Beyond birth outcomes: Interpregnancy interval and injury-related infant mortality.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the association between IPI and birth outcomes, but few have explored the association between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and postnatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between IPI and injury-related infant mortality, a leading cause of postneonatal mortality. METHODS: We used 2011-2015 US period-linked birth-infant death vital statistics data to generate a multiyear birth cohort of non-first-born singleton births (N = 9 782 029). IPI was defined as the number of months between a live birth and the start of the pregnancy leading to the next live birth. Causes of death in the first year of life were identified using ICD-10 codes. Hazard ratios (HR) for IPI categories were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for birth order, county poverty level, and maternal characteristics (marital status, race/ethnicity, education, age at previous birth). RESULTS: After adjustment, overall infant mortality (48.1 per 10 000 births) was higher for short and long IPIs compared with IPI 18-23 months (reference): <6, aHR 1.61, 95% CI 1.54, 1.68; 6-11, aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.17, 1.26; and 60+ months, aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08, 1.16. In comparison, the risk of injury-related infant mortality (4.4 per 10 000 births) decreased with longer IPIs: <6, aHR 1.77, 95% CI 1.55, 2.01; 6-11, aHR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25, 1.59; 12-17, aHR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10, 1.41; 24-59, aHR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69, 0.87; and 60+ months, aHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48, 0.62. CONCLUSION: Unlike overall infant mortality, injury-related infant mortality decreased with IPI length. While injury-related deaths are rare, these patterns suggest that the timing between births may be a marker of risk for fatal infant injuries. The first year postpartum may be an ideal time for the delivery of evidence-based injury prevention programmes as well as family planning services.

Availability of Services Related to Achieving Pregnancy in U.S. Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing that quality family planning services should include services to help clients who want to become pregnant, the objective of our analysis was to examine the distribution of services related to achieving pregnancy at publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of publicly funded clinics was surveyed in 2013-2014 (n = 1615). Clinic administrators were asked about several clinical services and screenings related to achieving pregnancy: basic infertility services, reproductive life plan assessment, screening for body mass index, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, provision of natural family planning services, infertility treatment, and primary care services. The percentage of clinics offering each of these services was compared by Title X funding status; prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated after adjusting for clinic characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to non-Title X clinics, Title X clinics were more likely to offer reproductive life plan assessment (adjusted PR [aPR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.42-1.84), body mass index screening for men (aPR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), screening for sexually transmitted diseases (aPRs ranged from 1.21 to 1.37), and preconception health care for men (aPR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20). Title X clinics were less likely to offer infertility treatment (aPR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74) and primary care services (aPR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80) and were just as likely to offer basic infertility services, preconception health care services for women, natural family planning, and body mass index screening in women. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of selected services related to achieving pregnancy differed by Title X status. A follow-up assessment after publication of national family planning recommendations is underway.

Side Effects and Health Benefits of Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Counseling about potential side effects and health benefits of contraceptive methods could facilitate continued method use and method satisfaction, yet no evidence-based compilation of side effects and benefits exists to aid such counseling. Among contraceptive methods in the United States, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injectables have the highest discontinuation rates, and most discontinuation is attributable to side effects. This review examines the side effects and health benefits of DMPA to inform counseling. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, POPLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included English-language studies published from 1985 to 2016 that enrolled healthy, nonbreastfeeding females aged 13-49 years at risk of unintended pregnancy, compared intramuscular or subcutaneous progestin-only injectables to a contemporaneous comparison group, and addressed at least one key question: 1) What side effects are associated with progestin-only injectable contraceptive use? 2) What health benefits are associated with progestin-only injectable contraceptive use? Study quality was assessed using criteria from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials. There were 13 prospective cohort, five retrospective cohort, four case-control, and two cross-sectional studies. Studies of moderate or high risk of bias suggest an association between DMPA use and weight gain, increased body fat mass, irregular bleeding, and amenorrhea. Inconsistent evidence exists for an association between DMPA use and mood or libido changes. Limited evidence exists for an association between DMPA use and decreased risk of cancers and tubal infertility. CONCLUSION: Higher-quality research is needed to clarify DMPA's side effects and benefits. In absence of such evidence, patient-centered counseling should incorporate the available evidence while acknowledging its limitations and recognizing the value of women's lived experiences.

Patterns and trends in contraceptive use among women attending Title X clinics and a national sample of low-income women.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the types of contraception used by women attending Title X-funded clinics and a comparable group of low-income reproductive-age women at risk of unintended pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the percentage of reproductive aged (15-44 years) women using contraception, by method type and level of effectiveness in preventing pregnancy (i.e., most, moderately, and less effective), using Title X Family Planning Annual Report (2006-2016) and National Survey of Family Growth (2006-2015) data. We divided most effective methods into permanent (female and male sterilization) and reversible (long-acting reversible contraceptives [LARCs]) methods. RESULTS: Among Title X clients during 2006-2016, use of LARCs increased (3-14%); use of moderately effective methods decreased (64-54%); and use of sterilization (~ 2%), less effective methods (21-20%), and no method (8-7%) was unchanged. These same trends in contraceptive use were observed in a comparable group of women nationally during 2006-2015, during which LARC use increased (5-19%, p < .001); moderately effective method use decreased (60-48%, p < .001); and use of sterilization (~5%), less effective methods (19%), and no method (11-10%) was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The contraceptive method mix among Title X clients differs from that of low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy nationally, but general patterns and trends are similar in the two populations. Research is needed to understand whether method use patterns among low-income women reflect their preferences, access, or the conditions of the supply environment. IMPLICATIONS: This study contributes to our understanding of patterns and trends in contraceptive use among two groups of reproductive-age women - Title X clients and low-income women nationally who are at risk of unintended pregnancy. The findings highlight areas for further research.

Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes in high-resource settings: An updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no federal guidelines provide recommendations on healthy birth spacing for women in the United States. This systematic review summarises associations between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes to inform the development of birth spacing recommendations for the United States. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, POPLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a previous systematic review were searched to identify relevant articles published from 1 January 2006 and 1 May 2017. Included studies reported maternal health outcomes following a short versus longer interpregnancy interval, were conducted in high-resource settings, and adjusted estimates for at least maternal age. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and applicability using established methods. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was limited but consistent evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risk of precipitous labour and decreased risks of labour dystocia. There was some evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risks of subsequent pre-pregnancy obesity and gestational diabetes, and decreased risk of preeclampsia. Among women with a previous caesarean delivery, short interpregnancy interval was associated with increased risk of uterine rupture in one study. No studies reported outcomes related to maternal depression, interpregnancy weight gain, maternal anaemia, or maternal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In studies from high-resource settings, short interpregnancy intervals are associated with both increased and decreased risks of adverse maternal outcomes. However, most outcomes were evaluated in single studies, and the strength of evidence supporting associations is low.

Good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies on birth spacing and perinatal health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational studies have shown that women with a shorter interpregnancy interval (the time from delivery to start of a subsequent pregnancy) are more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm delivery or small for gestational age birth, than women who space their births further apart. However, the studies used to inform these estimates have methodological shortcomings. METHODS: In this commentary, we summarise the discussions of an expert workgroup describing good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal health outcomes. RESULTS: We argue that inferences drawn from research in this field will be improved by careful attention to elements such as: (a) refining the research question to clarify whether the goal is to estimate a causal effect vs describe patterns of association; (b) using directed acyclic graphs to represent potential causal networks and guide the analytic plan of studies seeking to estimate causal effects; (c) assessing how miscarriages and pregnancy terminations may have influenced interpregnancy interval classifications; (d) specifying how key factors such as previous pregnancy loss, pregnancy intention, and maternal socio-economic position will be considered; and (e) examining if the association between interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcome differs by factors such as maternal age. CONCLUSION: This commentary outlines the discussions of this recent expert workgroup, and describes several suggested principles for study design and analysis that could mitigate many potential sources of bias.

Report of the Office of Population Affairs' expert work group meeting on short birth spacing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: Methodological quality of existing studies and future directions for research.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that women wait at least 24 months after a livebirth before attempting a subsequent pregnancy to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal, and infant health outcomes. However, the applicability of the WHO recommendations for women in the United States is unclear, as breast feeding, nutrition, maternal age at first birth, and total fertility rate differs substantially between the United States and the low- and middle-resource countries upon which most of the evidence is based. METHODS: To inform guideline development for birth spacing specific to women in the United States, the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) convened an expert work group meeting in Washington, DC, on 14-15 September 2017 among reproductive, perinatal, paediatric, social, and public health epidemiologists; obstetrician-gynaecologists; biostatisticians; and experts in evidence synthesis related to women's health. RESULTS: Presentations and discussion topics included the methodological quality of existing studies, evaluation of the evidence for causal effects of short interpregnancy intervals on adverse perinatal and maternal health outcomes, good practices for future research, and identification of research gaps and priorities for future work. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides an overview of the presentations, discussions, and conclusions from the expert work group meeting.

Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes in high-resource settings: An updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review summarises association between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal health outcomes in high-resource settings to inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States. METHODS: Five databases and a previous systematic review were searched for relevant articles published between 1966 and 1 May 2017. We included studies meeting the following criteria: (a) reporting of perinatal health outcomes after a short interpregnancy interval since last livebirth; (b) conducted within a high-resource setting; and (c) estimates were adjusted for maternal age and at least one socio-economic factor. RESULTS: Nine good-quality and 18 fair-quality studies were identified. Interpregnancy intervals <6 months were associated with a clinically and statistically significant increased risk of adverse outcomes in studies of preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 10 of 14 studies); spontaneous preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in one of two studies); small-for-gestational age (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 5 of 11 studies); and infant mortality (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in four of four studies), while four studies of perinatal death showed no association. Interpregnancy intervals of 6-11 and 12-17 months generally had smaller point estimates and confidence intervals that included the null. Most studies were population-based and few included adjustment for detailed measures of key confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In high-resource settings, there is some evidence showing interpregnancy intervals <6 months since last livebirth are associated with increased risks for preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and infant death; however, results were inconsistent. Additional research controlling for confounding would further inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States.

Client Preferences for Contraceptive Counseling: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Providers can help clients achieve their personal reproductive goals by providing high-quality, client-centered contraceptive counseling. Given the individualized nature of contraceptive decision making, provider attention to clients' preferences for counseling interactions can enhance client centeredness. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on what preferences clients have for the contraceptive counseling they receive. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review is part of an update to a prior review series to inform contraceptive counseling in clinical settings. Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases were searched for studies related to client preferences for contraceptive counseling published in the U.S. or similar settings from March 2011 through November 2016. Because studies on client preferences were not included in the prior review series, a limited search was conducted for earlier research published from October 1992 through February 2011. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 26 articles met inclusion criteria, including 17 from the search of literature published March 2011 or later and nine from the search of literature from October 1992 through February 2011. Nineteen articles included results about client preferences for information received during counseling, 13 articles included results about preferences for the decision-making process, 13 articles included results about preferences for the relationship between providers and clients, and 11 articles included results about preferences for the context in which contraceptive counseling is delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the mostly small, qualitative studies included in this review describes preferences for the contraceptive counseling interaction. Provider attention to these preferences may improve the quality of family planning care; future research is needed to explore interventions designed to meet preferences. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Clinic-Based Programs to Prevent Repeat Teen Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of repeat teen pregnancy prevention programs offered in clinical settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from January 1985 to April 2016 that included key terms related to adolescent reproductive health services. Analysis of these studies occurred in 2017. Studies were excluded if they focused solely on sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention services, or occurred outside of a clinic setting or the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. Inclusion and exclusion criteria further narrowed the studies to those that included information on at least one short-term (e.g., increased knowledge); medium-term (e.g., increased contraceptive use); or long-term (e.g., decreased repeat teen pregnancy) outcome, or identified contextual barriers or facilitators for providing adolescent-focused family planning services. Standardized abstraction methods and tools were used to synthesize the evidence and assess its quality. Only studies of clinic-based programs focused on repeat teen pregnancy prevention were included in this review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search strategy identified 27,104 citations, 940 underwent full-text review, and 120 met the adolescent-focused family planning services inclusion criteria. Only five papers described clinic-based programs focused on repeat teen pregnancy prevention. Four studies found positive (n=2) or null (n=2) effects on repeat teen pregnancy prevention; an additional study described facilitators for helping teen mothers remain linked to services. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified clinic-based repeat teen pregnancy prevention programs and few positively affect factors that may reduce repeat teen pregnancy. Access to immediate postpartum contraception or home visiting programs may be opportunities to meet adolescents where they are and reduce repeat teen pregnancy. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Unintended pregnancy and interpregnancy interval by maternal age, National Survey of Family Growth.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between unintended pregnancy and interpregnancy interval (IPI) across maternal age is not clear. METHODS: Using data from the National Survey of Family Growth, we estimated the percentages of pregnancies that were unintended among IPI groups (<6, 6-11, 12-17, 18-23, 24+ months) by maternal age at last live birth (15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-44 years). RESULTS: Approximately 40% of pregnancies were unintended and 36% followed an IPI<18 months. Within each maternal age group, the percentage of pregnancies that were unintended decreased as IPI increased. CONCLUSION: Unintended pregnancies are associated with shorter IPI across the reproductive age spectrum.

Referral Practices Among U.S. Publicly Funded Health Centers That Offer Family Planning Services.

BACKGROUND: Referrals to other medical services are central to healthcare, including family planning service providers; however, little information exists on the nature of referral practices among health centers that offer family planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a nationally representative survey of administrators from 1,615 publicly funded health centers that offered family planning in 2013-14 to describe the use of six referral practices. We focused on associations between various health center characteristics and frequent use of three active referral practices. RESULTS: In the prior 3 months, a majority of health centers (73%) frequently asked clients about referrals at clients' next visit. Under half (43%) reported frequently following up with referral sources to find out if their clients had been seen. A third (32%) of all health centers reported frequently using three active referral practices. In adjusted analysis, Planned Parenthood clinics (adjusted odds ratio 0.55) and hospital-based clinics (AOR 0.39) had lower odds of using the three active referral practices compared with health departments, and Title X funding status was not associated with the outcome. The outcome was positively associated with serving rural areas (AOR 1.39), having a larger client volume (AOR 3.16), being a part of an insurance network (AOR 1.42), and using electronic health records (AOR 1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Publicly funded family planning providers were heavily engaged in referrals. Specific referral practices varied widely and by type of care. More assessment of these and other aspects of referral systems and practices is needed to better characterize the quality of care.

Access to long-acting reversible contraception among US publicly funded health centers.

OBJECTIVES: Access to a full range of contraceptive methods, including long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), is central to providing quality family planning services. We describe health center-related factors associated with LARC availability, including staff training in LARC insertion/removal and approaches to offering LARC, whether onsite or through referral. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed nationally representative survey data collected during 2013-2014 from administrators of publicly funded U.S. health centers that offered family planning. The response rate was 49.3% (n=1615). In addition to descriptive statistics, we used multivariable logistic regression to identify health center characteristics associated with offering both IUDs and implants onsite. RESULTS: Two-thirds (64%) of health centers had staff trained in all three LARC types (hormonal IUD, copper IUD, implant); 21% had no staff trained in any of those contraceptive methods. Half of health centers (52%) offered IUDs (any type) and implants onsite. After onsite provision, informal referral arrangements were the most common way LARC methods were offered. In adjusted analyses, Planned Parenthood (AOR=9.49) and hospital-based (AOR=2.35) health centers had increased odds of offering IUDs (any type) and implants onsite, compared to Health Departments, as did Title X-funded (AOR=1.55) compared to non-Title X-funded health centers and centers serving a larger volume of family planning clients. Centers serving mostly rural areas compared to those serving urbans areas had lower odds (AOR 0.60) of offering IUD (any type) and implants. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in LARC access remains among publicly funded health centers. In particular, Health Departments and rural health centers have relatively low LARC provision. IMPLICATIONS: For more women to be offered a full range of contraceptive methods, additional efforts should be made to increase availability of LARC in publicly-funded health centers, such as addressing provider training gaps, improving referrals mechanisms, and other efforts to strengthen the health care system.

Trends in Health Insurance Coverage of Title X Family Planning Program Clients, 2005-2015.

BACKGROUND: The federal Title X Family Planning Program supports the delivery of family planning services and related preventive care to 4 million individuals annually in the United States. The implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) Medicaid expansion and provisions expanding access to health insurance, which took effect in January 2014, resulted in higher rates of health insurance coverage in the U.S. population; the ACA's impact on individuals served by the Title X program has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: Using administrative data we examined changes in health insurance coverage among Title X clinic patients during 2005-2015. RESULTS: We found that the percentage of clients without health insurance decreased from 60% in 2005 to 48% in 2015, with the greatest annual decrease occurring between 2013 and 2014 (63% to 54%). Meanwhile, between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of clients with Medicaid or other public health insurance increased from 20% to 35% and the percentage of clients with private health insurance increased from 8% to 15%. CONCLUSIONS: Although clients attending Title X clinics remained uninsured at substantially higher rates compared with the national average, the increase in clients with health insurance coverage aligns with the implementation of ACA-related provisions to expand access to affordable health insurance.

Does Contraceptive Use in the United States Meet Global Goals?

CONTEXT: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seek to achieve health equity, and they apply to all countries. SDG contraceptive use estimates for the United States are needed to contextualize U.S. performance in relation to that of other countries. METHODS: Data from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth were used to calculate three SDG indicators of contraceptive use for U.S. women aged 15-44: contraceptive prevalence, unmet need for family planning and demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods. These measures were calculated separately for married or cohabiting women and for unmarried, sexually active women; differences by sociodemographic characteristics were assessed using t tests from logistic regression analysis. Estimates for married women were compared with 2010-2015 estimates from 94 other countries, most of which were low- or middle-income. RESULTS: For married or cohabiting women, U.S. estimates for contraceptive prevalence, unmet need and demand satisfied by modern methods were 74%, 9% and 80%, respectively; for unmarried, sexually active women, they were 85%, 11% and 82%, respectively. Estimates varied by sociodemographic characteristics, particularly among married or cohabiting women. Five countries performed better than the United States on contraceptive prevalence, 12 on unmet need and four on both measures; seven performed better on demand satisfied by modern methods. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to continue efforts to expand access to contraceptive care in the United States, and to monitor the SDG indicators so that improvement can be tracked over time.

Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in Title X-Funded Health Centers - United States, 2005-2015.

Cervical cancer screening is critical to early detection and treatment of precancerous cells and cervical cancer. In 2015, 83% of U.S. women reported being screened per current recommendations, which is below the Healthy People 2020 target of 93% (1,2). Disparities in screening persist for women who are younger (aged 21-30 years), have lower income, are less educated, are uninsured, lack a source of health care, or who self-identify as Asian or American Indian/Alaska Native (2). Women who are never screened or rarely screened are more likely to develop cancer and receive a cancer diagnosis at later stages than women who are screened regularly (3). In 2013, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 11,955 women in the United States, and 4,217 died from the disease (4). Aggregated administrative data from the Title X Family Planning Program were used to calculate the percentage of female clients served in Title X-funded health centers who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test during 2005-2015. Trends in the percentage of Title X clients screened for cervical cancer were examined in relation to changes in cervical cancer screening guidelines, particularly the 2009 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) update that raised the age for starting cervical cancer screening to 21 years (5) and the 2012 alignment of screening guidelines from ACOG, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) on the starting age (21 years), screening interval (3 or 5 years), and type of screening test (6-8). During 2005-2015, the percentage of female clients screened for cervical cancer dropped continually, with the largest declines occurring in 2010 and 2013, notably a year after major updates to the recommendations. Although aggregated data contribute to understanding of cervical cancer screening trends in Title X centers, studies using client-level and encounter-level data are needed to assess the appropriateness of cervical cancer screening in individual cases.