The Efficacy of Provider-Based Prenatal Interventions to Reduce Maternal Stress: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Exposure to stress during the prenatal period is often associated with adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes and is increasing in prevalence in the United States. Health care providers play a crucial role in addressing and mitigating this stress, but there is a lack of consensus regarding effective interventions. This review evaluates the effectiveness of prenatal provider-based interventions that reduce stress for pregnant people, especially those who are disproportionately affected by stress. METHODS: A search of relevant English-language literature was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, and PyscInfo. Inclusion criteria were 1) the target population was pregnant people, 2) the intervention was delivered within the U.S. health care system, and 3) the study intervention had the goal of reducing stress (stress-reducing intervention). RESULTS: A total of 3,562 records were identified in the search and 23 were included in analysis. The four identified categories for provider-led stress-reducing prenatal interventions included in the review are 1) skills-building, 2) mindfulness, 3) behavioral therapy, and 4) group support. Findings suggest an increased overall likelihood of mood and maternal stress improvement among pregnant people who complete provider-based stress-reducing interventions, especially group-based therapies that integrate resource allocation, skills-building, mindfulness, and/or behavioral therapy into an intersectional program. However, the efficacy of each type of intervention varies by category and type of maternal stress targeted. CONCLUSIONS: Although few studies demonstrated a significant reduction in stress for pregnant people, this review highlights the critical need for increased research and attention to stress-reducing interventions in the prenatal period, especially as it pertains to minoritized populations.

Health care professional perspectives on discharging hospitalized patients with injection drug use-associated infections.

Background: Patients with injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections traditionally experience prolonged hospitalizations, which often result in negative experiences and bad outcomes. Harm reduction approaches that value patient autonomy and shared decision-making regarding outpatient treatment options may improve outcomes. We sought to identify health care professionals (HCPs) perspectives on the barriers to offering four different options to hospitalized people who use drugs (PWUD): long-term hospitalization, oral antibiotics, long-acting antibiotics at an infusion center, and outpatient parenteral antibiotics. Methods: We recruited HCPs (n = 19) from a single tertiary care center in Portland, Maine. We interviewed HCPs involved with discharge decision-making and other HCPs involved in the specialized care of PWUD. Semi-structured interviews elicited lead HCP values, preferences, and concerns about presenting outpatient antimicrobial treatment options to PWUD, while support HCPs provided contextual information. We used the iterative categorization approach to code and thematically analyze transcripts. Results: HCPs were willing to present outpatient treatment options for patients with IDU-associated infections, yet several factors contributed to reluctance. First, insufficient resources, such as transportation, may make these options impractical. However, HCPs may be unaware of existing community resources or viable treatment options. They also may believe the hospital protects patients, and that discharging patients into the community exposes them to structural harms. Some HCPs are concerned that patients with substance use disorder will not make 'good' decisions regarding outpatient antimicrobial options. Finally, there is uncertainty about how responsibility for offering outpatient treatment is shared across changing care teams. Conclusion: HCPs perceive many barriers to offering outpatient care for people with IDU-associated infections, but with appropriate interventions to address their concerns, may be open to considering more options. This study provides important insights and contextual information that can help inform specific harm reduction interventions aimed at improving care of people with IDU-associated infections.