Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: We describe participation rates in a special interconceptional care program that addressed all commonly known barriers to care, and identify predictors of the observed levels of participation in this preventive care service. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from women in the intervention arm of an interconceptional care clinical trial in Philadelphia (n = 442). Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations to Health Services (herein called Andersen model) was used as a theoretical base. We used a multinomial logit model to analyze the factors influencing women's level of participation in this enhanced interconceptional care program. RESULTS: Although common barriers were addressed, there was variable participation in the interconceptional interventions. The Andersen model did not explain the variation in interconceptional care participation (Wald ch sq = 49, p = 0.45). Enabling factors (p = 0.058), older maternal age (p = 0.03) and smoking (p = < 0.0001) were independently associated with participation. CONCLUSIONS: Actively removing common barriers to care does not guarantee the long-term and consistent participation of vulnerable women in preventive care. There are unknown factors beyond known barriers that affect participation in interconceptional care. New paradigms are needed to identify the additional factors that serve as barriers to participation in preventive care for vulnerable women.

Beyond marital status: the quality of the mother-father relationship and its influence on reproductive health behaviors and outcomes among unmarried low income pregnant women.

In populations where the majority of pregnancies occur to unmarried women, exploring the quality of partner relationships and reproductive health is warranted. This study assesses differences in psychosocial characteristics, health behaviors, and birth outcomes between unmarried pregnant women who reported having a 'good' relationship with their baby's father, compared to those who reported having a 'fair' or 'poor' relationship with their baby's father. This research was part of a prospective study of low-income urban women. All unmarried women (n = 3,633) enrolled during their first prenatal visit were asked questions designed to differentiate between being in a good, fair or poor relationship with the baby's father. The worse the quality of the relationship, the worse the outcome, with dose-response associations between the quality of the relationship, emotional health, health behaviors, and birthweight. Compared to women in good relationships, those in poor relationships were more likely to have depressive symptoms (aPR 1.93; 95% CI: 1.65, 2.25), stress (aPR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.35), use drugs (aPR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.61) and smoke (aPR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.49). Although infants born to mothers in poor relationships had the highest rate of low birth weight, the differences were not significant. Delving beyond marital status to assess the quality of partner relationships among unmarried mothers is important. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay of individual, social and environmental factors promoting or hindering stable and supportive partner relationships among socially disadvantaged populations of pregnant women.