Postpartum Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy Intentions in Women With and Without a Delivery of a NAS-Affected Infant in Delaware, 2012-2018.

Delaware journal of public health Pub Date : 2023-06-12 eCollection Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.32481/djph.2023.06.025
Khaleel Hussaini, George Yocher
{"title":"Postpartum Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy Intentions in Women With and Without a Delivery of a NAS-Affected Infant in Delaware, 2012-2018.","authors":"Khaleel Hussaini, George Yocher","doi":"10.32481/djph.2023.06.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assess differences in postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions in women with a recent live birth who delivered a neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) affected infant.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Using linked Delaware Birth Certificate Data, Hospital Discharge Data and PRAMS data for 2012-2018 (n = 6,358 singleton births), we assessed differences among women with and without a delivery of an NAS-affected infant by effective postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions. We calculated prevalence estimates, crude (cPOR), and prevalence odds ratios adjusted (aPOR) for NAS by maternal characteristics. We used alpha ≤ 0.05 to determine statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prevalence of NAS was 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8 - 2.6). Effective postpartum contraceptive use was 60.4% (95% CI: 51.9-69.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 56.4% (95% CI: 55.1-57.8%) and cPOR was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8-1.7). Prevalence of intended pregnancy was 26.5% (95% CI: 18.9-34.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 53.0% (95% CI: 51.7-54.4) and cPOR was 0.3 (95% CI: 0.2-0.5). After adjustment, women who delivered an NAS-affected infant had lower odds (aPOR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.8) of indicating that their pregnancy was intended as compared to those who did not deliver an NAS-affected infant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study found no association between delivery of an NAS-affected infant and use of an effective postpartum contraceptive method. However, we found that pregnancy intendedness was lower among women delivering an NAS-affected infant compared with women without an NAS delivery even after accounting for maternal characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":72774,"journal":{"name":"Delaware journal of public health","volume":"9 2","pages":"134-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/21/djph-92-025.PMC10445619.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Delaware journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2023.06.025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Assess differences in postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions in women with a recent live birth who delivered a neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) affected infant.

Study design: Using linked Delaware Birth Certificate Data, Hospital Discharge Data and PRAMS data for 2012-2018 (n = 6,358 singleton births), we assessed differences among women with and without a delivery of an NAS-affected infant by effective postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions. We calculated prevalence estimates, crude (cPOR), and prevalence odds ratios adjusted (aPOR) for NAS by maternal characteristics. We used alpha ≤ 0.05 to determine statistical significance.

Results: Prevalence of NAS was 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8 - 2.6). Effective postpartum contraceptive use was 60.4% (95% CI: 51.9-69.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 56.4% (95% CI: 55.1-57.8%) and cPOR was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8-1.7). Prevalence of intended pregnancy was 26.5% (95% CI: 18.9-34.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 53.0% (95% CI: 51.7-54.4) and cPOR was 0.3 (95% CI: 0.2-0.5). After adjustment, women who delivered an NAS-affected infant had lower odds (aPOR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.8) of indicating that their pregnancy was intended as compared to those who did not deliver an NAS-affected infant.

Conclusions: Our study found no association between delivery of an NAS-affected infant and use of an effective postpartum contraceptive method. However, we found that pregnancy intendedness was lower among women delivering an NAS-affected infant compared with women without an NAS delivery even after accounting for maternal characteristics.

2012-2018 年特拉华州分娩过和未分娩过受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女的产后避孕药具使用情况、怀孕意向。
目标:评估最近分娩过新生儿禁欲综合症(NAS)婴儿的活产妇女产后避孕药具使用情况和怀孕意愿的差异:评估最近分娩过新生儿禁欲综合征(NAS)患儿的活产妇女在产后避孕药具使用和怀孕意愿方面的差异:利用 2012-2018 年特拉华州出生证明数据、医院出院数据和 PRAMS 数据(n = 6358 例单胎新生儿),我们评估了分娩过受 NAS 影响婴儿的女性与未分娩过受 NAS 影响婴儿的女性在有效产后避孕药具使用和怀孕意愿方面的差异。我们按产妇特征计算了NAS的流行率估计值、粗略值(cPOR)和调整后的流行率几率比(aPOR)。我们使用α≤0.05来确定统计显著性:NAS发生率为2.2%(95% CI:1.8 - 2.6)。分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女产后有效避孕率为 60.4%(95% CI:51.9-69.0),而未分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女产后有效避孕率为 56.4%(95% CI:55.1-57.8%),cPOR 为 1.2(95% CI:0.8-1.7)。分娩过受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女中,计划怀孕率为 26.5%(95% CI:18.9-34.0),而未分娩过受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女中,计划怀孕率为 53.0%(95% CI:51.7-54.4),cPOR 为 0.3(95% CI:0.2-0.5)。经调整后,与未分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女相比,分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女表示其怀孕是有意的几率较低(aPOR = 0.5;95% CI:0.3-0.8):我们的研究发现,分娩受 NAS 影响的婴儿与使用有效的产后避孕方法之间没有关联。然而,我们发现,与未分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女相比,分娩受 NAS 影响婴儿的妇女的妊娠意愿较低,即使考虑了母亲的特征也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信