Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34468757›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2021

Association of Health Literacy Among Nulliparous Individuals and Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.

Lynn M Yee, Robert Silver, David M Haas, Samuel Parry, Brian M Mercer, Deborah A Wing, Uma Reddy, George R Saade, Hyagriv Simhan, William A Grobman

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Lynn M YeeDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Robert SilverDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
David M HaasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Samuel ParryDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Brian M MercerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Deborah A WingDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine.
Uma ReddyDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
George R SaadeDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.
Hyagriv SimhanDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
William A GrobmanDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Northwestern University · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMetroHealth Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Utah · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Health literacy is considered an important social determinant of health that may underlie many health disparities, but it is unclear whether inadequate health literacy among pregnant individuals is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Objective: To assess the association between maternal health literacy and maternal and neonatal outcomes among nulliparous individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of a large, multicenter cohort study of 10 038 nulliparous individuals in the US (2010-2013). Participants underwent 3 antenatal study visits and had detailed maternal and neonatal data abstracted. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2019. Exposures: Between 16 and 21 weeks of gestation, health literacy was assessed using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form, a validated 7-item word recognition test. In accordance with standard scoring, results were dichotomized as inadequate vs adequate health literacy. Main Outcomes and Measures: On the basis of theoretical causal pathways between health literacy and health outcomes, a priori maternal and neonatal outcomes (determined via medical records) were selected for this analysis. Multivariable Poisson regression models were constructed to estimate the associations between health literacy and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses in which education was removed from models and that excluded individuals who spoke English as a second language were performed. Results: Of 9341 participants who completed the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form, the mean (SD) age was 27.0 (5.6) years, and 2540 (27.4%) had publicly funded prenatal care. Overall, 1638 participants (17.5%) had scores indicative of inadequate health literacy. Participants with inadequate health literacy were more likely to be younger (mean [SD] age, 22.9 [5.0] vs 27.9 [5.3] years), have less educational attainment (some college education or greater, 1149 participants [73.9%] vs 5279 participants [94.5%]), have publicly funded insurance (1008 participants [62.2%] vs 1532 participants [20.0%]), and report they were a member of an underrepresented racial or ethnic group (non-Hispanic Black, 506 participants [30.9%] vs 780 participants [10.1%]; Hispanic, 516 participants [31.5%] vs 948 participants [12.3%]) compared with those with adequate health literacy. Participants who had inadequate health literacy had greater risk of cesarean delivery (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23) and major perineal laceration (aRR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.03-2.01). The adjusted risks of small-for-gestational-age status (aRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.58), low birth weight (aRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.65), and 5-minute Apgar score less than 4 (aRR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.16-6.65) were greater for neonates born to participants with inadequate health literacy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that inadequate maternal health literacy is associated with a variety of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyInfant, Low Birth WeightPrenatal CareAdultCohort StudiesEthnicityFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornParityPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34468757
PMCPMC8411280
OpenAlexW3196583917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.