Association between social vulnerability profiles, prenatal care use and pregnancy outcomes.
Neonatal morbidity
Neonatal outcomes
Pregnancy outcomes
Premature birth
SGA
Small for gestational age
Social deprivation
Social vulnerability
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jun 2023
22 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
accepted:
15
06
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
23
6
2023
entrez:
22
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evaluating social vulnerability is a challenging task. Indeed, former studies demonstrated an association between geographical social deprivation indicators, administrative indicators, and poor pregnancy outcomes. To evaluate the association between social vulnerability profiles, prenatal care use (PCU) and poor pregnancy outcomes (Preterm birth (PTB: <37 gestational weeks (GW)), small for gestational age (SGA), stillbirth, medical abortion, and late miscarriage). Retrospective single center study between January 2020 and December 2021. A total of 7643 women who delivered a singleton after 14 GW in a tertiary care maternity unit were included. Multiple component analysis (MCA) was used to assess the associations between the following social vulnerabilities: social isolation, poor or insecure housing conditions, not work-related household income, absence of standard health insurance, recent immigration, linguistic barrier, history of violence, severe dependency, psychologic vulnerability, addictions, and psychiatric disease. Hierarchical clustering on principal component (HCPC) from the MCA was used to classify patients into similar social vulnerability profiles. Associations between social vulnerability profiles and poor pregnancy outcomes were tested using multiple logistic regression or Poisson regression when appropriate. The HCPC analysis revealed 5 different social vulnerability profiles. Profile 1 included the lowest rates of vulnerability and was used as a reference. After adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical factors, profiles 2 to 5 were independently associated with inadequate PCU (highest risk for profile 5, aOR = 3.14, 95%CI[2.33-4.18]), PTB (highest risk for profile 2, aOR = 4.64, 95%CI[3.80-5.66]) and SGA status (highest risk for profile 5, aOR = 1.60, 95%CI[1.20-2.10]). Profile 2 was the only profile associated with late miscarriage (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 7.39, 95%CI[4.17-13.19]). Profiles 2 and 4 were independently associated with stillbirth (highest association for profile 2 (aIRR = 10.9, 95%CI[6.11-19.99]) and medical abortion (highest association for profile 2 (aIRR = 12.65, 95%CI[5.96-28.49]). This study unveiled 5 clinically relevant social vulnerability profiles with different risk levels of inadequate PCU and poor pregnancy outcomes. A personalized patient management according to their profile could offer better pregnancy management and reduce adverse outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evaluating social vulnerability is a challenging task. Indeed, former studies demonstrated an association between geographical social deprivation indicators, administrative indicators, and poor pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association between social vulnerability profiles, prenatal care use (PCU) and poor pregnancy outcomes (Preterm birth (PTB: <37 gestational weeks (GW)), small for gestational age (SGA), stillbirth, medical abortion, and late miscarriage).
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective single center study between January 2020 and December 2021. A total of 7643 women who delivered a singleton after 14 GW in a tertiary care maternity unit were included. Multiple component analysis (MCA) was used to assess the associations between the following social vulnerabilities: social isolation, poor or insecure housing conditions, not work-related household income, absence of standard health insurance, recent immigration, linguistic barrier, history of violence, severe dependency, psychologic vulnerability, addictions, and psychiatric disease. Hierarchical clustering on principal component (HCPC) from the MCA was used to classify patients into similar social vulnerability profiles. Associations between social vulnerability profiles and poor pregnancy outcomes were tested using multiple logistic regression or Poisson regression when appropriate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The HCPC analysis revealed 5 different social vulnerability profiles. Profile 1 included the lowest rates of vulnerability and was used as a reference. After adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical factors, profiles 2 to 5 were independently associated with inadequate PCU (highest risk for profile 5, aOR = 3.14, 95%CI[2.33-4.18]), PTB (highest risk for profile 2, aOR = 4.64, 95%CI[3.80-5.66]) and SGA status (highest risk for profile 5, aOR = 1.60, 95%CI[1.20-2.10]). Profile 2 was the only profile associated with late miscarriage (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 7.39, 95%CI[4.17-13.19]). Profiles 2 and 4 were independently associated with stillbirth (highest association for profile 2 (aIRR = 10.9, 95%CI[6.11-19.99]) and medical abortion (highest association for profile 2 (aIRR = 12.65, 95%CI[5.96-28.49]).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study unveiled 5 clinically relevant social vulnerability profiles with different risk levels of inadequate PCU and poor pregnancy outcomes. A personalized patient management according to their profile could offer better pregnancy management and reduce adverse outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37349672
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05792-2
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05792-2
pmc: PMC10288786
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
465Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021 Sep;3(5):100414
pubmed: 34082172
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2022 Oct;50(10):666-674
pubmed: 35820588
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23163
pubmed: 21826237
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Aug;93(8):727-40
pubmed: 24834960
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011 Sep 21;11:63
pubmed: 21936931
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Apr;62(7):1731-44
pubmed: 16236414
BMC Public Health. 2022 Apr 25;22(1):829
pubmed: 35468779
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Apr 25;13:97
pubmed: 23617598
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Apr;83:42-9
pubmed: 23465203
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 11;8:632933
pubmed: 33777977
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 24;14(1):e1002220
pubmed: 28118360
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 16;11(11):e049075
pubmed: 34785546
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011 Jul;25(4):357-65
pubmed: 21649678
Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;34(4):888-95
pubmed: 15860635
Ann Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;20(6):445-51
pubmed: 20470971
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 May 1;6(5):e2315306
pubmed: 37227724
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Apr 26;23(1):289
pubmed: 37101271
Int J Health Serv. 1982;12(3):349-80
pubmed: 7118327
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 May 16;17(1):126
pubmed: 28506217
Sante Publique. 2006 Dec;18(4):513-22
pubmed: 17294755
BJOG. 2018 Apr;125(5):587-595
pubmed: 28631308
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Sep;75(6):1032-7
pubmed: 22698926
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 05;6(4):e009511
pubmed: 27048631
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Apr;100(4):649-657
pubmed: 33372265