4.3 Article

Women with intellectual disability at risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 529-535

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01061.x

关键词

birthweight; intellectual disability; pre-eclampsia; pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background An increasing number of women with intellectual disability (ID) have children. Cross-sectional, clinical population data suggest that these women face an increased risk of delivering preterm and/or low birthweight babies. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of poor pregnancy and birth outcomes in women with ID and/or self-reported learning difficulties in an antenatal population. Methods A total of 878 pregnant women attending their first antenatal clinic visit were 'screened' for ID. Pregnancy and birth outcomes data were extracted from medical records post-partum. These data included pregnancy-related health conditions, including pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes, and birth outcomes, including gestational age, birthweight, Apgar score and admission to neonatal intensive care and/or special care nursery. Results A total of 57 (6.5%) pregnant women with ID and/or self-reported learning difficulties were identified. These women experienced an unusually high rate of pre-eclampsia (odds ratio = 2.85). Their children more often had low birthweights (odds ratio = 3.08), and they were more frequently admitted to neonatal intensive care or special care nursery (odds ratio = 2.51). Conclusion Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the adverse findings of this study and identify potentially changeable factors contributing to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes for women with ID and/or self-reported learning difficulties and their children. To ensure quality antenatal care, health professionals may need to consider innovations such as extended consultation times, communication aids and audio-taping consultations.

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

4.3
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