A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization.

IF 1.6 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics Pub Date : 2022-05-20 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23333928221103107
J Studnicki, T Longbons, D J Harrison, I Skop, C Cirucci, D C Reardon, C Craver, J W Fisher, M Tsulukidze
{"title":"A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization.","authors":"J Studnicki, T Longbons, D J Harrison, I Skop, C Cirucci, D C Reardon, C Craver, J W Fisher, M Tsulukidze","doi":"10.1177/23333928221103107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Previous research indicates that an increasing number of women who go to an emergency room for complications following an induced abortion are treated for a miscarriage, meaning their abortion is miscoded or concealed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if the failure to identify a prior induced abortion during an ER visit is a risk factor for higher rates of subsequent hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Post hoc analysis of hospital admissions following an induced abortion and ER visit within 30 days: 4273 following surgical abortion and 408 following chemical abortion; abortion not miscoded versus miscoded or concealed at prior ER visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chemical abortion patients whose abortions are misclassified as miscarriages during an ER visit subsequently experience on average 3.2 hospital admissions within 30 days. 86% of the patients ultimately have surgical removal of retained products of conception (RPOC). Chemical abortions are more likely than surgical abortions (OR 1.80, CL 1.38-2.35) to result in an RPOC admission, and chemical abortions concealed are more likely to result (OR 2.18, CL 1.65-2.88) in a subsequent RPOC admission than abortions without miscoding. Surgical abortions miscoded/concealed are similarly twice as likely to result in hospital admission than those without miscoding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient concealment and/or physician failure to identify a prior abortion during an ER visit is a significant risk factor for a subsequent hospital admission. Patients and ER personnel should be made aware of this risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":14970,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics","volume":"35 1","pages":"23333928221103107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9130799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928221103107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Previous research indicates that an increasing number of women who go to an emergency room for complications following an induced abortion are treated for a miscarriage, meaning their abortion is miscoded or concealed.

Objective: To determine if the failure to identify a prior induced abortion during an ER visit is a risk factor for higher rates of subsequent hospitalization.

Methods: Post hoc analysis of hospital admissions following an induced abortion and ER visit within 30 days: 4273 following surgical abortion and 408 following chemical abortion; abortion not miscoded versus miscoded or concealed at prior ER visit.

Results: Chemical abortion patients whose abortions are misclassified as miscarriages during an ER visit subsequently experience on average 3.2 hospital admissions within 30 days. 86% of the patients ultimately have surgical removal of retained products of conception (RPOC). Chemical abortions are more likely than surgical abortions (OR 1.80, CL 1.38-2.35) to result in an RPOC admission, and chemical abortions concealed are more likely to result (OR 2.18, CL 1.65-2.88) in a subsequent RPOC admission than abortions without miscoding. Surgical abortions miscoded/concealed are similarly twice as likely to result in hospital admission than those without miscoding.

Conclusion: Patient concealment and/or physician failure to identify a prior abortion during an ER visit is a significant risk factor for a subsequent hospital admission. Patients and ER personnel should be made aware of this risk.

事后探索性分析:在急诊室被误认为流产的人工流产并发症是住院的风险因素。
导言:以往的研究表明,越来越多的妇女在人工流产后因并发症到急诊室就诊时被当作流产治疗,这意味着她们的人工流产被误诊或隐瞒:目的:确定在急诊就诊时未能识别先前的人工流产是否是导致后续住院率较高的风险因素:方法:对人工流产后 30 天内的入院情况和急诊就诊情况进行事后分析:方法:对人工流产后入院并在30天内到急诊室就诊的患者进行事后分析:手术流产后4273人,化学流产后408人;流产未被误编码与流产被误编码或在急诊室就诊时隐瞒流产情况:结果:在急诊就诊时被误诊为流产的化学流产患者在 30 天内平均住院 3.2 次。86%的患者最终通过手术取出了残留的受孕产物(RPOC)。与手术流产相比,化学流产更有可能(OR 1.80,CL 1.38-2.35)导致留置受精产物入院,而与未发生编码错误的流产相比,隐藏的化学流产更有可能(OR 2.18,CL 1.65-2.88)导致随后的留置受精产物入院。编码错误/隐瞒的手术流产导致入院的几率同样是未发生编码错误的手术流产的两倍:结论:患者隐瞒和/或医生在急诊室就诊时未能识别先前的人工流产是导致随后入院的重要风险因素。应让患者和急诊室人员意识到这一风险。
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
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
39
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics is a forum for creative and scholarly work in agricultural economics and related areas. Contributions on methodology and applications in business, extension, research, and teaching phases of agricultural and applied economics are equally encouraged. As of 2015 (Vol 47), articles are published on an open access basis.
×
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