Back

Disentangling effects of ethnicity, deprivation, and payment source on obstetric outcomes in American primigravidae: A structural equation model of observational data.

Williams, J. H.

2024-11-01 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.10.30.24316452 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWomen from ethnic minorities have worse obstetric outcomes. Possible reasons for this are (1) social deprivation; (2) different standards of obstetric care; and (3) intrinsic ethnic differences. Here I aim to disentangle (1)-(3). MethodsI constructed two path models of causal links between parental ethnicity and obstetric outcomes. The first, no-racism, model estimated independent causal effects of ethnicity, deprivation and payment source on pregnancy and birth outcomes. The second realistic model additionally tested how far deprivation and payment source may mediate effects of ethnicity. Analyses of the models used Bayesian estimation. I analysed both the full sample of complete data and a random 1% sample. FindingsData were complete for 762786 births. The no-racism model did not fit the data, but the realistic model fitted adequately. It indicated that ethnicity, social deprivation, and private funding for care all adversely affected outcomes: (i) African American and Hispanic ethnicity caused deprivation; (ii) deprivation increased pregnancy hypertension, shortened gestation and reduced birthweight; (iii) private funding directly increased pregnancy hypertension and indirectly shortened gestation; (iv) participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) counteracted adverse effects of deprivation. (v) independently of (i)-(iv), ethnic-minority parents had shorter gestation and lighter babies. InterpretationDeprivation largely accounts for adverse obstetric outcomes in ethnic minorities. Private funding may also worsen pregnancy hypertension, but WIC improved outcomes. The uniformity of adverse birth outcomes for all ethnic minorities suggests that these result from a common factor, which may be systemic racism. Policies to reduce deprivation and increase government-funded care could importantly improve obstetric outcomes, irrespective of ethnicity. Fundingnone - I undertook the study at home. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSMany studies during the past century have shown that ethnic minorities have worse social deprivation and worse access to health services. Ethnicity, deprivation and care can all determine health outcomes, and ethnic-minority mothers have worse obstetric outcomes. However, the independent contributions of ethnicity, deprivation and care to these adverse outcomes are unknown. Added value of this studyI present here causal model of routine observational data that differentiates direct and indirect effects of ethnicity, deprivation and payment source on obstetric outcomes. The model allows (a) deprivation to mediate effects of ethnicity and (b) payment source to mediate effects of both ethnicity and deprivation. Hence, this model can disentangle the "intertwined" effects of ethnicity, deprivation and payment source on obstetric outcomes. The model also examines effects of participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children on outcomes. The model fitted a 1% sample of the data after Bayesian estimation - so it bears interpretation as a representation of the real-world causal structure of the data. In the model, minority ethnicity causes deprivation and medical insurance and all of these factors independently determine adverse obstetric outcomes. Notably, medical insurance and private payment may increase the risk of pregnancy hypertension and consequently shorten gestation. Participation in WIC was beneficial. Implications of all the available evidenceCausal modelling of routine natality data may allow effective audit of health care in its social context. Understanding causes of poor outcomes can enable prediction of effects of policy change. The present results indicate that policies to ameliorate social deprivation and expand access to WIC and government-subsidised care should improve obstetric outcomes - with long-term benefits for both mothers and their babies. Extrapolating beyond obstetrics, the present results may help to illuminate mechanisms of the healthcare crisis in America.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.0%
3
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
6
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
10
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
14
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
18
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
26
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
28
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%