大流行性早产悖论:对相互竞争的解释的检验。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ralph A Catalano, Tim A Bruckner, Alison Gemmill, Claire E Margerison
{"title":"大流行性早产悖论:对相互竞争的解释的检验。","authors":"Ralph A Catalano, Tim A Bruckner, Alison Gemmill, Claire E Margerison","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Epidemiologists have long argued that side effects of the stress response include preterm birth. Research reports that fear of lethal infection stressed pregnant persons at the outset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and that \"shutdowns\" and \"social distancing\" impeded access to social support and prenatal care. The decline in preterm births in high-income countries, including the United States, during the early months of the pandemic therefore poses a paradox for science. Explanations of this \"pandemic preterm paradox\" remain untested. We applied time-series modeling to data describing 80 monthly conception cohorts begun in the United States from July 2013 through February 2020 to determine which of 3 explanations most parsimoniously explained the paradox. We infer that \"prior loss,\" or the argument that an increase in spontaneous abortions and stillbirths depleted the population of fetuses at risk of preterm birth, best explains data currently available. We describe the implications of these results for public health practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1823-1831"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11637531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pandemic preterm paradox: a test of competing explanations.\",\"authors\":\"Ralph A Catalano, Tim A Bruckner, Alison Gemmill, Claire E Margerison\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwae128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Epidemiologists have long argued that side effects of the stress response include preterm birth. Research reports that fear of lethal infection stressed pregnant persons at the outset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and that \\\"shutdowns\\\" and \\\"social distancing\\\" impeded access to social support and prenatal care. The decline in preterm births in high-income countries, including the United States, during the early months of the pandemic therefore poses a paradox for science. Explanations of this \\\"pandemic preterm paradox\\\" remain untested. We applied time-series modeling to data describing 80 monthly conception cohorts begun in the United States from July 2013 through February 2020 to determine which of 3 explanations most parsimoniously explained the paradox. We infer that \\\"prior loss,\\\" or the argument that an increase in spontaneous abortions and stillbirths depleted the population of fetuses at risk of preterm birth, best explains data currently available. We describe the implications of these results for public health practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1823-1831\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11637531/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae128\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae128","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流行病学家一直认为,压力反应的副作用包括早产。研究报告指出,在 COVID-19 大流行之初,对致命感染的恐惧使孕妇感到紧张,"停工 "和 "社会疏远 "阻碍了她们获得社会支持和产前护理。因此,包括美国在内的高收入国家在疫情初期几个月内早产儿数量的下降给科学界带来了一个悖论。对这一 "大流行性早产悖论 "的解释仍有待验证。我们对 2013 年 7 月至 2020 年 2 月期间在美国开始的 80 个月度受孕队列的数据进行了时间序列建模,以确定 3 种解释中哪一种最能解释这一悖论。我们推断,"先期损失 "或自然流产和死胎的增加耗尽了有早产风险的胎儿群体这一论点最能解释目前可用的数据。我们阐述了这些结果对公共卫生实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The pandemic preterm paradox: a test of competing explanations.

Epidemiologists have long argued that side effects of the stress response include preterm birth. Research reports that fear of lethal infection stressed pregnant persons at the outset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and that "shutdowns" and "social distancing" impeded access to social support and prenatal care. The decline in preterm births in high-income countries, including the United States, during the early months of the pandemic therefore poses a paradox for science. Explanations of this "pandemic preterm paradox" remain untested. We applied time-series modeling to data describing 80 monthly conception cohorts begun in the United States from July 2013 through February 2020 to determine which of 3 explanations most parsimoniously explained the paradox. We infer that "prior loss," or the argument that an increase in spontaneous abortions and stillbirths depleted the population of fetuses at risk of preterm birth, best explains data currently available. We describe the implications of these results for public health practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
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