers obtaining interval sterilization, thereby increasing the risk for unintended pregnancy in an at-risk population. This has important implications for reproductive justice efforts to protect vulnerable populations while minimizing barriers to desired care.

To discuss the role for shared decision-making in obstetrics/gynecology and to review evidence on the impact of decision aids on reproductive health decision-making.Among the 155 studies included in a 2014 Cochrane review of decision aids, 31 (29%) addressed reproductive health decisions. Although the majority did not show evidence of an effect on treatment choice, there was a greater uptake of mammography in selected groups of women exposed to decision aids compared with usual care; and a statistically significant reduction in the uptake of hormone replacement therapy among detailed decision aid users compared with simple decision aid users. Studies also found an effect on patient-centered outcomes of care, such as medication adherence, quality-of-life measures, and anxiety scores. In maternity care, only decision analysis tools affected final treatment choice, and patient-directed aids yielded no difference in planned mode of birth after cesarean.There is untapped potential for obstetricians/gynecologists to optimize decision support for reproductive health decisions. Given the limited evidence-base guiding practice, the preference-sensitive nature of reproductive health decisions, and the increase in policy efforts and financial incentives to optimize patients' satisfaction, it is increasingly important for obstetricians/gynecologists to appreciate the role of shared decision-making and decision support in providing patient-centered reproductive healthcare.

To test for racial or ethnic disparities or both in periviable cesarean delivery and describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with periviable cesarean delivery.This was a retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and neonatal hospital discharge data linked to vital statistics data for deliveries occurring between 23 0/7 and 24 6/7 [corrected] weeks of gestation in California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2005 (N=8,290).Approximately 79% of the population was aged 18-35 years, and almost half were nulliparous. Almost 20% of the women were African American, 36.4% were Hispanic, and 33.6% were white. Overall, 33.6% of periviable neonates were delivered by cesarean. In multivariable analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, cesarean delivery did not differ among African American and Hispanic women compared with white women (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.05; and OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83-1.09, respectively). Women presenting with preterm labor were significantly less likely to undergo cesarean delivery (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), whereas women presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.45) or abruption (OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.09-2.81) were more likely to have cesarean deliveries. The strongest predictor of periviable cesarean delivery was pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 15.6.4, 95% CI 12.3-19.7).Unlike disparities observed at later gestational ages, cesarean delivery did not differ by race and ethnicity among this periviable cohort. Instead, medical indications such as pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm premature rupture of membranes, or abruption were associated with a higher likelihood of cesarean delivery. Periviable deliveries represent a subset of deliveries, wherein race and ethnicity do not influence mode of delivery; the acuity of the clinical encounter dictates the course of care.

Little is known about the extent to which parents retain the education on how to manage home medical emergencies. We sought to describe retention of pediatric oncology home care education (POHCE) in a cohort of 24 parents of newly diagnosed children with cancer and investigate sociodemographic disparities in this retention. We measured retention using a vignette-based survey instrument. The mean score was 4 (range 0-6, SD = 1.6) and parents with high school only education and those with limited cancer health literacy scored lowest (2.5 and 2.8, respectively). Future POHCE interventions can focus on parents' literacy and education levels as predictors to tailor alternative education strategies.

Purpose: To explore women’s attitudes and perceptions regarding legal requirements for prenatal drug testing. Methods: Web-based survey of 500 US women (age 18–45) recruited from a market research survey panel. A 24-item questionnaire assessed their opinion of laws requiring doctors to routinely verbal screen and urine drug test patients during pregnancy; recommendations for consequences for positive drug tests during pregnancy; and opinion of laws requiring routine drug testing of newborns. Additional questions asked participants about the influence of such laws on their own care-seeking behaviors. Data were analyzed for associations between participant characteristics and survey responses using Pearson’s chi-squared test. Results: The majority of respondents (86%) stated they would support a law requiring verbal screening of all pregnant patients and 73% would support a law requiring universal urine drug testing in pregnancy. Fewer respondents were willing to support laws that required verbal screening or urine drug testing (68% and 61%, respectively) targeting only Medicaid recipients. Twenty-one percent of respondents indicated they would be offended if their doctors asked them about drug use and 14% indicated that mandatory drug testing would discourage prenatal care attendance. Conclusion: Women would be more supportive of policies requiring universal rather than targeted screening and testing for prenatal drug use. However, a noteworthy proportion of women would be discouraged from attending prenatal care – a reminder that drug testing policies may have detrimental effects on maternal child health.

Objective: To describe Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) physicians’ practice patterns for 22-week delivery management. Mehods: Surveyed 750 randomly-sampled members of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, querying MFMs’ practices and policies guiding 22-week delivery management. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five (43%) MFMs responded. Nearly all (87%) would offer induction. Twenty-eight percent would order steroids, and 12% would perform cesarean for a patient desiring resuscitation. Offering induction differed significantly based on the provider’s practice setting, region, religious service attendance and political affiliation. In multivariable analyses, political affiliation remained a significant predictor of offering induction (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Most MFMs offer induction for PPROM at 22 weeks. A noteworthy proportion is willing to order steroids and perform cesarean. Personal beliefs and practice characteristics may contribute to these decisions. While little is known about the efficacy of these interventions at 22 weeks, some MFMs will offer obstetrical intervention if resuscitation is intended.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the odds of morbidity and death that are associated with cesarean delivery, compared with vaginal delivery, for breech fetuses who are delivered from 23-24 6/7 weeks' gestational age.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and infant hospital discharge data that were linked to vital statistics for breech deliveries that occurred from 23-24 6/7 weeks' gestation in California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 2000-2009 (N = 1854). Analyses were stratified by gestational age (23-23 6/7 vs 24-24 6/7 weeks' gestation).Cesarean delivery was performed for 46% (335 fetuses) and 77% (856 fetuses) of 23- and 24-week breech fetuses. In multivariable analyses, overall survival was greater for cesarean-born neonates (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.24-7.06; AOR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.76-4.81, respectively). When delivered for nonemergent indications, cesarean-born survivors were more than twice as likely to experience major morbidity (intraventricular hemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, asphyxia composite; AOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.37-5.84; AOR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.11-3.86 at 23 and 24 weeks' gestation, respectively). Among intubated neonates, despite a short-term survival advantage, there was no difference in survival to6-month corrected age (AOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.83-3.74; AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.81-2.76, respectively). There was no difference in survival for intubated 23-week neonates who were delivered by cesarean for nonemergent indications or cesarean-born neonates who weighed500 g.Cesarean delivery increased overall survival and major morbidity for breech periviable neonates. However, among intubated neonates, despite a short-term survival advantage, there was no difference in 6-month survival. Also, cesarean delivery did not increase survival for neonates who weighed500 g. Patients and providers should discuss explicitly the trade-offs related to neonatal death and morbidity, maternal morbidity, and implications for future pregnancies.

To describe and compare estimates of neonatal morbidity and mortality communicated by neonatologists and obstetricians in simulated periviable counseling encounters.A simulation-based study of 16 obstetricians (OBs) and 15 neonatologists counseling standardized patients portraying pregnant women with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. Two investigators tabulated all instances of numerically-described risk estimates across individuals and by specialty.Overall, 12/15 (80%) neonatologists utilized numeric estimates of survival; 6/16 (38%) OBs did. OBs frequently deferred the discussion of "exact numbers" to neonatologists. The 12 neonatologists provided 13 unique numeric estimates, ranging from 3% to 50% survival. Half of those neonatologists provided two to three different estimates in a single encounter. By comparison, six OBs provided four unique survival estimates ("50%", "30-40%", "1/3-1/2", "10%"). Only 2/15 (13%) neonatologists provided numeric estimates of survival without impairment. None of the neonatologists used the term "intact" survival, while five OBs did. Three neonatologists gave numeric estimates of long-term disability and one OB did.We found substantial variation in estimates and noteworthy omissions of discussions related to long-term morbidity. Across specialties, we noted inconsistencies in the use and meaning of terms like "intact survival." More tools and training are needed to improve the quality and consistency of periviable risk-communication.

Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling.We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance.Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P =0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients.This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients' sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study.

To qualitatively assess obstetricians' and neonatologists' responses to standardized patients (SPs) asking "What would you do?" during periviable counseling encounters.An exploratory single-center simulation study. SPs, portraying a pregnant woman presenting with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, were instructed to ask, "What would you do?" if presented options regarding delivery management or resuscitation. Responses were independently reviewed and classified.We identified five response patterns: 'Disclose' (9/28), 'Don't Know' (11/28), 'Deflect' (23/28), 'Decline' (2/28), and 'Ignore' (2/28). Most physicians utilized more than one response pattern (22/28). Physicians 'deflected' the question by: restating or offering additional medical information; answering with a question; evoking a hypothetical patient; or redirecting the SP to other sources of support. When compared with neonatologists, obstetricians (40% vs. 15%) made personal or professional disclosures more often. Though both specialties readily acknowledged the importance of values in making a decision, only one physician attempted to elicit the patient's values."What would you do?" represented a missed opportunity for values elicitation. Interventions are needed to facilitate values elicitation and shared decision-making in periviable care.If physicians fail to address patients' values and goals, they lack the information needed to develop patient-centered plans of care.

To determine predictors and pregnancy outcomes associated with antepartum discharge against medical advice (AMA D/C). Retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and infant hospital discharge data linked to vital statistics data for antepartum admissions in California from 1995 to 2005. (N = 203,250). After adjusting for comorbid conditions, the odds of AMA D/C for Black women were twice that of white women (OR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.70-2.35). Publicly insured women had 3.5 times the odds of AMA D/C compared to privately insured women (OR = 3.54, 95% CI 3.02-4.15). AMA D/C was also higher among substance abusers and women with mental illness (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.43-2.67 and OR = 4.45, 95% CI 3.81-5.21 respectively). Most notably, AMA D/C tripled the odds of fetal death in patients admitted for pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR = 3.08, 95% CI 1.36-6.98) and increased the odds of neonatal morbidity (respiratory distress syndrome OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.07-1.70 and small-for-gestational-age OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.89) in patients admitted with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Vulnerable populations and patients with comorbid medical and mental illnesses are at increased risk for AMA D/C and its associated adverse pregnancy outcomes. Targeted interventions and resources to support at-risk populations are needed.

OBJECTIVE: Racial/ethnic minorities report preferences for resuscitative care at the end of life. The main objective of this study was to determine if there are racial/ethnic differences in use of intubation for periviable neonates. We hypothesized that infants born to black and Hispanic women are more likely to be resuscitated compared with infants born to white women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and infant hospital discharge data of women who delivered between 23.0 and 24.6 weeks' gestation linked to birth and death certificate data for California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2005 (N = 9632). RESULTS: Overall, 78.9% of the population was aged 18 to 35 years, and almost half were nulliparous; 19.4% of the women were black, 36.6% were Hispanic, and 33.4% were white. Approximately 30% had less than a high school education, and 49.2% were federally insured. Overall, 44.7% of periviable neonates were intubated. In multivariable analyses adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, black and Hispanic race/ethnicity was significantly associated with neonatal intubation (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.29] and 1.22 [95% CI: 1.10–1.36], respectively). In models controlling for clustering at the level of the delivery hospital, black race remained a predictor of neonatal intubation (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.07–1.46]), but differences among Hispanics dissipated (OR: 1.12 [95% CI: 0.98–1.27]). CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic differences exist in patterns of periviable resuscitation, which may reflect underlying differences in patient preference. Alternatively, institutional practices or resources may account for these differences. These findings have important implications for patient care and institutional practice. Our results lay the foundation for additional work to investigate how social, cultural, and institutional factors influence patient–provider decision-making regarding periviable care.

To determine how risk perceptions, worry, and distrust relate to pregnant women's intentions to accept the H1N1 vaccine. Cross-sectional survey of 173 pregnant women recruited from two OB/GYN practices at an urban academic medical center. Survey items were adapted from validated measures of risk, worry, and health care distrust. Vaccination intention was analyzed as a dichotomous variable. Analyses were with student's t tests, chi squared tests, and logistic regression. Study participants were, on average, 25.6 years old with parity=2.8. 55% of respondents were Black; 32% completed a high school diploma or less; and half were publically or un- insured. 63% of the respondents reported that they "definitely" or "probably" would accept the H1N1 vaccine. Intention to receive the H1N1 vaccine did not vary by sociodemographic factors nor by source of health information. In univariate analysis, intention was related to higher risk perceptions about probability of and susceptibility to H1N1 influenza (57.9 vs. 31.8%, P=.001 and 67.0 vs. 45.3%, P=.005, respectively), worry about getting H1N1 influenza (48.1 vs. 15.6%, P=

Objective The purpose of this study is to describe current health care provider cervical cancer screening practice patterns for average-risk women in the state of Indiana in comparison to the 2012 guidelines as well as earlier guidelines. We also aim to describe what factors are associated with increased adherence to guidelines, and what factors may impede adherence. Study Design We conducted a vignette-based survey among a convenience sample of obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants attending the Indiana American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Section meeting in January 2013. Results Questionnaires were returned by 51% (112/218) of attendants. Of the 111 providers with completed surveys, 42 (38%) follow current guidelines. Of providers, 86% start screening at age 21 years. Of providers, 33% screen women aged 21-29 years every 3 years. Of providers, 33% follow recommendations for cotesting every 5 years for patients 30-65 years of age. The majority of providers follow guidelines to stop screening after a benign hysterectomy or age 65 years (75% and 51%, respectively). Conclusion The majority of providers follow the 2012 guidelines for the initiation and cessation of cervical screening; however, most providers screen more frequently than currently recommended for patients between ages 21-65 years.

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine factors that influence obstetric decision-making and counseling for periviable deliveries and to describe counseling challenges. Study Design Twenty-one semistructured interviews were conducted with obstetricians who were recruited from 5 academic medical centers in Philadelphia. Two trained reviewers independently coded transcripts using grounded theory methods. Research software facilitated qualitative analysis. Results Circumscribed by institutional norms and clinical acuity, obstetric decision-making and counseling were influenced primarily by patient preferences. Perspectives on patient autonomy guided approaches to counseling. Thresholds for intervention varied from "attending to attending" and "institution to institution." Sociodemographic factors were not believed to influence clinical decision-making. However, obstetricians admittedly managed in vitro fertilization pregnancies more aggressively. Communicating uncertainty, managing expectations, assessing understanding, and relaying consistent messages across specialties were frequently described counseling challenges for obstetricians. Conclusion The impact of institutional variation and in vitro fertilization on periviable decision-making warrants further consideration. Interventions to train and support obstetricians in communicating uncertainty, managing expectations, and assessing values and understanding are needed.