BackgroundSeveral recent studies have attempted to measure the prevalence of disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women during childbirth in health facilities. Variations in reported prevalence may be associated with differences in study instruments and data collection methods. This systematic review and comparative analysis of methods aims to aggregate and present lessons learned from published studies that quantified the prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse (D&A) during childbirth.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Five papers met criteria and were included for analysis. We developed an analytical framework depicting the basic elements of epidemiological methodology in prevalence studies and a table of common types of systematic error associated with each of them. We performed a head-to-head comparison of study methods for all five papers. Using these tools, an independent reviewer provided an analysis of the potential for systematic error in the reported prevalence estimates.ResultsSampling techniques, eligibility criteria, categories of D&A selected for study, operational definitions of D&A, summary measures of D&A, and the mode, timing, and setting of data collection all varied in the five studies included in the review. These variations present opportunities for the introduction of biases – in particular selection, courtesy, and recall bias – and challenge the ability to draw comparisons across the studies’ results.ConclusionOur review underscores the need for caution in interpreting or comparing previously reported prevalence estimates of D&A during facility-based childbirth. The lack of standardized definitions, instruments, and study methods used to date in studies designed to quantify D&A in childbirth facilities introduced the potential for systematic error in reported prevalence estimates, and affected their generalizability and comparability. Chief among the lessons to emerge from comparing methods for measuring the prevalence of D&A is recognition of the tension between seeking prevalence measures that are reliable and generalizable, and attempting to avoid loss of validity in the context where the issue is being studied.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-017-0389-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim To evaluate whether history of pregnancy complications [pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, preterm delivery, or small for gestational age (SGA)] improves risk prediction for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods and results This population-based, prospective cohort study linked data from the HUNT Study, Medical Birth Registry of Norway, validated hospital records, and Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Using an established CVD risk prediction model (NORRISK 2), we predicted 10-year risk of CVD (non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, and non-fatal or fatal stroke) based on established risk factors (age, systolic blood pressure, total and HDL-cholesterol, smoking, anti-hypertensives, and family history of myocardial infarction). We evaluated whether adding pregnancy complication history improved model fit, calibration, discrimination, and reclassification. Among 18 231 women who were parous, ≥40 years of age, and CVD-free at start of follow-up, 39% had any pregnancy complication history and 5% experienced a CVD event during a median follow-up of 8.2 years. While pre-eclampsia and SGA were associated with CVD in unadjusted models (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.44–2.65 for pre-eclampsia and HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18–1.81 for SGA), only pre-eclampsia remained associated with CVD after adjusting for established risk factors (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16–2.17). Adding pregnancy complication history to the established prediction model led to small improvements in discrimination (C-index difference 0.004, 95% CI 0.002–0.006) and reclassification (net reclassification improvement 0.02, 95% CI 0.002–0.05). Conclusion Pre-eclampsia independently predicted CVD after controlling for established risk factors; however, adding pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, preterm delivery, and SGA made only small improvements to CVD prediction among this representative sample of parous Norwegian women.

Key Points Question Women with history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but how much of their excess cardiovascular risk is associated with conventional cardiovascular risk factors? Findings In this cohort study, blood pressure and body mass index were associated with up to 77% of the excess risk of cardiovascular disease in women with history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders, while glucose and lipids were associated with smaller proportions. Meaning The association of conventional risk factors, in particular blood pressure and body mass index, with the development of cardiovascular in women with history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders indicate that preventive efforts aimed at decreasing the levels of these risk factors could reduce cardiovascular risk in women with history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders.

Pregnancy loss is associated with later maternal risk of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia.

BackgroundWomen with hypertensive pregnancy disorders have adverse levels of cardiovascular risk factors. It is unclear how this adverse risk factor profile evolves during adult life. We compared life course trajectories of cardiovascular risk factors in women with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension in their first pregnancy to normotensive women.Methods and ResultsWe linked information on cardiovascular risk factors from the population‐based HUNT (Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study) surveys with pregnancy information from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Trajectories of cardiovascular risk factors were constructed for 22 308 women with a normotensive first pregnancy; 1092 with preeclampsia, and 478 with gestational hypertension in first pregnancy. Already before first pregnancy, women with preeclampsia in their first pregnancy had higher measures of adiposity, blood pressure, heart rate, and serum lipids and glucose compared with women with a normotensive first pregnancy. After first pregnancy, there was a parallel development in cardiovascular risk factor levels, but women with a normotensive first pregnancy had a time lag of >10 years compared with the preeclampsia group. There were no clear differences in risk factor trajectories between women with gestational hypertension and women with preeclampsia.ConclusionsWomen with hypertensive pregnancy disorders in their first pregnancy had an adverse cardiovascular risk factor profile before pregnancy compared with normotensive women, and the differences persisted beyond 50 years of age. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy signal long‐term increases in modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and may be used to identify women who would benefit from early prevention strategies.

No abstract

IMPORTANCEThe Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk Reduction Model pays provider organizations for measuring and reducing Medicare patients' cardiovascular risk.OBJECTIVE To assess whether the model increases the initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medications or statins among patients with blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above guideline thresholds for treatment intensification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis prespecified secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial included primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments across the US. Participants included Medicare patients who were enrolled into the model in 2017 by participating organizations and who were at high risk and at medium risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke in 10 years. Patient outcomes were analyzed for 1 year postenrollment (through December 2018) using an intent-to-treat design. Analysis began November 2019. INTERVENTIONS US Centers forMedicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations for risk stratifying Medicare patients and reducing CVD risk among high-risk patients through discussing risk scores, developing individualized risk reduction plans, and following up with patients twice yearly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESInitiating or intensifying statin or antihypertensive therapy within 1 year of enrollment, measured in Medicare Part D claims, and LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure levels approximately 1 year after enrollment, measured in usual care and reported to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via a data registry (data complete for 51% of high-risk enrollees). The study's primary outcome (incidence of first-time myocardial infarction and stroke) is not reported because the trial is ongoing.RESULTS A total of 330 primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospitalbased outpatient departments and 125 436 Medicare patients were included in this analysis. High-risk patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 74 (4.1), 15 213 (63%) were male, 21 657 (90%) were receiving antihypertensive medication at baseline, and 16 558 (69%) were receiving statins. Almost all (21 791 [91%]) high-risk intervention group patients had abovethreshold systolic blood pressure level (>130 mm Hg), LDL cholesterol level (>70 mg/dL), or both. Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not pay for CVD risk reduction for medium-risk enrollees, but initiation or intensification rates for these enrollees were also higher in the intervention vs control groups (12 668 [27.9%] vs 7544 [24.8%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3; P < .001). Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately ...

In our study, cross-sectional designs yielded more consistent evaluations of diarrhoea disease risk factors when those factors varied more between villages than over time. Cross-sectional studies can provide information that is representative across large geographic regions and therefore can provide insight for local, regional and national policy decisions. The value of the cross-sectional study should be reconsidered in the public health community.