Pregnancy outcomes among visually impaired women in Washington State, 1987-2014

Multiple Chronic Condition Emergency Department Visits Among U.S. Adults: Disparities at the Intersection of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Status and Race or Ethnicity

Background

The study aims to examine the risk of multiple chronic condition (MCC)-related emergency department (ED) visits, MCC-related hospitalization following the ED visit, and mortality after MCC-related ED visits among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), adults compared with nondisabled adults by race and ethnicity, using the 2020 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

Methods

We identified IDD adults using ICD-10-CM codes, extracting 296,394 nondisabled adults and 99,538 IDD adults, of which 67,771 are white, 19,164 are black, 10,667 are Latinx, and 1936 are other race or multiple race. The control group of nondisabled adults was age-matched and sex-matched in a 1:3 case-control ratio. We conducted multilevel Poisson regression models for the binary-dependent variables and adjusted for covariates, including sociodemographic and hospital characteristics.

Results

The results show that across all racial/ethnic groups, individuals with IDD have significantly higher rates of MCC-related ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths compared with nondisabled. Moreover, the disparities are more pronounced for individuals from racial/ethnic minority groups. Black and Latinx individuals with IDD have significantly higher rates of MCC-related ED visits and poor outcomes than their white counterparts with and without IDD.

Conclusions

The findings from this study highlight significant racial and ethnic disparities in the risk of MCC-related ED visits, hospitalization following the ED visit, and mortality through the ED among IDD adults. This underscores the importance of adopting a multifaceted approach that addresses the social determinants of health, enhances access to health care, improves quality of care, and enhances care coordination.

Birth Outcomes and Rehospitalizations Among Pregnant Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Their Offspring

OBJECTIVE

To compare obstetric/birth outcomes and rehospitalization among women with and without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their infants.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study identified women with RA (n = 1,223) and SLE (n = 1,354) and unexposed women with singleton births 1987-2014 in Washington State in linked vital hospital discharge records. Outcomes, including cause-specific hospitalizations <2 years postpartum, were compared by estimating adjusted relative risks (RRs) and cause-specific rehospitalization hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

We observed increased risks of several adverse outcomes; RRs were often greatest for SLE. Women with RA/SLE more often required rehospitalization, most notably at <6 months postpartum (RA: 4% versus 2%; RR 2.22 [95% CI 1.62-3.04]; SLE: 6% versus 2%; RR 2.78 [95% CI 2.15-3.59]). Maternal postpartum rehospitalization was greatest for musculoskeletal conditions (RA: HR 19.1 [95% CI 13.6-26.8]; SLE: HR 29.8 [95% CI 22.1-40.1]). Infants of women with SLE more often had malformations (9% versus 6%; RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.21-1.75]), and increased mortality at <2 years (RR 2.11 [95% CI 1.21-3.67]). Infants of women with SLE also experienced more frequent rehospitalizations in their first year of life.

CONCLUSION

Women with RA or SLE and their infants experienced adverse outcomes, particularly infants of women with SLE. Maternal/infant rehospitalization was more common; most marked in the early months postpartum. Close follow-up during these time periods is crucial to minimize adverse outcomes.

Severe maternal morbidity and other perinatal complications among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual and developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Little is known about severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among women with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed differences in SMM and other perinatal complications by presence and type of disability. We hypothesised that SMM and other complications would be more common in births to women with disabilities than to women without disabilities.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of California births from 2000 to 2012, using birth and death certificate data linked with hospital discharge data. We included singleton deliveries with gestational age of 23-42 weeks. We classified women as having any disability or not and identified disability type (physical, hearing, vision, intellectual/developmental disabilities [IDD]). Our primary outcome was a composite indicator of SMM. Secondary outcomes included additional perinatal complications: gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, venous thromboembolism, chorioamnionitis, puerperal endometritis and mental health disorders complicating pregnancy, childbirth or the puerperium. We used modified Poisson regression to obtain covariate-adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of disability status and type with SMM and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 5,787,090 deliveries, 33,044 (0.6%) were to women with disabilities. Of these, 311 per 10,000 were complicated by SMM, compared with 84 per 10,000 deliveries to women without disabilities. In multivariable analyses, risk of SMM for births to women with disabilities was nearly three times that for women without disabilities (RR 2.84, 95% CI 2.67, 3.02). Proportion and risk of SMM were greatest for vision disability (793 per 10,000; RR 4.04, 95% CI 3.41, 4.78). Secondary outcomes were also more common among women with disabilities. In particular, more than a third of births to women with IDD (37.4%) were complicated by mental health disorders (versus 2.2% for women without disabilities).

CONCLUSION

As hypothesised, SMM and other perinatal complications were more common among women with disabilities than among women without disabilities.

Barriers to and facilitators of effective communication in perinatal care: a qualitative study of the experiences of birthing people with sensory, intellectual, and/or developmental disabilities

Background

Effective provider-patient communication is a key element of quality health care, including perinatal care. What constitutes “effective communication” in perinatal care may vary according to the population seeking care, such as women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and sensory disabilities. Research broadly indicates that communication issues are among the barriers to perinatal care experienced by women with disabilities. However, few studies have explicitly explored their communication experiences in this context. The purpose of this study was to understand the communication experiences of birthing people with IDD and/or sensory disabilities in perinatal care.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 people with IDD (e.g., autism, cognitive delay) and/or sensory disabilities (e.g., d/Deaf, blind) in Ontario, Canada, who had recently given birth, to explore barriers to and facilitators of effective communication in perinatal care. A combination of deductive and inductive thematic analysis guided data analysis.

Results

We found that birthing people with IDD and/or sensory disabilities encountered multiple barriers to effective communication in perinatal care, namely, lack of policies and guidelines, lack of provider experience, lack of provider effort, as well as ableism and provider assumptions. Facilitators included knowledgeable, aware, and supportive providers; access to communication aids and services; tailoring information to patients’ disability-related communication needs; empathic communication; and, communication among providers.

Conclusion

Unmet communication needs may contribute to negative health and social outcomes for birthing people with disabilities and their newborns. Accessibility policy implementation and practice change are needed to meet the communication needs of people with IDD and/or sensory disabilities in perinatal care to ensure positive experiences and outcomes.

Incidence of Accommodations for Patients With Significant Vision Limitations in Physicians' Offices in the US

Importance

Despite documented disparities in health care for patients with significant vision impairments and legal mandates that patients with disability receive equitable care, little is known about the extent to which physicians practicing in the US accommodate these patients in outpatient clinical settings.

Objective

To empirically explore the extent of basic accommodations physicians practicing in the US provide to patients with significant vision limitations in outpatient care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this physician survey study, randomly selected physicians were surveyed throughout the US on their attitudes toward patients with disability. A total of 1400 randomly selected active board-certified physicians representing 7 specialties (family medicine, general internal medicine, rheumatology, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics-gynecology) were surveyed. Data were collected from October 2019 to June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reported use of basic accommodations when caring for patients with significant vision limitations (defined here as blind or significant difficulty seeing even with glasses or other corrective lenses). Physicians' accommodation performance was assessed based on whether they always or usually described the clinic space and always or usually provided printed material in large font. Use of Braille materials was reported too rarely to include in analyses.

Results

Of the 462 survey participants, 297 of 457 (65.0%) were male. The weighted response rate was 61.0%. Only 48 physicians (9.1%; 95% CI, 6.6-12.3) provided both accommodations (always or usually describing clinic spaces and providing large-font materials), while 267 (60.2%; 95% CI, 55.3-65.0) provided neither of these accommodations. Although 62.8% (95% CI, 57.5-67.8; n = 245) of nonophthalmologists did not provide either accommodation, 29.3% (95% CI, 20.1-40.7; n = 22) of ophthalmologists also did not do so; only 24.0% (95% CI, 15.6-35.0; n = 18) of ophthalmologists provided both accommodations compared with 8.4% (95% CI, 5.4-12.7) of other physicians.

Conclusions and Relevance

This survey study suggests that less than one-tenth of physicians practicing in the US who care for patients with significant vision limitations usually or always describe clinic spaces or provide large-font materials, and less than one-third of ophthalmologists do so. Actions to address this seem warranted.