Faculty Bibliography

Despite long-existing calls to address alarming racial/ethnic gaps in severe maternal morbidity (SMM), research that considers the impact of intersecting social inequities on SMM risk remains scarce. Invoking intersectionality theory, we sought to assess SMM risk at the nexus of racial/ethnic marginalization, weathering, and neighborhood/individual socioeconomic disadvantage. We used birth hospitalization records from California across 20 years (1997-2017, N = 9,806,406) on all live births ≥20 weeks gestation. We estimated adjusted average predicted probabilities of SMM at the combination of levels of race/ethnicity, age, and neighborhood deprivation or individual socioeconomic status (SES). The highest risk of SMM was observed among Black birthing people aged ≥35 years who either resided in the most deprived neighborhoods or had the lowest SES. Black birthing people conceptualized to be better off due to their social standing (aged 20-34 years and living in the least deprived neighborhoods or college graduates) had comparable and at times worse risk than White birthing people conceptualized to be worse off (aged ≥35 years and living in the most deprived neighborhoods or had a high-school degree or less). Our findings highlight the need to explicitly address structural racism as the driver of racial/ethnic health inequities and the imperative to incorporate intersectional approaches.

BACKGROUND:Nursing care is essential to overall quality of healthcare experienced by patients and families-especially during childbearing. However, evidence regarding quality of nursing care during labor and birth is lacking, and established nurse-sensitive outcome indicators have limited applicability to maternity care. Nurse-sensitive outcomes need to be established for maternity care, and prior research suggests that the initiation of human milk feeding during childbirth hospitalization is a potentially nurse-sensitive outcome. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between nurse-reported staffing, missed nursing care during labor and birth, and exclusive breast milk feeding during childbirth hospitalization as a nurse-sensitive outcome. METHODS:2018 Joint Commission PC-05 Exclusive Breast Milk Feeding rates were linked to survey data from labor nurses who worked in a selected sample of hospitals with both PC-05 data and valid 2018 American Hospital Association Annual Survey data. Nurse-reported staffing was measured as the perceived compliance with Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses staffing guidelines by the labor and delivery unit. Data from the nurse survey were aggregated to the hospital level. Bivariate linear regression was used to determine associations between nurse and hospital characteristics and exclusive breast milk feeding rates. Generalized structural equation modeling was used to model relationships between nurse-reported staffing, nurse-reported missed care, and exclusive breast milk feeding at the hospital level. RESULTS:The sample included 184 hospitals in 29 states and 2,691 labor nurses who worked day, night, or evening shifts. Bivariate analyses demonstrated a positive association between nurse-reported staffing and exclusive breast milk feeding and a negative association between missed nursing care and exclusive breast milk feeding. In structural equation models controlling for covariates, missed skin-to-skin mother-baby care and missed breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth mediated the relationship between nurse-reported staffing and exclusive breast milk feeding rates. DISCUSSION:This study provides evidence that hospitals' nurse-reported compliance with Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses staffing guidelines predicts hospital-exclusive breast milk feeding rates and that the rates are a nurse-sensitive outcome.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Despite the risks associated with untreated perinatal depression and anxiety, both patients and clinicians are less likely to follow evidence-based guidelines including the use of antidepressants during pregnancy. The aim of this integrative review was to describe the perspectives of both patients and prescribing health care providers regarding the use of antidepressants during pregnancy. METHODS:We performed a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest Central, and PsychINFO. Inclusion criteria were English language, original peer-reviewed research published within the previous 10 years that described perspectives regarding the use of antidepressants of pregnant patients or prescribing providers during pregnancy. Studies were excluded if their focus was on screening practices, treatment guidelines, or evaluation of decision support tool; medication or treatment broadly; bipolar disorder or serious mental illness; or they did not provide patient or provider perspective. This review was limited to professionals with scopes of practice that include prescriptive authority (eg, physicians, advanced practices nurses, midwives). Included articles were critically appraised and read in an iterative process to extract methodological details and synthesize findings. RESULTS:Nineteen studies met criteria for inclusion and varied by design, sample, and quality. Together, the reviewed articles suggest that patients and prescribing providers hold a range of beliefs regarding the safety of antidepressant during pregnancy. Patients and providers appear to value different sources of information and varied in awareness of the negative impacts of untreated depression and anxiety during pregnancy. Many patients report dissatisfaction with available information and distress throughout the decision-making experience. Notably, patients and providers had incongruent perceptions of the others' experience. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Inconsistencies between knowledge, attitudes, and decision-making highlight the need for improved dissemination of evidence-based treatments and support increased training for psychopharmacology during pregnancy. Efforts to reduce patient distress regarding their decisions, such as adequate time and information, are indicated.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Among childbearing women, insurance coverage determines degree of access to preventive and emergency care for maternal and infant health. Maternal-infant dyads with dual burden of severe maternal morbidity and preterm birth experience high physical and psychological morbidity, and the risk of dual burden varies by insurance type. We examined whether sociodemographic and perinatal risk factors of dual burden differed by insurance type. METHODS:We estimated relative risks of dual burden by maternal sociodemographic and perinatal characteristics in the 2007-2012 California birth cohort dataset stratified by insurance type and compared effects across insurance types using Wald Z-statistics. RESULTS:Dual burden ranged from 0.36% of privately insured births to 0.41% of uninsured births. Obstetric comorbidities, multiple gestation, parity, and birth mode conferred the largest risks across all insurance types, but effect magnitude differed. The adjusted relative risk of dual burden associated with preeclampsia superimposed on preexisting hypertension ranged from 9.1 (95% CI 7.6-10.9) for privately insured to 15.9 (95% CI 9.1-27.6) among uninsured. The adjusted relative risk of dual burden associated with cesarean birth ranged from 3.1 (95% CI 2.7-3.5) for women with Medi-Cal to 5.4 (95% CI 3.5-8.2) for women with other insurance among primiparas, and 7.0 (95% CI 6.0-8.3) to 19.4 (95% CI 10.3-36.3), respectively, among multiparas. CONCLUSIONS:Risk factors of dual burden differed by insurance type across sociodemographic and perinatal factors, suggesting that care quality may differ by insurance type. Attention to peripartum care access and care quality provided by insurance type is needed to improve maternal and neonatal health.

Perinatal illicit substance use is a nursing and public health issue. Current screening policies have significant consequences for birthing individuals and their families. Racial disparities exist in spite of targeted and universal screening policies and practices. Thus, new theoretical approaches are needed to investigate perinatal illicit substance use screening in hospital settings. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the social construction of target populations theory in the context of perinatal illicit substance use screening. Using the theoretical insights of this theory to interrogate the approaches taken by policy makers to address perinatal illicit substance use and screening provides the contextual framework needed to understand why specific policy tools were selected when designing public policy to address these issues. The analysis and evaluation of this theory was conducted using the theory description and critical reflection model.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to examine the current state of literature on group prenatal care and its impact on maternal outcomes and racial disparities in adverse maternal outcomes. DESIGN/METHODS:We conducted a scoping review of literature published between January 2010 and December 2020 using the PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist. METHODS:Eligible studies were identified using key words and MeSH terms in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were studies that were (a) conducted in the United States; (b) published between January 2010 and December 2020; (c) in English; (d) focused on the primary investigation of group prenatal care and reporting on maternal comorbidity outcomes; and (e) an observational study or clinical trial. RESULTS:Nine studies met inclusion criteria. They reported on outcomes of preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus, final A1C among patients with gestational diabetes mellitus, and postpartum hemorrhage. None reported on racial disparities for minoritized populations. Among all reported maternal outcomes, results were mixed, providing inconclusive evidence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Outcomes from group prenatal care focus more on neonatal outcomes than maternal outcomes. More studies are needed with stronger designs. Given pervasive racial disparities in U.S. maternal mortality, future studies should assess how group prenatal care participation may contribute to fewer experiences of racial discrimination and implicit bias for Black women in maternity care.