Dobbs-driven expansion of perinatal palliative care: a scoping review of the evidence and its limits.

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-04-15 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf081
Abigail B Wilpers, Kathie Kobler, Robyn Schafer, Melissa Wilpers, Molly Zeme, Janene Batten, Lucinda Canty, Scott A Lorch
{"title":"Dobbs-driven expansion of perinatal palliative care: a scoping review of the evidence and its limits.","authors":"Abigail B Wilpers, Kathie Kobler, Robyn Schafer, Melissa Wilpers, Molly Zeme, Janene Batten, Lucinda Canty, Scott A Lorch","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As abortion care restrictions increase, a growing population is continuing pregnancies complicated by life-limiting fetal conditions, making it more critical than ever to evaluate the state of the evidence in perinatal palliative care (PPC). Perinatal palliative care provides interdisciplinary, person-centered care, integrating medical management with psychosocial and bereavement support to enable values-driven decision-making. This scoping review evaluates US-based evidence on the safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity of PPC, assessing how these findings relate to growing abortion restrictions. Analysis of 13 studies found that US PPC programs are understudied, with limited evidence on maternal health and neonatal comfort outcomes. Studies lacked use rates for all eligible individuals, preventing assessment of overall PPC uptake. Most PPC patients reported high satisfaction, citing compassionate care, emotional support, and parental validation. However, studies lacked diversity. None examined the experience of receiving PPC due to abortion restrictions. Existing PPC evidence is limited, leaving critical gaps in safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity-key factors in assessing whether PPC meets its intended goals and serves diverse populations. Our review highlights that evidence is insufficient to determine whether PPC can adequately support the growing, vulnerable patient population now directed into it by policy rather than choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 5","pages":"qxaf081"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12043006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As abortion care restrictions increase, a growing population is continuing pregnancies complicated by life-limiting fetal conditions, making it more critical than ever to evaluate the state of the evidence in perinatal palliative care (PPC). Perinatal palliative care provides interdisciplinary, person-centered care, integrating medical management with psychosocial and bereavement support to enable values-driven decision-making. This scoping review evaluates US-based evidence on the safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity of PPC, assessing how these findings relate to growing abortion restrictions. Analysis of 13 studies found that US PPC programs are understudied, with limited evidence on maternal health and neonatal comfort outcomes. Studies lacked use rates for all eligible individuals, preventing assessment of overall PPC uptake. Most PPC patients reported high satisfaction, citing compassionate care, emotional support, and parental validation. However, studies lacked diversity. None examined the experience of receiving PPC due to abortion restrictions. Existing PPC evidence is limited, leaving critical gaps in safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and equity-key factors in assessing whether PPC meets its intended goals and serves diverse populations. Our review highlights that evidence is insufficient to determine whether PPC can adequately support the growing, vulnerable patient population now directed into it by policy rather than choice.

多布斯驱动的围产期姑息治疗的扩展:证据的范围审查及其局限性。
随着堕胎护理限制的增加,越来越多的人继续怀孕,并伴有限制生命的胎儿状况,这使得评估围产期姑息治疗(PPC)的证据状况比以往任何时候都更加重要。围产期姑息治疗提供跨学科、以人为本的护理,将医疗管理与社会心理和丧亲支持相结合,以实现价值观驱动的决策。本综述评估了基于美国的PPC的安全性、有效性、可接受性和公平性方面的证据,评估了这些发现与越来越多的堕胎限制之间的关系。对13项研究的分析发现,美国PPC项目研究不足,关于孕产妇健康和新生儿舒适度的证据有限。研究缺乏所有符合条件的个体的使用率,因此无法评估总体PPC摄取情况。大多数PPC患者报告了高满意度,引用了同情关怀,情感支持和父母认可。然而,研究缺乏多样性。没有人检查由于堕胎限制而接受PPC的经验。现有的PPC证据有限,在安全性、有效性、可接受性和公平性方面留下了严重的差距,这些是评估PPC是否达到预期目标并服务于不同人群的关键因素。我们的综述强调,证据不足以确定PPC是否能够充分支持日益增长的弱势患者群体,现在这些患者是由政策而不是选择进入PPC的。
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
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