4.1 Article

Characteristics Associated With Delivery of an Infant With Congenital Syphilis and Missed Opportunities for PreventionCalifornia, 2012 to 2014

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 435-441

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000782

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Congenital syphilis (CS), the transmission of Treponema pallidum from mother to fetus during pregnancy, can cause adverse birth outcomes. In 2012 to 2014, the CS rate in California increased more than 200% from 6.6 to 20.3 cases per 100,000 live births. Our objectives were to identify characteristics associated with delivering an infant with CS and missed opportunities for prevention among syphilis-infected pregnant women in California. Methods We linked California Department of Public Health syphilis surveillance records from women aged 15 to 45 yearsdiagnosed from March 13, 2012, to December 31, 2014to birth records. We compared characteristics among mothers who delivered an infant with CS (CS mothers) with mothers who delivered an infant without CS (non-CS mothers) by using (2) or Fisher exact tests. To visualize gaps in prevention among syphilis-infected pregnant women, we constructed a CS prevention cascade, a figure that shows steps to prevent CS. Results During the selected period, 2498 women were diagnosed as having syphilis, and 427 (17%) linked to birth records; 164 (38%) were defined as CS mothers and 263 (62%) as non-CS mothers. Mothers with CS were more likely than non-CS mothers to have their first prenatal care visit in the third trimester. High proportions of mothers in both groups reported high-risk sexual behaviors, methamphetamine use, or incarceration (13%-29%). The CS prevention cascade showed decrements of 5% to 11% in prenatal care receipt, testing, and treatment steps; only 62% of potential CS births were prevented. Conclusions Multifaceted efforts are needed to address gaps in the CS prevention cascade and reduce CS cases in California.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据