Fatima McKenzie

Using simulation to assess the influence of race and insurer on shared decision making in periviable counseling.

Introduction Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling. Methods We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance. Results Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P < 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P = <0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients. Conclusions This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study.

Adolescent boys' experiences of first sex

There are limited contextual data regarding first sexual experiences of younger adolescent men. Yet these data that are needed to inform sexually-transmitted-infection and early-fatherhood-prevention efforts, particularly in lower-income communities. Using qualitative methods, 14 adolescent men (ages 14–16, all low-income, most African American) from a mid-sized US city were asked about relationships and sexual experiences in a one-hour face-to-face semi-structured interview, with two follow-up interviews at six- to nine-month intervals. Story-telling was encouraged. Descriptions of first sex were identified and then analysed for narrative structure and shared concepts. The dominant narrative of first sex proceeded through three steps: (1) preparation, which involved identification of a sexualised space, mentoring and pre-planning, (2) the event, which involved looking for cues indicating sexual interest and consent from a female partner, feelings of fear/nervousness and first sex itself and (3) afterwards, which involved a return to prior activities, minimal verbal exchange and a general positive feeling, sometimes accompanied by later disappointment. Mentorship, initiation by the female and idealising sex as a romantic experience, played important roles in constructing the context of first sex. These factors should be incorporated in harm-reduction interventions for young men in similar contexts.

Comparing obstetricians’ and neonatologists’ approaches to periviable counseling

Objective:To compare the management options, risks and thematic content that obstetricians and neonatologists discuss in periviable counseling.Study Design:Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists counseled simulated patients portraying a pregnant woman with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks of gestation. Transcripts from video-recorded encounters were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed for informational content and decision-making themes.Result:Obstetricians more frequently discussed antibiotics (P=0.005), maternal risks (<0.001) and cesarean risks (<0.005). Neonatologists more frequently discussed neonatal complications (P=0.044), resuscitation (P=0.015) and palliative options (P=0.023). Obstetricians and neonatologists often deferred questions about steroid administration to the other specialty. Both specialties organized decision making around medical information, survival, quality of life, time and support. Neonatologists also introduced themes of values, comfort or suffering, and uncertainty.Conclusion:Obstetricians and neonatologists provided complementary counseling content to patients, yet neither specialty took ownership of steroid discussions. Joint counseling and/or family meetings may minimize observed redundancy and inconsistencies in counseling.

Comparing neonatal morbidity and mortality estimates across specialty in periviable counseling

Abstract Objective: To describe and compare estimates of neonatal morbidity and mortality communicated by neonatologists and obstetricians in simulated periviable counseling encounters. Methods: A simulation-based study of 16 obstetricians (OBs) and 15 neonatologists counseling standardized patients portraying pregnant women with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. Two investigators tabulated all instances of numerically-described risk estimates across individuals and by specialty. Results: Overall, 12/15 (80%) neonatologists utilized numeric estimates of survival; 6/16 (38%) OBs did. OBs frequently deferred the discussion of “exact numbers” to neonatologists. The 12 neonatologists provided 13 unique numeric estimates, ranging from 3% to 50% survival. Half of those neonatologists provided two to three different estimates in a single encounter. By comparison, six OBs provided four unique survival estimates (“50%”, “30–40%”, “1/3–1/2”, “<10%”). Only 2/15 (13%) neonatologists provided numeric estimates of survival without impairment. None of the neonatologists used the term “intact” survival, while five OBs did. Three neonatologists gave numeric estimates of long-term disability and one OB did. Conclusion: We found substantial variation in estimates and noteworthy omissions of discussions related to long-term morbidity. Across specialties, we noted inconsistencies in the use and meaning of terms like “intact survival.” More tools and training are needed to improve the quality and consistency of periviable risk-communication.

Women’s opinions of legal requirements for drug testing in prenatal care

Abstract Purpose: To explore women’s attitudes and perceptions regarding legal requirements for prenatal drug testing. Methods: Web-based survey of 500 US women (age 18–45) recruited from a market research survey panel. A 24-item questionnaire assessed their opinion of laws requiring doctors to routinely verbal screen and urine drug test patients during pregnancy; recommendations for consequences for positive drug tests during pregnancy; and opinion of laws requiring routine drug testing of newborns. Additional questions asked participants about the influence of such laws on their own care-seeking behaviors. Data were analyzed for associations between participant characteristics and survey responses using Pearson’s chi-squared test. Results: The majority of respondents (86%) stated they would support a law requiring verbal screening of all pregnant patients and 73% would support a law requiring universal urine drug testing in pregnancy. Fewer respondents were willing to support laws that required verbal screening or urine drug testing (68% and 61%, respectively) targeting only Medicaid recipients. Twenty-one percent of respondents indicated they would be offended if their doctors asked them about drug use and 14% indicated that mandatory drug testing would discourage prenatal care attendance. Conclusion: Women would be more supportive of policies requiring universal rather than targeted screening and testing for prenatal drug use. However, a noteworthy proportion of women would be discouraged from attending prenatal care – a reminder that drug testing policies may have detrimental effects on maternal child health.

Do maternal characteristics influence maternal–fetal medicine physicians’ willingness to intervene when managing periviable deliveries?

Objective:Determine the relative influence of patient characteristics on Maternal–Fetal Medicine (MFM) physicians’ willingness to intervene when managing 23-week preterm premature rupture of membranes.Study Design:Surveyed 750 randomly sampled US members of the Society of Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Physicians rated their willingness to offer induction, order steroids and perform cesarean across eight vignettes; then completed a questionnaire querying expectations about neonatal outcomes and demographics.Results:Three hundred and twenty-five (43%) MFMs responded. Patient characteristics only influenced ⩽11% of participants’ willingness ratings. Overall, provider characteristics and institutional norms were associated with willingness to perform antenatal interventions, for example, practice region was associated with willingness to offer induction (P<0.001), order steroids (P=0.008) and perform cesarean for distress (P=0.011); while institutional cesarean cutoffs were associated with willingness to order steroids and perform cesarean for labor and distress (all P<0.001).Conclusion:Physician-level factors and institutional norms, more so than patient characteristics, may drive periviable care and outcomes.

Maternal-Fetal Medicine physicians’ practice patterns for 22-week delivery management

Abstract Objective: To describe Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) physicians’ practice patterns for 22-week delivery management. Mehods: Surveyed 750 randomly-sampled members of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, querying MFMs’ practices and policies guiding 22-week delivery management. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five (43%) MFMs responded. Nearly all (87%) would offer induction. Twenty-eight percent would order steroids, and 12% would perform cesarean for a patient desiring resuscitation. Offering induction differed significantly based on the provider’s practice setting, region, religious service attendance and political affiliation. In multivariable analyses, political affiliation remained a significant predictor of offering induction (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Most MFMs offer induction for PPROM at 22 weeks. A noteworthy proportion is willing to order steroids and perform cesarean. Personal beliefs and practice characteristics may contribute to these decisions. While little is known about the efficacy of these interventions at 22 weeks, some MFMs will offer obstetrical intervention if resuscitation is intended.

Offering induction of labor for 22-week premature rupture of membranes: a survey of obstetricians

Objective:To describe obstetricians’ induction counseling practices for 22-week preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and identify provider characteristics associated with offering induction.Methods:Surveyed 295 obstetricians on their likelihood (0–10) of offering induction for periviable PPROM across 10 vignettes. Twenty-two-week vignettes were analyzed, stratified by parental resuscitation preference. Bivariate analyses identified physician characteristics associated with reported likelihood ratings.Results:Obstetricians (N=205) were not likely to offer induction. Median ratings by preference were as follows: resuscitation 1.0, uncertain 1.0 and comfort care 3.0. Only 41% of obstetricians were likely to offer induction to patients desiring comfort care. In addition, several provider-level factors, including practice region, parenting status and years in practice, were significantly associated with offering induction.Conclusions:Obstetricians do not readily offer induction when counseling patients with 22-week ruptured membranes, even when patients prefer palliation. This may place women at risk for infectious complications without accruing a neonatal benefit from prolonged latency.