Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34426058›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2022

Prenatal Care Adequacy Among Women With Disabilities: A Population-Based Study.

Fareha Nishat, Yona Lunsky, Lesley A Tarasoff, Hilary K Brown

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Receipt of adequate prenatal care for privately sponsored versus government-assisted refugees in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fareha NishatDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yona LunskyICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Azrieli Adult Neurodevelopmental Centre, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lesley A TarasoffAzrieli Adult Neurodevelopmental Centre, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hilary K BrownDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: hk.brown@utoronto.ca.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Pregnancy in Women with Disabilities: Using Novel Methods to Characterize RiskR01HD092326 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO · PI BROWN, HILARY, LUNSKY, YONA · 2017 to 2020
$590k
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD092326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study examines prenatal care adequacy among women with physical, sensory, and intellectual/developmental disabilities, compared with that among women without disabilities.

methodsA population-based cohort study using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada was completed. The study population comprised women with physical (n=83,752), sensory (n=25,685), intellectual/developmental (n=1,219), and multiple (n=4,966) disabilities and women without disabilities (n=953,766), with a birth in 2003-2017. Analyses were conducted in 2020. Women with disabilities were identified using algorithms applied to healthcare encounters before conception. The main outcome was prenatal care adequacy, measured using the Revised Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to compute the AORs and 95% CIs for no, inadequate, and intensive (versus adequate) care comparing each disability group with women without disabilities, adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics.

resultsWomen with physical disabilities, compared with those without disabilities, had increased odds of intensive prenatal care (AOR=1.22, 95% CI=1.19, 1.24) and decreased odds of no prenatal care (AOR=0.94, 95% CI=0.89, 0.99) versus adequate care. Women with sensory disabilities had increased odds of intensive (AOR=1.11, 95% CI=1.08, 1.14), inadequate (AOR=1.06, 95% CI=1.02, 1.09), and no (AOR=1.24, 95% CI=1.14, 1.35) prenatal care. Women with intellectual/developmental disabilities had increased odds of inadequate (AOR=1.25, 95% CI=1.08, 1.44) and no (AOR=1.64, 95% CI=1.16, 2.34) prenatal care. Women with multiple disabilities had increased odds of intensive (AOR=1.41, 95% CI=1.32, 1.51) and inadequate (AOR=1.14, 95% CI=1.05, 1.22) prenatal care.

conclusionsThere are variations in prenatal care adequacy by maternal disability status. Disparities in prenatal care access for women with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual/developmental disabilities, need to be addressed.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesPregnancy ComplicationsChildCohort StudiesDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHumansOntarioPregnancyPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID34426058
PMCPMC9762461
OpenAlexW3193659682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.