Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37623929›Full record

ArticleAlcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire)2023

Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA.

Nancy F Berglas, Meenakshi S Subbaraman, Sue Thomas, Sarah C M Roberts

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy F BerglasAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5310-4848
Meenakshi S SubbaramanPublic Health Institute, 555 12th Street, Oakland, CA 94607, United States.
Sue ThomasPacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, PO Box 7042, Santa Cruz, CA 96061, United States.
Sarah C M RobertsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, United States.
University of California, San Francisco · USPacific Institute For Research and Evaluation · USPublic Health Institute · US

Funding

Alcohol and pregnancy: do state-level punitive and supportive policies matter?R01AA023267 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROBERTS, SARAH C.M. · 2015 to 2025
$3.5M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA023267NIH HHS 2R01AA023267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe examined relationships between pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA.

methodsWe merged state-level policy and treatment admissions data for 1992-2019. We aggregated data by state-year to examine effects of nine pregnancy-specific alcohol policies on the number of admissions of pregnant women where alcohol was reported as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance related to the treatment episode (N = 1331). We fit Poisson models that included all policy variables, state-level controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and an offset variable of the number of pregnancies in the state-year to account for differences in population size and fertility.

resultsWhen alcohol was reported as the primary substance, civil commitment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10-1.89] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04-1.77] were associated with greater treatment admissions. Findings for alcohol as primary, secondary, or tertiary substance were similar for civil commitment [IRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00-1.47], although mandatory warning signs [IRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98] and priority treatment for pregnant women [IRR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99] were associated with fewer treatment admissions. Priority treatment findings were not robust in sensitivity analyses. No other policies were associated with treatment admissions.

conclusionsPregnancy-specific alcohol policies related to greater treatment admissions tend to mandate treatment rather than make voluntary treatment more accessible, raising questions of ethics and effectiveness.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleSubstance-Related DisordersEthanolFemaleHealth PolicyHospitalizationHumansPregnancyPublic PolicyUnited StatesEthanolalcoholpolicypregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37623929
PMCPMC10642603
OpenAlexW4386152894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.