1 / 26

Maternal health disparities: Economic & psychosocial hardships during pregnancy May 18-19, 2005 Jacob’s Institute F

Maternal health disparities: Economic & psychosocial hardships during pregnancy May 18-19, 2005 Jacob’s Institute For Women’s Health. Paula Braveman, MD, MPH Professor of Family & Community Medicine Director, Center on Social Disparities in Health. Hardships during pregnancy.

jaden
Télécharger la présentation

Maternal health disparities: Economic & psychosocial hardships during pregnancy May 18-19, 2005 Jacob’s Institute F

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maternal health disparities: Economic & psychosocial hardships during pregnancyMay 18-19, 2005Jacob’s Institute For Women’s Health Paula Braveman, MD, MPH Professor of Family & Community Medicine Director, Center on Social Disparities in Health

  2. Hardships during pregnancy • Major economic and psychosocial hardships are not rare during pregnancy • Large disparities • But hardships are prevalent among all groups except the most affluent (22% with highest incomes) • Of concern in itself, re maternal well-being • If reflects chronic stress, also could adversely affect maternal & infant health, thus health over life course • Need to re-assess prenatal services • And policies across the life course

  3. Acknowledgements • Collaborators • Soowon Kim & Kristen Marchi, Center on Social Disparities in Health, UCSF • Tonya Stancil, CDC Div. of Repro. Health (PRAMS) • Marilyn Metzler, CDC Coordinating Center on Health Promotion, Adult & Community Health • Moreen Libet & Shabbir Ahmad, CA Dept Health Services MCAH Branch • Funding • Division of Reproductive Health, CDC Coordinating Center on Health Promotion

  4. CA. Maternal and Infant Health Assessment, 2002-03 • Statewide postpartum survey on maternal and infant health and health care, yearly since 1999 • Collaborative effort of CA. Dept. Health Services MCH Branch & UCSF CSDH • Modeled on CDC’s PRAMS survey • Mail/telephone in English and Spanish • N = 7,206, with > 70% response • Generally representative but under-representation of most disadvantaged is likely

  5. Most women (53%) had low incomes (were poor or near-poor) High income: over 400% of poverty 22% Poor: at or under the poverty line 33% Moderate: 3-4 x poverty 7% Low-moderate: 2-3 x poverty 10% Near-poor: 101-200% of poverty 20%

  6. Very hard to get by on her income: disparities by income,2002 - 2003

  7. Very hard to get by on her income: racial/ethnic disparities, 2002 - 2003

  8. Separated or divorced: disparities by income(2003 only, n=3,728)

  9. Separated or divorced: racial/ethnic disparities (2003 only, n=3,728)

  10. Partner lost his job: disparities by income (2003 only, n=3,728)

  11. Partner lost his job: racial/ethnic disparities (2003 only, n=3,728)

  12. Homeless: disparities by income(2003 only, n=3,728)

  13. Homeless: racial/ethnic disparities(2003 only, n=3,728)

  14. Food insecurity: disparities by income,2002-2003, n=7206

  15. Food insecurity: racial/ethnic disparities,2002-2003

  16. Total Number of Hardships* Women Had During Pregnancy: by Income, MIHA 2003 *Hardships included here are ‘hard to make ends meet’, ‘food insecurity’, ‘no practical support’, ‘no emotional support’, ‘separated/divorced during pregnancy’, ‘homeless’, ‘job loss of spouse/partner’, ‘involuntary job loss of herself’, ‘incarceration’, and ‘domestic violence’. Note that ‘poverty’ and ‘near-poverty’ are not included as hardships in this analysis by income groups.

  17. Total number of hardships1 women had during pregnancy: by racial/ethnic group, MIHA 2003 2 3 4 3 4 Race/Ethnicity 1Hardships included here are ‘poverty’, ‘hard to make ends meet’, ‘food insecurity’, ‘no practical support’, ‘no emotional support’, ‘separated/divorced during pregnancy’, ‘homeless’, ‘job loss of spouse/partner’, ‘involuntary job loss of respondent, ‘incarceration of respondent or her spouse/partner’, and ‘domestic violence’. 2N=3,692; 3Born in the United States; 4Born outside the United States.

  18. Big disparities, but hardships were prevalent overall • Black, Latina, and Am. Indian women had more hardships • but all age and racial/ethnic groups had hardships • Poor & near-poor women had more hardships • But women with incomes 201-300% of poverty also had hardships (e.g., ~10%: hard to live on income, job loss, food insecurity…) • And women with incomes 301-400% of poverty had some hardships (~10% partner lost job)

  19. Most women giving birth had low incomes • A third were poor (family income < 100% of federal poverty line) • Another fifth (20%) were near-poor (101-200% of poverty) • 53% were low-income (up to 200% of poverty) • Who is the maternity mainstream?

  20. California is not unique • Data from 17 PRAMS states (CDC survey, 2000-01) paint a similar picture • Similar prevalence of poverty (32%) and low income (53%) • Hardships prevalent overall • Big disparities • But affected all social groups except high-income women (28% of sample)

  21. Impact on maternal & infant health? • Food insecurity & homelessness: maternal health impact is obvious • Poor maternal nutrition a known risk for LBW • Homelessness: Threat to maternal nutrition, and major stressor • All other hardships are major stressors. If chronic, evidence indicates could affect birth weight and prematurity

  22. What is known about impact of stress on birth outcomes? • Stress can adversely impact birth outcomes through direct physiologic pathways: • Neuro-endocrine mechanisms • Immune/inflammatory response • Vascular effects • And stress  adverse behaviors with impact on birth outcomes • Effects can be modified by social support

  23. And what about values? • Compassion for suffering • Ethical principles: justice • Human rights: • Right to attain highest biologically possible state of health • Right to a standard of living adequate for health

  24. Implications? • Prenatal care in US: a medical model • More visits for low-risk women than in most western European countries • Very limited psychosocial/economic services • “Comprehensive” care: primarily adds health education • WIC • Few low-income women qualify for TANF or housing assistance

  25. Are there other models? • Contrast with some western European countries that provide all pregnant women with: • Universal, cradle-to-grave health insurance • Income support (“prenatal allowance”) • Housing assistance • Range of services to reduce poverty and buffer psychosocial consequences of low income • Could deficiencies of US model help explain our worse birth outcomes? • What about policies & services affecting pre-pregnancy conditions, including in childhood?

  26. Conclusions • Many women experience major economic & psychosocial hardships during pregnancy • Most pregnant women are low-income • Big disparities but diverse socioeconomic, age, and racial/ethnic groups are affected • Science & values support need to address these hardships • Need to re-assess content of prenatal care & consider models used elsewhere – including policies affecting psychosocial & economic stressors across the life course

More Related