Associations of intimate partner violence and maternal comorbidities: a cross-sectional analysis of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
Author:
Hartwell Micah12, Keener Ashley3, Robling Kristyn2, Enmeier Mackenzie2, Sajjadi Nicholas B.3, Greiner Benjamin4, Price Jameca5
Affiliation:
1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences , Tulsa , OK , USA 2. Oklahoma State University College of Osteopathic Medicine , Tahlequah , OK , USA 3. College of Osteopathic Medicine , Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences , Tulsa , OK , USA 4. Department of Internal Medicine , University of Texas Medical Branch , Galveston , TX , USA 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine , Tulsa , OK , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Context
Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs when an intimate partner inflicts physical, sexual, and/or emotional assault with coercive control and is a traumatic experience with repercussions that can be exacerbated when a woman is pregnant. While screening for IPV during pregnancy is recommended to occur regardless of risk, less than 50% of pregnant women are screened.
Objectives
Identifying clinical factors commonly associated with IPV during pregnancy may improve screening rates, thus our primary objective was to examine associations between IPV and maternal comorbidities.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Phase 8 spanning 2016 through 2019. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was utilized to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine associations between IPV and diabetes, anxiety, hypertension, depression, asthma, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and thyroid disease.
Results
More than 40% of women experiencing IPV reported a history of depression or anxiety. The occurrence of IPV was higher among women with depression (AOR 3.48, CI 3.14–3.85), anxiety (AOR 2.98, CI 2.64–3.37), hypertension (AOR 1.21, CI 1.02–1.44), and asthma (AOR 1.37; CI 1.17–1.59) than women without those respective conditions, but not among diagnoses of diabetes, PCOS, or thyroid disorders.
Conclusions
Our findings show that pregnant individuals reporting having experienced IPV were more likely to report having certain comorbidities compared to those who did not report experiencing IPV. Given the low rates of screening, knowing clinically relevant associations may increase screening sensitivity among clinicians and, in turn, increase the likelihood that individuals experiencing IPV receive supportive care.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Complementary and alternative medicine,Complementary and Manual Therapy
Reference35 articles.
1. Kapaya, M, Boulet, SL, Warner, L, Harrison, L, Fowler, D. Intimate partner violence before and during pregnancy, and prenatal counseling among women with a recent live birth, United States, 2009–2015. J Womens Health. 2019;28:1476–86. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7545. 2. Bailey, BA. Partner violence during pregnancy: prevalence, effects, screening, and management. Int J Womens Health. 2010;2:183–97. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijwh.s8632. 3. Román-Gálvez, RM, Martín-Peláez, S, Martínez-Galiano, JM, Khan, KS, Bueno-Cavanillas, A. Prevalence of intimate partner violence in pregnancy: an umbrella review. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2021;18:707. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020707. 4. Breiding, M, Basile, KC, Smith, SG, Black, MC, Mahendra, RR. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements; 2015 Version 2.0. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/31292 [Accessed 29 Sep 2021]. 5. ACOG. Committee opinion no. 554: reproductive and sexual coercion. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:411.
|
|