IMPORTANCE Substantial increases in both neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) and maternal opioid use disorder have been observed through 2014. OBJECTIVE To examine national and state variation in NAS and maternal opioid-related diagnoses (MOD) rates in 2017 and to describe national and state changes since 2010 in the US, which included expanded MOD codes (opioid use disorder plus long-term and unspecified use) implemented in International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the 2010 to 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample and State Inpatient Databases, an all-payer compendium of hospital discharge records from community nonrehabilitation hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia. EXPOSURES State and year.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES NAS rate per 1000 birth hospitalizations and MOD rate per 1000 delivery hospitalizations. RESULTSIn 2017, there were 751 037 birth hospitalizations and 748 239 delivery hospitalizations in the national sample; 5375 newborns had NAS and 6065 women had MOD documented in the discharge record. Mean gestational age was 38.4 weeks and mean maternal age was 28.8 years. From 2010 to 2017, the estimated NAS rate significantly increased by 3.3 per 1000 birth hospitalizations (95% CI, 2.5-4.1), from 4.0 (95% CI, 3.3-4.7) to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.8-7.7). The estimated MOD rate significantly increased by 4.6 per 1000 delivery hospitalizations (95% CI, 3.9-5.4), from 3.5 (95% CI, 3.0-4.1) to 8.2 (95% CI, 7.7-8.7). Larger increases for MOD vs NAS rates occurred with new International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes in 2016. From a census of 47 state databases in 2017, NAS rates ranged from 1.3 per 1000 birth hospitalizations in Nebraska to 53.5 per 1000 birth hospitalizations in West Virginia, with Maine (31.4), Vermont (29.4), Delaware (24.2), and Kentucky (23.9) also exceeding 20 per 1000 birth hospitalizations, while MOD rates ranged from 1.7 per 1000 delivery hospitalizations in Nebraska to 47.3 per 1000 delivery hospitalizations in Vermont, with West Virginia (40.1), Maine (37.8), Delaware (24.3), and Kentucky (23.4) also exceeding 20 per 1000 delivery hospitalizations. From 2010 to 2017, NAS and MOD rates increased significantly for all states except Nebraska and Vermont, which only had MOD increases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn the US from 2010 to 2017, estimated rates of NAS and MOD significantly increased nationally and for the majority of states, with notable state-level variation.

Importance Since 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended universal developmental screening and surveillance to promote early diagnosis and intervention and to improve the outcomes of children with developmental delays and disabilities. Objective To examine the current prevalence and variation of developmental screening and surveillance of children by various sociodemographic, enabling, and health characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional analysis of the Health Resources and Services Administration’s 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health—a nationally representative survey of US children completed between June 2016 and February 2017—examined 5668 randomly selected children 9 through 35 months of age whose parent or caregiver responded to the address-based survey by mail or via a website. All analyses were weighted to account for the probability of selection and nonresponse and to reflect population counts of all noninstitutionalized US children residing in housing units. Main Outcomes and Measures Developmental screening was measured through a validated set of 3 items indicating receipt in the past year of parent-completed screening from a health care professional with age-appropriate content regarding language development and social behavior. Surveillance was determined by an item capturing verbal elicitation of developmental concerns by a health care professional. Results Of the estimated 9.0 million children aged 9 through 35 months, an estimated 30.4% (95% CI, 28.0%-33.0%) were reported by their parent or guardian to have received a parent-completed developmental screening and 37.1% (95% CI, 34.4%-39.8%) were reported to have received developmental surveillance from a health care professional in the past year. Characteristics associated with screening and/or surveillance that remained significant after adjustment included primary household language, family structure, household education, income, medical home, past-year preventive visit, child health status, and special health care needs. Having health care that meets medical home criteria was significantly associated with both developmental screening (adjusted rate ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57) and surveillance (adjusted rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42), representing an 8 to 9 absolute percentage point increase. State-level differences spanned 40 percentage points for screening (17.2% in Mississippi and 58.8% in Oregon) and surveillance (19.1% in Mississippi and 60.8% in Oregon), with approximately 90% of variation not explained by child and family characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance Despite more than a decade of initiatives, rates of developmental screening and surveillance remain low. However, state-level variation indicates continued potential for improvement. Systems-level quality improvement efforts, building on the medical home, will ...

Background Meta‐analyses of observational studies have shown that women with a shorter interpregnancy interval (the time from delivery to start of a subsequent pregnancy) are more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm delivery or small for gestational age birth, than women who space their births further apart. However, the studies used to inform these estimates have methodological shortcomings. Methods In this commentary, we summarise the discussions of an expert workgroup describing good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal health outcomes. Results We argue that inferences drawn from research in this field will be improved by careful attention to elements such as: (a) refining the research question to clarify whether the goal is to estimate a causal effect vs describe patterns of association; (b) using directed acyclic graphs to represent potential causal networks and guide the analytic plan of studies seeking to estimate causal effects; (c) assessing how miscarriages and pregnancy terminations may have influenced interpregnancy interval classifications; (d) specifying how key factors such as previous pregnancy loss, pregnancy intention, and maternal socio‐economic position will be considered; and (e) examining if the association between interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcome differs by factors such as maternal age. Conclusion This commentary outlines the discussions of this recent expert workgroup, and describes several suggested principles for study design and analysis that could mitigate many potential sources of bias.

Introduction: Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in preterm birth is a priority for U.S. public health programs. The study objective was to quantify the relative contribution of geographic, sociodemographic, and health determinants to the black, non-Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic preterm birth disparity. Methods: Cross-sectional 2016 U.S. birth certificate data (analyzed in 2018−2019) were used. Black−white differences in covariate distributions and preterm birth and very preterm birth rates were examined. Decomposition methods for nonlinear outcomes based on logistic regression were used to quantify the extent to which black−white differences in covariates contributed to preterm birth and very preterm birth disparities. Results: Covariate differences between black and white women were found within each category of geographic, sociodemographic, and health characteristics. However, not all covariates contributed substantially to the disparity. Close to 38% of the preterm birth and 31% of the very preterm birth disparity could be explained by black−white covariate differences. The largest contributors to the disparity included maternal education (preterm birth, 11.3%; very preterm birth, 9.0%), marital status/paternity acknowledgment (preterm birth, 13.8%; very preterm birth, 14.7%), source of payment for delivery (preterm birth, 6.2%; very preterm birth, 3.2%), and hypertension in pregnancy (preterm birth, 9.9%; very preterm birth, 8.3%). Interpregnancy interval contributed a more sizable contribution to the disparity (preterm birth, 6.2%, very preterm birth, 6.0%) in sensitivity analyses restricted to all nonfirstborn births. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the known portion of the disparity in preterm birth is driven by sociodemographic and preconception/prenatal health factors. Public health programs to enhance social support and preconception care, specifically focused on hypertension, may provide an efficient approach for reducing the racial gap in preterm birth.

However, for those MC twins that do not have overt complications such as TTTS, it is not known whether infant outcomes are different. Because the complex vascular anastomoses may lead to blood pressure swings and instability, it is possible that MC twins may suffer more neurologic injury. And in fact, a few mostly older studies reported on a relatively high rate of white matter injury in MC twins as seen on MRI (