Impact of preconception enrollment on birth enrollment and timing of exposure assessment in the initial vanguard cohort of the U.S. National Children’s Study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Kenneth C. Schoendorf⁴  Leslie Palmer²  David Fetterer³  Ruth Brenner¹  Joseph B. Stanford² 

[1] Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA;Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;ARCBridge Consulting and Training, Herndon, VA, USA;Greenspring Pediatric Associates, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

关键词: Intention;    Prospective studies;    Pregnancy;    National children’s study;    Epidemiology;    Children;    Birth cohort;   

Others  :  1228240
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0067-1

 received in 2014-12-18, accepted in 2015-09-10,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The initial vanguard cohort of the U.S. National Children’s Study was a pregnancy and birth cohort study that sought to enroll some women prior to pregnancy, and to assess exposures early in pregnancy.

Methods

During the recruitment phase (2009–2010), geographically based sampling was used to recruit women early in pregnancy and women not currently pregnant, not using contraception and heterosexually active. We assessed the following outcomes for women enrolled preconception and early in pregnancy: yield of births; demographic characteristics of births for different enrollment groups; time to pregnancy for preconception women; and the timing of study visits for exposure assessment.

Results

1399 women were recruited into the initial vanguard cohort: 429 preconception (198 trying for pregnancy, and 231 not trying) and 970 already pregnant. There were 1135 pregnancies (81 % of women) and 922 newborns enrolled (81 % of pregnancies) through September 2012. Preconception women represented 30.6 % of women enrolled, and contributed 14.5 % of births. Among women who gave birth, and who had enrolled preconception trying for pregnancy, 67.3 % were white non-Hispanic, compared to 50.0 % of preconception women not trying for pregnancy, and 61.5 % of pregnant women. Women enrolled preconception who were trying for pregnancy had higher cumulative probability of pregnancy at one year compared to women not trying (adjusted 86 % versus 56 %). Of 165 women enrolled preconception who became pregnant, 19 % had a study visit within 30 days of conception. By 10.5 weeks after conception, 75 % of women enrolled preconception had completed a pregnancy study visit; for women enrolled pregnant, the 75 % threshold was reached at 28.4 weeks.

Conclusions

There were demographic differences in births from women enrolled preconception trying for pregnancy, preconception not trying for pregnancy, or during pregnancy. Time to pregnancy was shorter for women actively trying for pregnancy. Most women enrolled preconception did not have exposure assessment within 30 days of conception, but they did have exposure assessment much earlier during pregnancy than women who enrolled during pregnancy.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Stanford et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hirschfeld S, Kramer B, Guttmacher A. Current status of the national Children’s study. Epidemiology. 2010; 21(5):605-6.
• [2]Branum AM, Collman GW, Correa A, Keim SA, Kessel W, Kimmel CA et al.. The National Children’s Study of environmental effects on child health and development. Environ Health Perspect. 2003; 111(4):642-6.
• [3]Montaquila JM, Brick JM, Curtin LR. Statistical and practical issues in the design of a national probability sample of births for the Vanguard Study of the National Children’s Study. Stat Med. 2010; 29(13):1368-76.
• [4]NIH cancels massive U.S. children’s study. http://news. sciencemag.org/funding/2014/12/nih-cancels-massive-u-s-children-s-study webcite
• [5]Mortensen ME, Hirschfeld S. The National Children’s Study: an opportunity for medical toxicology. J Med Toxicol. 2012; 8(2):160-5.
• [6]Guttmacher AE, Hirschfeld S, Collins FS. The National Children’s Study--a proposed plan. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(20):1873-5.
• [7]Landrigan PJ, Trasande L, Thorpe LE, Gwynn C, Lioy PJ, D’Alton ME et al.. The National Children’s Study: a 21-year prospective study of 100,000 American children. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(5):2173-86.
• [8]Selevan SG, Stanford JB. Workshop recommendations for the preconception cohort of the National Children’s Study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006; 20 Suppl 1:60-5.
• [9]Buck GM, Lynch CD, Stanford JB, Sweeney AM, Schieve LA, Rockett JC et al.. Prospective pregnancy study designs for assessing reproductive and developmental toxicants. Environ Health Perspect. 2004; 112(1):79-86.
• [10]Savitz DA, Ness RB. Saving the National Children’s Study. Epidemiology. 2010; 21(5):598-601.
• [11]Baker D, Park C, Sweeney C, McCormack L, Durkin M, Brenner R et al.. Recruitment of women in the National Children’s Study initial vanguard study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179(11):1366-74.
• [12]National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. The national children’s study research plan: a review. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2008.
• [13]Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, O’Connor JF, Baird DD, Schlatterer JP, Canfield RE et al.. Incidence of early loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319(4):189-94.
• [14]Mills JL, Simpson JL, Driscoll SG, Jovanovic-Peterson L, Van Allen M, Aarons JH et al.. Incidence of spontaneous abortion among normal women and insulin-dependent diabetic women whose pregnancies were identified within 21 days of conception. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319(25):1617-23.
• [15]Fell DB, Dodds L, King WD. Residential mobility during pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004; 18(6):408-14.
• [16]Shaw GM, Malcoe LH. Residential mobility during pregnancy for mothers of infants with or without congenital cardiac anomalies: a reprint. Arch Environ Health. 1992; 47(3):236-8.
• [17]Finer LB, Zolna MR. Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. Am J Public Health.  2014;104(Suppl 1):S43-8.
• [18]Wang X, Chen C, Wang L, Chen D, Guang W, French J. Conception, early pregnancy loss, and time to clinical pregnancy: a population-based prospective study. Fertil Steril. 2003; 79(3):577-84.
• [19]Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B. Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(1):51-6.
• [20]Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2004; 70(2):89-96.
• [21]Grady WR, Hayward MD, Yagi J. Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 1982 national survey of family growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 1986; 18(5):200-9.
• [22]Kerver JM, Elliott MR, Norman GS, Sokol RJ, Keating DP, Copeland GE et al.. Pregnancy recruitment for population research: the National Children’s Study vanguard experience in Wayne County, Michigan. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013; 27(3):303-11.
• [23]Kwong WY, Wild AE, Roberts P, Willis AC, Fleming TP. Maternal undernutrition during the preimplantation period of rat development causes blastocyst abnormalities and programming of postnatal hypertension. Development. 2000; 127(19):4195-202.
• [24]Hernandez CE, Matthews LR, Oliver MH, Bloomfield FH, Harding JE. Effects of sex, litter size and periconceptional ewe nutrition on offspring behavioural and physiological response to isolation. Physiol Behav. 2010; 101(5):588-94.
• [25]Hochberg Z, Feil R, Constancia M, Fraga M, Junien C, Carel JC et al.. Child health, developmental plasticity, and epigenetic programming. Endocr Rev. 2011; 32(2):159-224.
• [26]Gillman MW, Barker D, Bier D, Cagampang F, Challis J, Fall C et al.. Meeting report on the 3rd international congress on Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD). Pediatr Res. 2007; 61(5 Pt 1):625-9.
• [27]Ziv-Gal A, Wang W, Zhou C, Flaws JA. The effects of in utero bisphenol A exposure on reproductive capacity in several generations of mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2015; 284(3):354-62.
• [28]Selevan SG, Kimmel CA, Mendola P. Identifying critical windows of exposure for children’s health. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108 Suppl 3:451-5.
• [29]Chapin RE, Buck GM. Our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Environ Health Perspect. 2004; 112(1):67-8.
• [30]Buck Louis GM, Schisterman EF, Sweeney AM, Wilcosky TC, Gore-Langton RE, Lynch CD et al.. Designing prospective cohort studies for assessing reproductive and developmental toxicity during sensitive windows of human reproduction and development--the LIFE study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011; 25(5):413-24.
• [31]Vrijheid M, Casas M, Bergstrom A, Carmichael A, Cordier S, Eggesbo M et al.. European birth cohorts for environmental health research. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120(1):29-37.
• [32]van Gelder MM, Bretveld RW, Roukema J, Steenhoek M, van Drongelen J, Spaanderman ME et al.. Rationale and design of the PRegnancy and Infant DEvelopment (PRIDE) study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013; 27(1):34-43.
• [33]Landrigan PJ, Baker DB. The National Children’s Study--end or new beginning? N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(16):1486-7.
• [34]Olsen J. Random sampling - is it worth it? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013; 27(1):27-8.
• [35]Michael RT, O’Muircheartaigh CA. US National Children’s Study. Epidemiology. 2010; 21(6):916-7.
• [36]Belanger K, Buka S, Cherry DC, Dudley DJ, Elliott MR, Hale DE et al.. Implementing provider-based sampling for the National Children’s Study: opportunities and challenges. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013; 27(1):20-6.
• [37]Paneth N. Restoring science to the National Children’s Study. JAMA. 2013; 309(17):1775-6.
• [38]Savitz DA. Sample selection for the National Children’s Study: form must follow function. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013; 27(1):31-3.
• [39]Maghera A, Kahlke P, Lau A, Zeng Y, Hoskins C, Corbett T et al.. You are how you recruit: a cohort and randomized controlled trial of recruitment strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:111. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Huybrechts KF, Mikkelsen EM, Christensen T, Riis AH, Hatch EE, Wise LA et al.. A successful implementation of e-epidemiology: the Danish pregnancy planning study ‘Snart-Gravid’. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(5):297-304.
• [41]Zinaman MJ. Using cervical mucus and other easily observed biomarkers to identify ovulation in prospective pregnancy trials. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006; 20 Suppl 1:26-9.
• [42]Porucznik CA, Cox KJ, Schliep KC, Stanford JB. Pilot test and validation of the Peak Day method of prospective determination of ovulation against a handheld urine hormone monitor. BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Hirschfeld S. DRAFT main study protocol outline of the National Children’s Study, version 4.0. United States, National Institutes of Health. 2013.13.
• [44]Olsen J, Melbye M, Olsen SF, Sorensen TI, Aaby P, Andersen AM et al.. The Danish National Birth Cohort--its background, structure and aim. Scand J Public Health. 2001; 29(4):300-7.
• [45]Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Kirmeyer S, Mathews TJ et al.. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011; 60(1):1-70.
• [46]Alexander GR, Kogan MD, Nabukera S. Racial differences in prenatal care use in the United States: are disparities decreasing? Am J Public Health. 2002; 92(12):1970-5.
• [47]Sacks D. Fasting plasma glucose test at the first prenatal visit as a screen for gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(6):1197-203.
• [48]Johnson K, Posner SF, Biermann J, Cordero JF, Atrash HK, Parker CS et al.. Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care--United States. A report of the CDC/ATSDR preconception care work group and the select panel on preconception care. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006; 55(RR-6):1-23.
• [49]Joseph KS, Demissie K, Platt RW, Ananth CV, McCarthy BJ, Kramer MS. A parsimonious explanation for intersecting perinatal mortality curves: understanding the effects of race and of maternal smoking. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2004; 4(1):7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [50]Paneth N. Invited commentary: the hidden population in perinatal epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167(7):793-6.