Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: Assess differences in postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions in women with a recent live birth who delivered a neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) affected infant. Study Design: Using linked Delaware Birth Certificate Data, Hospital Discharge Data and PRAMS data for 2012-2018 (n = 6,358 singleton births), we assessed differences among women with and without a delivery of an NAS-affected infant by effective postpartum contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions. We calculated prevalence estimates, crude (cPOR), and prevalence odds ratios adjusted (aPOR) for NAS by maternal characteristics. We used alpha ≤ 0.05 to determine statistical significance. Results: Prevalence of NAS was 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8 - 2.6). Effective postpartum contraceptive use was 60.4% (95% CI: 51.9-69.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 56.4% (95% CI: 55.1-57.8%) and cPOR was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8-1.7). Prevalence of intended pregnancy was 26.5% (95% CI: 18.9-34.0) among women with delivery of an NAS-affected infant compared with a non-NAS delivery 53.0% (95% CI: 51.7-54.4) and cPOR was 0.3 (95% CI: 0.2-0.5). After adjustment, women who delivered an NAS-affected infant had lower odds (aPOR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.8) of indicating that their pregnancy was intended as compared to those who did not deliver an NAS-affected infant. Conclusions: Our study found no association between delivery of an NAS-affected infant and use of an effective postpartum contraceptive method. However, we found that pregnancy intendedness was lower among women delivering an NAS-affected infant compared with women without an NAS delivery even after accounting for maternal characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussaini et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: