ArticleJAMA network open2023
Comparison of Emergency Department Use Between Pregnant People With and Without Disabilities in Ontario, Canada.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical Assault During the Perinatal Period by Disability Status and Racial/Ethnic Background.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Severe Maternal Morbidity at the Intersection of Race and Disability: Evidence of Compounded Disparities in the U.S. Maternal Healthcare System.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Factors influencing pregnant women's use of antenatal and emergency care services covered by social security: findings from the maternal eCohort in Mexico.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Observational
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Emergency department (ED) use in pregnancy is common and occurs for a variety of reasons, including obstetrical complications, exacerbated underlying conditions, and inadequate outpatient health care access. People with disabilities have elevated rates of certain medical, psychiatric, and obstetrical conditions as well as inadequate access to prenatal care; their risk of ED use in pregnancy is not known, however. Objective: To compare the risk of ED use in pregnancy among people with physical, sensory, and intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based cohort study leveraging linked administrative health data sets in Ontario, Canada, April 2003 to March 2019. Analysis included all recognized pregnancies to people with a preexisting physical, sensory, intellectual or developmental, or 2 or more (multiple) disabilities, and those without a disability. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to January 2023. Exposure: Disability was ascertained using algorithms applied to 2 or more outpatient physician visits or 1 or more ED visits or hospitalizations before conception. Main outcomes and measures: Modified Poisson regression-generated adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs for any ED visit in pregnancy, from the estimated conception date up to the end of the pregnancy, adjusted for age, parity, income quintile, rurality, immigrant status, and preexisting chronic conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Results: The cohort included 2 659 895 pregnant people with physical (221 739 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.8 [6.1] years), sensory (71 891 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.4] years), intellectual or developmental (3877 participants; mean [SD] age, 26.1 [6.7] years), and multiple disabilities (14 359 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.5 [6.5] years), and pregnant people without a disability (2 348 023 participants; mean [SD] age, 29.4 [5.9] years). The rate of ED visits in pregnancy was 25.4% in people without a disability (596 771 visits). Relative to these individuals, the aRR for ED use was elevated in people with physical (aRR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.25-1.27), sensory (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17), intellectual or developmental (aRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.28-1.38), and multiple disabilities (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.40-1.46). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based study, people with disabilities were at elevated risk of ED use in pregnancy. This finding underscores the need for research on the benefits of proactive strategies to manage preexisting conditions in these individuals, improve their access to outpatient obstetrical and medical care, and prepare them for when ED visits occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.