剖腹产的种族差异是否是由于引产管理的不同造成的?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2259-0409
Rebecca F Hamm, Jennifer A McCoy, Rebecca R S Clark, Samuel Parry, Lisa D Levine
{"title":"剖腹产的种族差异是否是由于引产管理的不同造成的?","authors":"Rebecca F Hamm, Jennifer A McCoy, Rebecca R S Clark, Samuel Parry, Lisa D Levine","doi":"10.1055/a-2259-0409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> While there are known racial disparities in cesarean delivery (CD) rates, the exact etiologies for these disparities are multifaceted. We aimed to determine if differences in induction of labor (IOL) management contribute to these disparities.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This retrospective cohort study evaluated all nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix and intact membranes who underwent IOL of a term, singleton gestation at a single institution from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020. IOL management was at clinician discretion. Patients were classified as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) or White based on self-report. Overall rates of CD were compared for BIPOC versus White race. Chart review then evaluated various IOL management strategies as possible contributors to differences in CD by race.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Of 1,261 eligible patients, 915 (72.6%) identified as BIPOC and 346 (27.4%) as White. BIPOC patients were more likely to be younger (26 years interquartile range (IQR): [22-30] vs. 32 years IQR: [30-35], <i>p</i> < 0.001) and publicly insured (59.1 vs. 9.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Indication for IOL and modified Bishop score also differed by race (<i>p</i> < 0.001; <i>p</i> = 0.006). There was 40% increased risk of CD for BIPOC patients, even when controlling for confounders (30.7 vs. 21.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001; adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.06-1.86]). Despite this difference in CD, there were no identifiable differences in IOL management prior to decision for CD by race. Specifically, there were no differences in choice of cervical ripening agent, cervical dilation at or time to amniotomy, use and maximum dose of oxytocin, or dilation at CD. However, BIPOC patients were more likely to undergo CD for fetal indications and failed IOL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> BIPOC nulliparas are 40% more likely to undergo CD during IOL than White patients within our institution. These data suggest that the disparity is not explained by differences in IOL management prior to cesarean, indicating that biases outside of induction management may be important to target to reduce CD disparities.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· The etiologies for racial disparities in cesarean are likely multifaceted.. · In this work, there were no differences by race in measures of labor induction management.. · Biases outside of induction management during labor may be targeted to reduce CD disparities..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345886/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Racial Disparities in Cesarean Due to Differences in Labor Induction Management?\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca F Hamm, Jennifer A McCoy, Rebecca R S Clark, Samuel Parry, Lisa D Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2259-0409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> While there are known racial disparities in cesarean delivery (CD) rates, the exact etiologies for these disparities are multifaceted. We aimed to determine if differences in induction of labor (IOL) management contribute to these disparities.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This retrospective cohort study evaluated all nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix and intact membranes who underwent IOL of a term, singleton gestation at a single institution from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020. IOL management was at clinician discretion. Patients were classified as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) or White based on self-report. Overall rates of CD were compared for BIPOC versus White race. Chart review then evaluated various IOL management strategies as possible contributors to differences in CD by race.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Of 1,261 eligible patients, 915 (72.6%) identified as BIPOC and 346 (27.4%) as White. BIPOC patients were more likely to be younger (26 years interquartile range (IQR): [22-30] vs. 32 years IQR: [30-35], <i>p</i> < 0.001) and publicly insured (59.1 vs. 9.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Indication for IOL and modified Bishop score also differed by race (<i>p</i> < 0.001; <i>p</i> = 0.006). There was 40% increased risk of CD for BIPOC patients, even when controlling for confounders (30.7 vs. 21.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001; adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.06-1.86]). Despite this difference in CD, there were no identifiable differences in IOL management prior to decision for CD by race. Specifically, there were no differences in choice of cervical ripening agent, cervical dilation at or time to amniotomy, use and maximum dose of oxytocin, or dilation at CD. However, BIPOC patients were more likely to undergo CD for fetal indications and failed IOL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> BIPOC nulliparas are 40% more likely to undergo CD during IOL than White patients within our institution. These data suggest that the disparity is not explained by differences in IOL management prior to cesarean, indicating that biases outside of induction management may be important to target to reduce CD disparities.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· The etiologies for racial disparities in cesarean are likely multifaceted.. · In this work, there were no differences by race in measures of labor induction management.. · Biases outside of induction management during labor may be targeted to reduce CD disparities..</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345886/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2259-0409\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2259-0409","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:尽管已知剖宫产率(CD)存在种族差异,但造成差异的确切原因是多方面的。我们旨在确定引产(IOL)管理的差异是否导致了这些差异:这项回顾性队列研究评估了 2018 年 1 月 10 日至 2020 年 9 月 30 日期间在一家医疗机构接受引产手术的单胎足月妊娠、宫颈不利且胎膜完整的无子宫患者。IOL管理由临床医生决定。根据自我报告,患者被分为黑人、土著和有色人种 (BIPOC) 或白人。比较了黑人、原住民和有色人种与白人的总体 CD 率。病历审查评估了各种人工晶体管理策略,认为这些策略可能会导致不同种族的角膜屈光不正率出现差异:在 1261 名符合条件的患者中,915 人(72.6%)被认定为 BIPOC,346 人(27.4%)被认定为白人。BIPOC患者的年龄更小(26 IQR [22-30] vs. 32 yrs IQR [30-35],p结论:在本院,BIPOC 无妊娠者在 IOL 期间接受 CD 的可能性比白人患者高 40%。这些数据表明,剖宫产前 IOL 管理的差异无法解释这种差异,这表明要减少 CD 差异,诱导管理之外的偏差可能是重要的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Racial Disparities in Cesarean Due to Differences in Labor Induction Management?

Objective:  While there are known racial disparities in cesarean delivery (CD) rates, the exact etiologies for these disparities are multifaceted. We aimed to determine if differences in induction of labor (IOL) management contribute to these disparities.

Study design:  This retrospective cohort study evaluated all nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix and intact membranes who underwent IOL of a term, singleton gestation at a single institution from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020. IOL management was at clinician discretion. Patients were classified as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) or White based on self-report. Overall rates of CD were compared for BIPOC versus White race. Chart review then evaluated various IOL management strategies as possible contributors to differences in CD by race.

Results:  Of 1,261 eligible patients, 915 (72.6%) identified as BIPOC and 346 (27.4%) as White. BIPOC patients were more likely to be younger (26 years interquartile range (IQR): [22-30] vs. 32 years IQR: [30-35], p < 0.001) and publicly insured (59.1 vs. 9.9%, p < 0.001). Indication for IOL and modified Bishop score also differed by race (p < 0.001; p = 0.006). There was 40% increased risk of CD for BIPOC patients, even when controlling for confounders (30.7 vs. 21.7%, p = 0.001; adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.06-1.86]). Despite this difference in CD, there were no identifiable differences in IOL management prior to decision for CD by race. Specifically, there were no differences in choice of cervical ripening agent, cervical dilation at or time to amniotomy, use and maximum dose of oxytocin, or dilation at CD. However, BIPOC patients were more likely to undergo CD for fetal indications and failed IOL.

Conclusion:  BIPOC nulliparas are 40% more likely to undergo CD during IOL than White patients within our institution. These data suggest that the disparity is not explained by differences in IOL management prior to cesarean, indicating that biases outside of induction management may be important to target to reduce CD disparities.

Key points: · The etiologies for racial disparities in cesarean are likely multifaceted.. · In this work, there were no differences by race in measures of labor induction management.. · Biases outside of induction management during labor may be targeted to reduce CD disparities..

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 perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
A Description of IVIG Use in Term Neonates with ABO Incompatibility. Early-Pregnancy Resilience Characteristics before versus during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Infant Mortality Categorized by Birth Weight Percentiles for Deliveries between 22 and 28 Weeks of Gestation. Are Racial Disparities in Cesarean Due to Differences in Labor Induction Management? Factors Associated with the Uptake of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception and Contraceptive Use in Postpartum People with HIV at a Single Tertiary Care Center.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1