Short interpregnancy interval and pregnancy outcomes: How important is the timing of confounding variable ascertainment?

被引:8
|
作者
Schummers, Laura [1 ]
Hutcheon, Jennifer A. [2 ]
Norman, Wendy, V [1 ,3 ]
Liauw, Jessica [2 ]
Bolatova, Talshyn [1 ]
Ahrens, Katherine A. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Family Practice, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Publ Hlth & Policy, London, England
[4] Univ Southern Maine, Muskie Sch Publ Policy, Portland, ME USA
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
causal inference; confounding adjustment; interpregnancy interval; pregnancy spacing; time‐ varying confounding; vital statistics; PERINATAL OUTCOMES; WEIGHT-LOSS; SMOKING; RISK; WOMEN; DISPARITIES; OBESITY; IMPACT; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/ppe.12716
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Estimation of causal effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes may be confounded by time-varying factors. These confounders should be ascertained at or before delivery of the first ("index") pregnancy, but are often only measured at the subsequent pregnancy. Objectives To quantify bias induced by adjusting for time-varying confounders ascertained at the subsequent (rather than the index) pregnancy in estimated effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes. Methods We analysed linked records for births in British Columbia, Canada, 2004-2014, to women with >= 2 singleton pregnancies (n = 121 151). We used log binomial regression to compare short (<6, 6-11, 12-17 months) to 18-23-month reference intervals for 5 outcomes: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal death); small for gestational age (SGA) birth and preterm delivery (all, early, spontaneous). We calculated per cent differences between adjusted risk ratios (aRR) from two models with maternal age, low socio-economic status, body mass index, and smoking ascertained in the index pregnancy and the subsequent pregnancy. We considered relative per cent differences <5% minimal, 5%-9% modest, and >= 10% substantial. Results Adjustment for confounders measured at the subsequent pregnancy introduced modest bias towards the null for perinatal mortality aRRs for <6-month interpregnancy intervals [-9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.3, -6.2). SGA aRRs were minimally biased towards the null (-1.1%, 95% CI -2.6, 0.8) for <6-month intervals. While early preterm delivery aRRs were substantially biased towards the null (-10.4%, 95% CI -14.0, -6.6) for <6-month interpregnancy intervals, bias was minimal for <6-month intervals for all preterm deliveries (-0.6%, 95% CI -2.0, 0.8) and spontaneous preterm deliveries (-1.3%, 95% CI -3.1, 0.1). For all outcomes, bias was attenuated and minimal for 6-11-month and 12-17-month interpregnancy intervals. Conclusion These findings suggest that maternally linked pregnancy data may not be needed for appropriate confounder adjustment when studying the effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:428 / 437
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [11] Effect of interpregnancy interval on outcomes of pregnancy after recurrent pregnancy loss
    Bentolila, Yaara
    Ratzon, Ronit
    Shoham-Vardi, Ilana
    Serjienko, Ruslan
    Mazor, Moshe
    Bashiri, Asher
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2013, 26 (14) : 1459 - 1464
  • [12] Interpregnancy interval and subsequent pregnancy outcomes after dilation and evacuation
    Kuwahara, Melissa
    Yamasato, Kelly
    Tschann, Mary
    Kaneshiro, Bliss
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2018, 38 (04) : 516 - 520
  • [13] Association of interpregnancy interval with adverse pregnancy outcomes according to the outcomes of the preceding pregnancy: a longitudinal study with 4.7 million live births from Brazil
    Tedde, Joao Guilherme G.
    Cerqueira-Silva, Thiago
    Garcia, Sidney A. Lagrosa
    Amira, Brenda V.
    Rodrigues, Laura C.
    Barreto, Mauricio L.
    Rocha, Aline S.
    Ribeiro-Silva, Rita de Cassia
    Falcao, Ila R.
    Paixao, Enny S.
    LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH-AMERICAS, 2024, 30
  • [14] Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies
    Hanley, Gillian E.
    Hutcheon, Jennifer A.
    Kinniburgh, Brooke A.
    Lee, Lily
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 129 (03) : 408 - 415
  • [15] Short interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes in women of advanced age: a population-based study
    Ihongbe, Timothy O.
    Wallenborn, Jordyn T.
    Rozario, Sylvia
    Masho, Saba W.
    ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (09) : 605 - 611
  • [16] The effect of short interpregnancy interval on birthweight and other pregnancy outcomes in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria
    Nnaji, Henry C.
    Asimadu, Eric E.
    Aniebue, Uzochukwu U.
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2022, 42 (02) : 244 - 247
  • [17] Is there an ideal interpregnancy interval after a live birth, miscarriage or other adverse pregnancy outcomes?
    Sholapurkar, S. L.
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2010, 30 (02) : 107 - 110
  • [18] Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse pregnancy outcomes by maternal age in the United States
    Haight, Sarah C.
    Hogue, Carol J.
    Raskind-Hood, Cheryl L.
    Ahrens, Katherine A.
    ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 31 : 38 - 44
  • [19] Association of interpregnancy interval and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in woman by different previous gestational ages
    Chen, Peiran
    Mu, Yi
    Liu, Zheng
    Wang, Yanping
    Li, Xiaohong
    Dai, Li
    Li, Qi
    Li, Mingrong
    Xie, Yanxia
    Liang, Juan
    Zhu, Jun
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 137 (01) : 87 - 96
  • [20] Short interpregnancy interval and poor fetal growth: Evaluating the role of pregnancy intention
    Liauw, Jessica
    Jacobsen, Geir W.
    Larose, Tricia L.
    Hutcheon, Jennifer A.
    PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 33 (01) : O73 - O85