Payal Chakraborty, Colleen A Reynolds, Sarah McKetta, Kodiak R S Soled, Aimee K Huang, Brent Monseur, Jae Downing Corman, Juno Obedin-Maliver, A Heather Eliassen, Jorge E Chavarro, S Bryn Austin, Bethany Everett, Sebastien Haneuse, Brittany M Charlton
{"title":"新生儿结局中与性取向相关的差异。","authors":"Payal Chakraborty, Colleen A Reynolds, Sarah McKetta, Kodiak R S Soled, Aimee K Huang, Brent Monseur, Jae Downing Corman, Juno Obedin-Maliver, A Heather Eliassen, Jorge E Chavarro, S Bryn Austin, Bethany Everett, Sebastien Haneuse, Brittany M Charlton","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether disparities exist in adverse neonatal outcomes among the offspring of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexually minoritized (LGB+) birthing people.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used longitudinal data from 1995 to 2017 from the Nurses' Health Study II, a cohort of nurses across the United States. We restricted analyses to those who reported live births (N=70,642) in the 2001 or 2009 lifetime pregnancy questionnaires. Participants were asked about sexual orientation identity (current and past) and same-sex attractions and partners. We examined preterm birth, low birth weight, and macrosomia among 1) completely heterosexual; 2) heterosexual with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity; 3) mostly heterosexual; 4) bisexual; and 5) lesbian or gay participants. We used log-binomial models to estimate risk ratios for each outcome and weighted generalized estimating equations to account for multiple pregnancies per person over time and informative cluster sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with completely heterosexual participants, offspring born to parents in all LGB+ groups combined (groups 2-5) had higher estimated risks of preterm birth (risk ratio 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.30) and low birth weight (1.27, 95% CI, 1.15-1.40) but not macrosomia (0.98, 95% CI, 0.94-1.02). In the subgroup analysis, risk ratios were statistically significant for heterosexual participants with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity (preterm birth 1.25, 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; low birth weight 1.32, 95% CI, 1.18-1.47). Risk ratios were elevated but not statistically significant for lesbian or gay participants (preterm birth 1.37, 95% CI, 0.98-1.93; low birth weight 1.46, 95% CI, 0.96-2.21) and bisexual participants (preterm birth 1.29, 95% CI, 0.85-1.93; low birth weight 1.24, 95% CI, 0.74-2.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The offspring of LGB+ birthing people experience adverse neonatal outcomes, specifically preterm birth and low birth weight. These findings highlight the need to better understand health risks, social inequities, and health care experiences that drive these adverse outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sexual Orientation-Related Disparities in Neonatal Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Payal Chakraborty, Colleen A Reynolds, Sarah McKetta, Kodiak R S Soled, Aimee K Huang, Brent Monseur, Jae Downing Corman, Juno Obedin-Maliver, A Heather Eliassen, Jorge E Chavarro, S Bryn Austin, Bethany Everett, Sebastien Haneuse, Brittany M Charlton\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether disparities exist in adverse neonatal outcomes among the offspring of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexually minoritized (LGB+) birthing people.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used longitudinal data from 1995 to 2017 from the Nurses' Health Study II, a cohort of nurses across the United States. We restricted analyses to those who reported live births (N=70,642) in the 2001 or 2009 lifetime pregnancy questionnaires. Participants were asked about sexual orientation identity (current and past) and same-sex attractions and partners. We examined preterm birth, low birth weight, and macrosomia among 1) completely heterosexual; 2) heterosexual with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity; 3) mostly heterosexual; 4) bisexual; and 5) lesbian or gay participants. We used log-binomial models to estimate risk ratios for each outcome and weighted generalized estimating equations to account for multiple pregnancies per person over time and informative cluster sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with completely heterosexual participants, offspring born to parents in all LGB+ groups combined (groups 2-5) had higher estimated risks of preterm birth (risk ratio 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.30) and low birth weight (1.27, 95% CI, 1.15-1.40) but not macrosomia (0.98, 95% CI, 0.94-1.02). In the subgroup analysis, risk ratios were statistically significant for heterosexual participants with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity (preterm birth 1.25, 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; low birth weight 1.32, 95% CI, 1.18-1.47). Risk ratios were elevated but not statistically significant for lesbian or gay participants (preterm birth 1.37, 95% CI, 0.98-1.93; low birth weight 1.46, 95% CI, 0.96-2.21) and bisexual participants (preterm birth 1.29, 95% CI, 0.85-1.93; low birth weight 1.24, 95% CI, 0.74-2.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The offspring of LGB+ birthing people experience adverse neonatal outcomes, specifically preterm birth and low birth weight. These findings highlight the need to better understand health risks, social inequities, and health care experiences that drive these adverse outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":5,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005747\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005747","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评估女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和其他性取向未成年者(LGB+)的后代在新生儿不良结局方面是否存在差异:我们使用了 "护士健康研究 II"(Nurses' Health Study II)中 1995 年至 2017 年的纵向数据。我们的分析仅限于在 2001 年或 2009 年终生妊娠调查问卷中报告活产的人群(N=70642)。我们询问了参与者的性取向认同(当前和过去)以及同性吸引力和伴侣。我们研究了以下人群的早产、低出生体重和巨大儿情况:1)完全异性恋者;2)有同性吸引、伴侣或身份的异性恋者;3)大部分为异性恋者;4)双性恋者;5)女同性恋或男同性恋者。我们使用对数二项式模型来估算每种结果的风险比,并使用加权广义估计方程来考虑每个人在不同时期的多次怀孕情况和信息集群规模:与完全异性恋的参与者相比,所有 LGB+ 组别(第 2-5 组)的父母所生的后代发生早产(风险比为 1.22,95% CI 为 1.15-1.30)和低出生体重(1.27,95% CI 为 1.15-1.40)的估计风险较高,但发生巨大儿(0.98,95% CI 为 0.94-1.02)的估计风险不高。在亚组分析中,曾有同性吸引、伴侣或身份的异性恋参与者的风险比具有统计学意义(早产 1.25,95% CI,1.13-1.37;低出生体重 1.32,95% CI,1.18-1.47)。女同性恋或男同性恋参与者(早产 1.37,95% CI,0.98-1.93;出生体重不足 1.46,95% CI,0.96-2.21)和双性恋参与者(早产 1.29,95% CI,0.85-1.93;出生体重不足 1.24,95% CI,0.74-2.08)的风险比升高,但无统计学意义:结论:LGB+生育者的后代会经历不良的新生儿结局,尤其是早产和出生体重不足。这些发现突出表明,有必要更好地了解导致这些不良后果的健康风险、社会不平等和医疗保健经历。
Sexual Orientation-Related Disparities in Neonatal Outcomes.
Objective: To evaluate whether disparities exist in adverse neonatal outcomes among the offspring of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexually minoritized (LGB+) birthing people.
Methods: We used longitudinal data from 1995 to 2017 from the Nurses' Health Study II, a cohort of nurses across the United States. We restricted analyses to those who reported live births (N=70,642) in the 2001 or 2009 lifetime pregnancy questionnaires. Participants were asked about sexual orientation identity (current and past) and same-sex attractions and partners. We examined preterm birth, low birth weight, and macrosomia among 1) completely heterosexual; 2) heterosexual with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity; 3) mostly heterosexual; 4) bisexual; and 5) lesbian or gay participants. We used log-binomial models to estimate risk ratios for each outcome and weighted generalized estimating equations to account for multiple pregnancies per person over time and informative cluster sizes.
Results: Compared with completely heterosexual participants, offspring born to parents in all LGB+ groups combined (groups 2-5) had higher estimated risks of preterm birth (risk ratio 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.30) and low birth weight (1.27, 95% CI, 1.15-1.40) but not macrosomia (0.98, 95% CI, 0.94-1.02). In the subgroup analysis, risk ratios were statistically significant for heterosexual participants with past same-sex attractions, partners, or identity (preterm birth 1.25, 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; low birth weight 1.32, 95% CI, 1.18-1.47). Risk ratios were elevated but not statistically significant for lesbian or gay participants (preterm birth 1.37, 95% CI, 0.98-1.93; low birth weight 1.46, 95% CI, 0.96-2.21) and bisexual participants (preterm birth 1.29, 95% CI, 0.85-1.93; low birth weight 1.24, 95% CI, 0.74-2.08).
Conclusion: The offspring of LGB+ birthing people experience adverse neonatal outcomes, specifically preterm birth and low birth weight. These findings highlight the need to better understand health risks, social inequities, and health care experiences that drive these adverse outcomes.
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.