Obstetric Care and Pregnancy Health in Autistic Individuals and Those with Other Developmental Disabilities in an Integrated Health Care Setting in California

Abstract

Background: Early evidence suggests that autistic individuals face unique challenges around pregnancy health, including increased risks of perinatal depression and pregnancy complications such as preterm birth. We aimed to compare pregnancy health and obstetric care utilization among autistic individuals, those with other developmental disabilities (DDs), and those from the general population (GP) in the United States.

Methods: In Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we identified all pregnancies that occurred between January 1997 and July 2024 among members with a clinician-documented autism diagnosis (n = 431) or other DD (n = 3893). From electronic health records, we extracted data on diagnoses during pregnancy and postpartum, birth outcomes, and obstetric care utilization. We matched pregnancies among the GP 100:1 (n = 43,100) on birth year and singleton/multiple status to the autistic group. We used adjusted logistic regression to compare outcomes and utilization between the three groups.

Results: Compared with the GP, the autistic and DD groups had higher rates of hyperemesis gravidarum (6.1% and 3.3% vs. 1.9%), prenatal depression (52.8% and 27.7% vs. 15.6%), and preterm birth (11.2% and 14.2% vs. 7.5%). Additionally, the autistic group had a higher rate of therapeutic abortion, whereas the DD group had higher rates of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders than the GP. We did not see disparities in the use of standard prenatal care. However, both the autistic and other DD groups were more likely than the GP to visit the emergency department during pregnancy and postpartum and deliver via cesarean section. Furthermore, the DD group was less likely than the GP to have a postpartum visit.

Conclusions: These findings emphasize the importance of addressing the unique obstetric needs of individuals with autism and other DDs, including facilitating access to family planning services, enhancing the quality of prenatal and postpartum care, and providing adequate perinatal mental health support.

Community Brief

Why is this an important issue?

People with disabilities often have lower access to reproductive and sexual health resources than people without disabilities, which potentially increases their risk for poor reproductive health outcomes. There is a lack of studies on the pregnancy experiences of autistic individuals, a rapidly growing group in the United States.

What is the purpose of this study?

This study compared pregnancy-related health and health care use across pregnant individuals with autism, those with other developmental disabilities, and peers from the general population who were all receiving pregnancy-related care in the same health care system.

What did the researchers do?

We studied pregnancies at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from January 1997 to July 2024 among autistic people (431 pregnancies) and people with other developmental disabilities (3893 pregnancies). We collected information from electronic health records on demographics, health during and after pregnancy, birth outcomes, and obstetric care. For comparison, we matched each pregnancy in an autistic individual with 100 pregnancies from the general population (43,100 pregnancies). We then used statistical analysis to compare outcomes between these three groups.

What were the results of the study?

We found that pregnant people with autism and other developmental disabilities were more likely than peers from the general pregnant population to have therapeutic abortions, prenatal and postpartum depression and anxiety, and babies with birth complications. Use of prenatal care and screenings was generally similar among groups. However, individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities were more likely to use the emergency department during pregnancy and postpartum.

What do these findings add to what was already known?

These findings highlight the critical need for enhanced obstetric care for pregnant individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. This includes addressing access to family planning services, perinatal mental health support, and enhanced quality of prenatal and postpartum care.

What are potential weaknesses in the study?

Autism has been historically underdiagnosed in adults and people assigned female at birth. Thus, our study likely missed many people who are autistic but have not received a formal diagnosis. This led to our sample of autistic individuals being relatively small, which made it harder to see differences between the three groups when we analyzed less common pregnancy conditions. We also lacked information on pregnancies that may have happened before the individual joined Kaiser Permanente.

How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?

These findings help raise awareness among researchers, clinicians, and policymakers about the pregnancy experiences of people with developmental disabilities, including specifically autism. These findings may inform ways to improve standard prenatal and postpartum care to better address the unique needs of this patient population, including better perinatal mental health support.

Introduction

Disabled people, who represent about 10% of individuals in the United States of child-bearing capacity, typically have lower access to reproductive health resources, including contraceptive counseling and use,^1-3 compared with nondisabled people. Women with disabilities also tend to have higher rates of co-occurring conditions, including chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease that are not directly related to their disabilities.^4,5 These challenges may contribute to this population’s elevated risk of unintended pregnancy¹ and suboptimal birth outcomes including preterm birth, low birthweight, and cesarean delivery.^6-8 Many obstetrics/gynecology providers recognize that their lack of training in the special health care needs of women with disabilities factors into this population receiving suboptimal reproductive health care.^9-11

The literature on pregnancy-related experiences among people with disabilities has generally focused on populations defined broadly by limited mobility, intellectual disability, and hearing/visual loss.⁸ Few studies have specifically examined the experiences of those with developmental disabilities (DDs) such as autism. Autism diagnosis is more prevalent in males but is one of the most common DDs in people assigned female at birth (AFAB), affecting 1.5% of those aged 3–17 years old today.¹² Although autism is a lifelong condition that is typically diagnosed in childhood today, it has been historically underdiagnosed in girls, women, and older cohorts.^13,14 Consequently, many health care providers are unaware of its presence in their adult female patients.¹⁵ Furthermore, traits of autism such as challenges with social understanding and communication, sensory sensitivity, and behavioral difficulties are often “invisible,” making it difficult for autistic individuals to obtain accommodations in health care and other settings. Unmet needs may be particularly high among the large proportion of AFAB individuals diagnosed later in life, who may not have known about available accommodations during the time of their prenatal care.^16,17

As the population of autistic adults continues to grow, emerging evidence underscores the need for more attention to and support of autistic pregnant people. For example, in Swedish nation-wide registry data, autistic mothers were more likely to have pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and deliveries via elective induction or cesarean section relative to non-autistic peers.¹⁸ A large study of Medicaid enrollees also found increased rates of pre-eclampsia as well as gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, and postpartum anxiety and depression among autistic birthing people relative to people without DDs.¹⁹ Mothers in Japan with greater autistic traits were also found to have a higher risk of preterm birth and babies born small for gestational age.¹⁷ Qualitative interviews and survey studies, conducted in convenience samples from the United States and the United Kingdom, have found that autistic mothers may be more likely than non-autistic peers to experience anxiety and depression during pregnancy and postpartum, to have traumatic experiences in childbirth, and to raise their children as single parents.^16,20-22 Autistic people may take medications during pregnancy to treat psychiatric and medical diagnoses that commonly co-occur with autism such as anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and epilepsy.¹⁹ These medications may be potentially teratogenic and increase the risk of birth complications.^5,23,24 Lastly, autistic individuals are also at high risk of experiencing intimate partner abuse,²⁵ posttraumatic stress, and low social support,^21,26 which can negatively impact their pregnancy experiences.

While a handful of studies have examined prenatal care among people with disabilities and found disparities in access,^27,28 no large studies have specifically described obstetric care utilization in autistic pregnant people. Using electronic health records (EHRs) from a large integrated health care system in California, we aimed to compare pregnancy-related health and obstetric care utilization among autistic people, those with other DDs, and peers with neither condition from the general population (GP). A better understanding of prenatal care use and obstetric risks may inform improvements to health care delivery to better support positive pregnancy and postpartum health in these disability populations.

Methods

Study setting

Our study was set in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated health care system serving over 4.5 million members. The sociodemographic distribution of KPNC members is similar to the local and state-wide California population, although there is some underrepresentation of the extremes in the income distribution.²⁹ KPNC maintains an extensive EHR that captures all patient clinical encounters within the health care system. This includes inpatient and outpatient medical and mental health care visits, medical procedures, diagnoses, laboratory tests, and prescribed medications.

Study population

Eligible individuals had (1) at least one positive pregnancy test at a KPNC laboratory or clinic, documentation of KPNC prenatal care visit, and/or documentation of an obstetric delivery between January 1, 1997, and July 31, 2024, and (2) continuous enrollment at KPNC during the entire pregnancy. Within this population, we identified three groups: autistic individuals, individuals with other DD, and GP individuals without these conditions. Autistic individuals had diagnoses of autism recorded in their KPNC EHR on at least two separate occasions any time before July 2024.³⁰ Individuals with other DD were not diagnosed with autism but were diagnosed with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, or genetic conditions associated with DDs (e.g., Down syndrome) recorded in KPNC EHR on at least two separate occasions any time before July 2024. Eligible diagnoses of autism and DD (diagnostic codes for both groups listed in Supplementary Table S1) could be made any time in the member’s entire KPNC enrollment history, inclusive of periods before and after pregnancy. Those in the GP group did not have diagnoses of autism or DD. Pregnancies in the GP group were matched with each pregnancy in the autistic group at a 100:1 ratio based on the year of pregnancy onset and number of fetuses in the pregnancy (singleton/multiple). The final analytic sample, which allowed multiple pregnancies to be included from the same individual, was comprised of 431 pregnancies among autistic individuals, 3893 among DD individuals, and 43,100 among GP individuals.

KPNC’s institutional review board approved all study procedures.

Pregnancy health diagnoses and obstetric care utilization

We obtained information about the entire pregnancy, including diagnoses, prenatal and postpartum care, medications, and hospitalizations from the KPNC Perinatal Research Unit’s Obstetric Database (POD), which captures all pregnancies at KPNC after 2010 regardless of pregnancy outcome. POD conducts data processing on raw data from multiple electronic sources, incorporating both manual and automated checks to ensure data quality. For pregnancies between 1997 and 2010, we used KPNC’s Infant Cohort,³¹ which captures information on pregnancies resulting in live births. For pregnancies that did not result in live birth between 1997 and 2010 but pre-dated the start of POD, we manually extracted information from the EHR using algorithms based on diagnostic and procedural codes following POD’s clinical definitions. We defined small-for-gestational age as babies with birthweights below the 10th percentile for their gestational age and sex and large-for-gestational age as babies with birthweights above the 90th percentile.

We assessed perinatal mental health through a clinical diagnosis of depression or anxiety in the 2 years preceding the pregnancy through the first 12 months of the postpartum period. Starting in 2012, KPNC also implemented universal screening for depression and anxiety using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at two timepoints during pregnancy and 3–10 weeks postpartum. We also extracted information on anxiety and intimate partner violence 2 years before and during pregnancy using International Classification of Diseases codes.

Covariates

From KPNC’s EHR databases, we additionally extracted information on each patient’s age at pregnancy onset, health insurance payer during the pregnancy (private, government), race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, White, and Pacific Islander/American Indian/Multiple/Unknown collapsed into one category due to small numbers), neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) based on the patient’s residence at the time of pregnancy onset, and frequency of visits to a primary care or mental health provider in the year preceding the pregnancy onset.

Statistical analyses

First, we compared the crude prevalence of each specific pregnancy-related health diagnosis and type of health care utilization between groups using chi-square and t-tests. We next performed both crude and adjusted logistic regression models that accounted for clustering of multiple pregnancies or live births among the same patient. In some cases, when the original model did not converge, we restricted to each pregnant person’s first birth in the dataset. All models were adjusted for pregnancy onset year, age at pregnancy onset, insurance type, race/ethnicity, and quartile of NDI based on the person’s home address during pregnancy.

Results

In the autistic sample, 75% of the pregnancies occurred between 2010 and 2024 (Table 1). In the DD sample, which was not matched on pregnancy onset year to the autistic group, 56% of pregnancies occurred during this period. The pregnancy onset age of the autistic group was on average 3 years younger than in the DD and GP groups (27 years vs. 30 years old). Autistic and DD groups were more likely than GP to be White, Non-Hispanic (61% and 42% vs. 34%), have government-subsidized health insurance (26% and 25% vs. 11%), and use primary care (77% and 72% vs. 64%) and mental health care (33% and 11% vs. 7%) in the year preceding the pregnancy onset. Neighborhood socioeconomic position was similar between the autistic and GP groups, but a slightly larger proportion of the DD group resided in neighborhoods in the highest quartile of neighborhood deprivation.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Autistic Pregnant Individuals, Pregnant Individuals with Other DDs, and Pregnant Individuals from the General Population, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 1996–2024

	Autism	DD	Generalpopulation	Autism vs.GP chi-square	Autism vs.DD chi-square	DD vs. GPchi-square
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	p-Value	p-Value	p-Value
Sociodemographic variables	n = 431 pregnancies	n = 3893 pregnancies	n = 43,100 pregnancies
Pregnancy onset year				1.0	<0.0001	<0.0001
1996–1999	23 (5.3)	386 (9.9)	2300 (5.3)
2000–2004	35 (8.1)	612 (15.7)	3500 (8.1)
2005–2009	50 (11.6)	721 (18.5)	5000 (11.6)
2010–2014	65 (15.1)	844 (21.7)	6500 (15.1)
2015–2019 (ref)	117 (27.2)	759 (19.5)	11,700 (27.2)
2020–2024	141 (32.7)	571 (14.7)	14,100 (32.7)
Age at pregnancy onset (mean [SD])	27.38 (6.6)	29.73 (7.1)	30.06 (6.0)	<0.0001 ^a	<0.0001 ^a	0.005 ^a
<18	18 (4.2)	122 (3.1)	734 (1.7)	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
18–24	144 (33.4)	917 (23.6)	7401 (17.2)
25–29	111 (25.8)	814 (20.9)	11,167 (25.9)
30–34 (ref)	78 (18.1)	930 (23.9)	13,499 (31.3)
35+	80 (18.6)	1110 (28.5)	10,299 (23.9)
Race/ethnicity (person-level)	n = 266pregnantindividuals	n = 1808pregnantindividuals	n = 42,039pregnantindividuals	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
White, non-Hispanic (ref)	162 (60.9)	765 (42.3)	14,411 (34.3)
White, Hispanic	39 (14.7)	377 (20.9)	10,335 (24.6)
Black	32 (12.0)	272 (15.0)	4053 (9.6)
Asian	11 (4.1)	247 (13.7)	9861 (23.5)
Pacific/American Indian/Multiple /Unknown	22 (8.3)	147 (8.1)	3379 (8.0)
Type of insurance at pregnancy outcome				<0.0001	0.80	<0.0001
Kaiser Permanente (KP) (ref)	320 (74.3)	2912 (74.8)	38,366 (89.0)
Medicaid/Government	111 (25.8)	981 (25.2)	4734 (11.0)
Neighborhood deprivation index
<25% (ref)	103 (23.9)	830 (21.3)	10,308 (23.9)	0.75	0.004	<0.0001
25% to <50%	97 (22.5)	772 (19.8)	10,309 (23.9)
50% to <75%	112 (26.0)	886 (22.8)	10,215 (23.7)
≥75%	103 (23.9)	1107 (28.4)	10,325 (24.0)
Missing	16 (3.7)	298 (7.7)	1943 (4.5)
Health care utilization 1 year before pregnancy onset
Primary care	332 (77.0)	2809 (72.2)	27,722 (64.3)	<0.0001	0.03	<0.0001
Mental health care	143 (33.2)	419 (10.8)	2982 (6.9)	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
Health care utilization during pregnancy
Primary care visit	197 (45.7)	1688 (43.4)	16,811 (39.0)	0.004	0.35	<0.0001
Mental health visit	93 (21.6)	290 (7.5)	2027 (4.7)	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

Boldface indicates statistical significance.

p-Value from Student’s t-test.

DD, developmental disability; GP, general population; SD, standard deviation.

Compared with GP peers, autistic individuals had lower odds of having a live birth (adj-odds ratio [OR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.90) and higher odds of having a therapeutic abortion (adj-OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.96; Table 2). Odds of live birth were also lower among the DD group relative to GP (adj-OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), but rates of therapeutic abortion among the DD group did not differ from GP after adjustment for covariates. Occurrences of stillbirth, molar, or ectopic pregnancies (grouped together due to small counts) were more common in both the autistic and DD groups. However, only the DD group exhibited a statistically significant difference from the GP group (adj-OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.93). We did not see differences across the groups with respect to spontaneous abortion.

Table 2.

Pregnancy Outcomes Among Autistic Pregnant Individuals, Pregnant Individuals with Other DDs, and Pregnant Individuals from the General Population, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 1996–2024

	Autism	DD	Generalpopulation	Autism vs. generalpopulation		Autism vs. DD		DD vs. generalpopulation
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)
Pregnancy outcome	n = 433fetuses	n = 3936fetuses	n = 43,300fetuses
Live birth	250 (57.7)	2443 (62.1)	29,099 (67.2)	0.68 (0.55, 0.83)	0.73 (0.59, 0.90)	0.79 (0.64, 0.98)	0.79 (0.64, 0.99)	0.86 (0.80, 0.93)	0.91 (0.84, 0.98)
Stillbirth/Molar/ Ectopic	11 (2.5)	105 (2.7)	832 (1.9)	1.33 (0.73, 2.40)	1.54 (0.85, 2.81)	0.95 (0.51, 1.78)	1.09 (0.57, 2.08)	1.39 (1.12, 1.72)	1.52 (1.20, 1.93)
Spontaneous abortion	66 (15.2)	611 (15.5)	6658 (15.4)	0.94 (0.70, 1.24)	1.10 (0.83, 1.46)	0.97 (0.72, 1.30)	1.04 (0.77, 1.42)	0.97 (0.88, 1.06)	1.05 (0.95, 1.17)
Therapeutic abortion^b	106 (24.5)	777 (19.7)	6711 (15.5)	1.91 (1.49, 2.46)	1.48 (1.12, 1.96)	1.50 (1.15, 1.95)	1.37 (1.04, 1.80)	1.24 (1.13, 1.37)	1.06 (0.95, 1.18)

Boldface indicates statistical significance.

Adjusted for pregnancy onset year (ref: 2015–2019), age at pregnancy onset (ref: 30–34 years), insurance type (ref: KP or unknown), race/ethnicity (ref: White, non-Hispanic), and NDI quartiles (ref: <25%).

Abortion by medical procedure.

CI, confidence interval; NDI, neighborhood deprivation index; OR, odds ratio.

Among pregnancies resulting in live births, pregnancy-related vomiting, including a severe condition called hyperemesis gravidarum, was the only pregnancy complication that was significantly higher in the autistic group relative to the GP group (adj-OR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.54, 4.78; Table 3). Hyperemesis gravidarum (adj-OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.94) and pre-eclampsia (adj-OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.56) and gestational hypertension (adj-OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.38) were significantly elevated in the DD group relative to the GP. The odds of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were similar among all the groups.

Table 3.

Obstetric Conditions and Birth Outcomes Among Autistic Pregnant Individuals, Pregnant Individuals with Other DDs, and Pregnant Individuals from the General Population Whose Pregnancies Resulted in Live Births, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 1996–2024

	Autism	DD	General population	Autism vs. generalpopulation		Autism vs. DD		DD vs. generalpopulation
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)
Conditions during pregnancy	n = 248	n = 2404	n = 28,902
Pre-eclampsia/eclampsia	15 (6.1)	203 (8.4)	2133 (7.4)	0.81 (0.47, 1.40)	0.84 (0.48, 1.48)	0.68 (0.38, 1.19)	0.61 (0.34, 1.09)	1.20 (1.02, 1.40)	1.32 (1.11, 1.56)
Gestational hypertension	46 (18.6)	402 (16.7)	4490 (15.5)	1.24 (0.89, 1.73)	1.06 (0.76, 1.50)	1.10 (0.78, 1.56)	0.90 (0.63, 1.30)	1.12 (1.00, 1.27)	1.22 (1.07, 1.38)
Pregnancy-related excessive vomiting	67 (27.0)	475 (19.8)	5344 (18.5)	1.58 (1.17, 2.13)	1.48 (1.07, 2.04)	1.47 (1.07, 2.02)	1.19 (0.85, 1.67)	1.08 (0.96, 1.21)	1.33 (1.18, 1.51)
Hyperemesis gravidarum	15 (6.1)	79 (3.3)	538 (1.9)	3.39 (1.95, 5.90)	2.71 (1.54, 4.78)	1.91 (1.06, 3.45)	1.92 (1.03, 3.58)	1.78 (1.38, 2.29)	1.48 (1.14, 1.94)
Gestational diabetes^b	17 (7.5)	209 (9.3)	2859 (10.7)	0.66 (0.37, 1.18)	1.02 (0.56, 1.84)	0.78 (0.42, 1.42)	1.01 (0.53, 1.95)	0.85 (0.72, 1.00)	0.97 (0.81, 1.16)
Perinatal mental health
Preexisting depression	68 (27.4)	443 (18.4)	2545 (8.8)	3.86 (2.82, 5.29)	2.96 (2.13, 4.11)	1.67 (1.20, 2.33)	1.59 (1.12, 2.26)	2.30 (2.04, 2.60)	1.98 (1.74, 2.26)
Depression during pregnancy	131 (52.8)	666 (27.7)	4502 (15.6)	6.57 (4.97, 8.70)	5.71 (4.25, 7.68)	3.02 (2.24, 4.06)	2.68 (1.94, 3.70)	2.17 (1.95, 2.41)	2.29 (2.04, 2.57)
Postpartum depression	70 (28.2)	419 (17.4)	3611 (12.5)	2.84 (2.12, 3.81)	2.71 (1.96, 3.74)	1.90 (1.39, 2.60)	1.52 (1.08, 2.14)	1.49 (1.32, 1.69)	1.75 (1.54, 2.00)
Preexisting anxiety	67 (27.0)	320 (13.3)	2389 (8.3)	4.08 (3.02, 5.51)	3.33 (2.42, 4.58)	2.41 (1.74, 3.34)	2.04 (1.44, 2.88)	1.69 (1.47, 1.95)	1.72 (1.48, 1.99)
Anxiety during pregnancy	77 (31.1)	306 (12.7)	2762 (9.6)	4.78 (3.56, 6.42)	4.18 (3.04, 5.75)	3.27 (2.37, 4.51)	2.57 (1.82, 3.63)	1.42 (1.24, 1.63)	1.63 (1.40, 1.90)
Postpartum anxiety	66 (26.6)	323 (13.4)	3133 (10.8)	2.94 (2.16, 4.00)	2.68 (1.94, 3.71)	2.28 (1.64, 3.18)	1.66 (1.17, 2.36)	1.29 (1.12, 1.48)	1.58 (1.36, 1.83)
Intimate partner violence in 2 years prior to or during pregnancy^d	24 (11.8)	110 (6.4)	1121 (4.6)	2.95 (1.83, 4.76)	2.16 (1.30, 3.62)	2.14 (1.27, 3.60)	1.53 (0.86, 2.74)	1.35 (1.08, 1.70)	1.39 (1.09, 1.77)
Birth outcomes
Preterm^e	28 (11.2)	348 (14.2)	2183 (7.5)	1.81 (1.16, 2.84)	1.83 (1.16, 2.88)	0.85 (0.53, 1.36)	1.00 (0.61, 1.63)	2.14 (1.84, 2.48)	1.95 (1.66, 2.29)
Postterm pregnancy	28 (11.2)	244 (10.0)	3129 (10.8)	1.04 (0.71, 1.55)	0.78 (050, 1.21)	1.13 (0.75, 1.73)	1.00 (0.61, 1.62)	0.91 (0.79, 1.06)	0.85 (0.72, 1.00)
Low Apgar score
1 minute	28 (11.7)	303 (12.8)	2436 (8.6)	1.44 (0.95, 2.19)	1.40 (0.91, 2.13)	0.90 (0.58, 1.40)	1.08 (0.68, 1.70)	1.59 (1.39, 1.81)	1.28 (1.10, 1.48)
5 minute	8 (3.4)	53 (2.2)	335 (1.2)	2.98 (1.39, 6.41)	2.76 (1.28, 5.96)	1.52 (0.67, 3.45)	1.57 (0.67, 3.66)	1.93 (1.43, 2.60)	1.57 (1.12, 2.21)
Large for gestational age	35 (14.5)	231 (9.7)	2719 (9.6)	1.50 (1.01 (2.23)	1.40 (0.93, 2.10)	1.51 (0.99, 2.30)	1.49 (0.96, 2.30)	0.99 (0.85, 1.16)	0.98 (0.83, 1.16)
Small for gestational age	19 (7.9)	254 (10.6)	2498 (8.8)	0.92 (0.56, 1.50)	0.97 (0.59, 1.60)	0.70 (0.42, 1.17)	0.65 (0.38 (1.12)	1.30 (1.12, 1.50)	1.40 (1.19, 1.63)
NICU admission^f	20 (10.5)	246 (16.0)	1833 (8.1)	1.34 (0.84, 2.16)	1.35 (0.84, 2.17)	0.61 (0.37, 1.00)	0.71 (0.43, 1.17)	2.21 (1.90, 2.57)	2.14 (1.83, 2.50)

Boldface indicates statistical significance.

Among individuals without pre-existing diabetes and with delivery between 1997 and 2023.

These models are linear regression with repeated measures for multiple pregnancies per mom and among births in 2005 and later.

Among pregnancies with onsets in 2005 or later, due to data availability.

Includes both spontaneous and medically indicated preterm births. Due to convergence issues with repeated measures, model results are restricted to first live birth in per mom in the dataset.

Among live births in 2009 or later, due to data availability.

The autistic and DD groups had substantially more adverse mental health outcomes than the GP group in the year preceding pregnancy onset, during pregnancy, and in the 12 months postpartum (Table 3). While the prevalence of depression increased among all groups during pregnancy, the prevalence was highest among the autistic group (53%). The adjusted odds of depression during the pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, and postpartum periods were 2.7- to 5.7-fold greater in the autistic group and 1.8–2.3-fold greater in the DD group relative to the GP group. The prevalence of anxiety remained relatively stable before, during, and after pregnancy across the three groups, yet it was higher in the autistic and DD groups relative to the GP group in all periods. The autistic and DD groups were 2.16 times (95% CI: 1.30, 3.62) and 1.39 times (95% CI: 1.09, 1.77) more likely to have documentation of intimate partner violence in the 2 years before pregnancy or during pregnancy than the GP group.

Babies of the autistic and DD groups were more likely than babies of the GP group to be born preterm (adj-OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.88 and adj-OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.66, 2.29, respectively) (Table 3). Babies born to those in the autistic and DD groups were also 2.76 (95% CI: 1.28, 5.96) and 1.57 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.21) times as likely to have low 5-minute Apgar scores compared with babies from the GP group. Babies from the DD group were also more likely than those in the GP group to be small for gestational age and to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Utilization of several types of obstetric care significantly differed between the three groups (Table 4). While all groups were similarly likely to start prenatal care in the first trimester, the mean number of prenatal visits across pregnancy was 8% higher (95% CI: 3%, 14%) in the autistic group and 5% higher (95% CI: 3%,7%) in the DD group than in the GP group. Both the autistic (adj-OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.22) and DD groups (adj-OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.38, 1.73) were more likely to deliver by cesarean section compared with the GP group. Relatedly, scheduled early delivery by cesarean was also 30–50% more common among the autistic and DD groups than the GP group, although these differences were only statistically significant in the DD vs. GP comparison. Both of these groups were also 1.6–2.2 times as likely to visit the emergency department (ED) either during pregnancy or in the first 6 months postpartum than the GP group. In addition, the DD group was significantly more likely than the GP group to be hospitalized during pregnancy and postpartum. Conversely, the DD group was less likely than GP to have augmentation/induction procedures during delivery (adj-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99) and to have a postpartum visit (adj-OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.99). While overall rates of GDM screening were high across all groups (>90%), the autistic and DD groups were less likely to be screened, both at any time and specifically in the recommended 24–28 week window than the GP group. However, most of these differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for covariates. Uptake of recommended Tdap vaccination during pregnancy did not differ between the groups, but the autistic group was more likely to receive an influenza vaccine during pregnancy than both the DD and GP groups.

Table 4.

OB/GYN Utilization Among Autistic Pregnant Individuals, Pregnant Individuals with Other DDs, and Pregnant Individuals from the General Population Whose Pregnancies Resulted in Live Births, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 1996–2024

	Autism	DD	Generalpopulation	Autism vs. Generalpopulation		Autism vs. DD		DD vs. Generalpopulation
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)	CrudeOR (95% CI)	Adjusted^aOR (95% CI)
Number of prenatal visits
Mean (SD)	13.40 (5.1)	12.75 (5.3)	12.48 (4.5)	1.07 (1.02, 1.12)	1.08 (1.03, 1.14)	1.05 (0.99, 1.10)	1.02 (0.97, 1.08)	1.02 (1.00, 1.04)	1.05 (1.03, 1.07)
0 visits	1 (0.4)	8 (0.3)	124 (0.4)	—	—	—	—	—	—
1–6	13 (5.2)	190 (7.9)	1644 (5.7)	—	—	—	—	—	—
7–12	101 (40.7)	1066 (44.3)	13,878 (48.0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
13–18	102 (41.1)	847 (35.2)	10,960 (37.9)	—	—	—	—	—	—
19+	31 (12.5)	293 (12.2)	2296 (7.9)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Initiated prenatal care in first trimester (0–13 weeks)^b	212 (85.8)	2027 (84.6)	25,220 (87.6)	0.84 (0.58, 1.20)	0.92 (0.62, 1.36)	1.10 (0.75, 1.60)	0.97 (0.64, 1.48)	0.76 (0.67, 0.86)	1.01 (0.88, 1.16)
Gestational week of first prenatal visit mean (SD)	9.83 (5.7)	10.08 (5.8)	9.76 (5.5)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Screened for GDM^c	207 (90.8)	2094 (92.8)	25,294 (94.7)	0.58 (0.36, 0.94)	0.66 (0.40, 1.09)	0.77 (0.46, 1.30)	0.74 (0.44, 1.26)	0.73 (0.61, 0.87)	0.86 (0.71, 1.04)
Screened for GDM 24–28 gestational weeks^d	142 (68.6)	1422 (67.9)	18,755 (74.2)	0.77 (0.57, 1.02)	0.82 (0.60, 1.12)	1.04 (0.76, 1.41)	0.93 (0.67, 1.29)	0.74 (0.67, 0.82)	0.87 (0.78, 0.97)
Gestational week of screening mean (SD)^d	25.46 (5.3)	25.87 (5.0)	25.90 (4.6)	—	—	—	—	—	—
ED visit during pregnancy	96 (38.7)	789 (32.8)	5744 (19.9)	2.61 (1.99, 3.42)	2.18 (1.64, 2.90)	1.36 (1.02, 1.81)	1.29 (0.95, 1.75)	1.93 (1.75, 2.13)	1.67 (1.50, 1.86)
Hospitalization during pregnancy	15 (6.1)	219 (9.1)	1190 (4.1)	1.55 (0.92, 2.62)	1.42 (0.83, 2.42)	0.67 (0.39, 1.15)	0.83 (0.47, 1.45)	2.35 (2.00, 2.75)	1.68 (1.41, 2.00)
Pregnancy immunizations
Tdap^e	139 (78.1)	900 (73.6)	17,443 (82.6)	0.78 (0.53, 1.14)	1.17 (0.80, 1.70)	1.31 (0.87, 1.96)	1.10 (0.72, 1.68)	0.58 (0.51, 0.67)	0.96 (0.83, 1.12)
Influenza^f	121 (55.8)	857 (46.2)	13,180 (51.7)	1.19 (0.89, 1.59)	1.51 (1.11, 2.06)	1.46 (1.08, 1.98)	1.38 (1.00, 1.91)	0.81 (0.73, 0.90)	1.10 (0.99, 1.22)
Labor and delivery (among individuals who had live births)
Cesarean section	81 (32.7)	778 (32.4)	7319 (25.3)	1.40 (1.03, 1.90)	1.62 (1.18, 2.22)	0.91 (0.66, 1.26)	0.99 (0.70, 1.38)	1.53 (1.38, 1.70)	1.54 (1.38, 1.73)
Scheduled early delivery via c-section^g	28 (15.4)	195 (14.9)	2475 (11.5)	1.29 (0.82, 2.04)	1.51 (0.95, 2.41)	0.97 (0.60, 1.57)	0.95 (0.57, 1.59)	1.31 (1.10, 1.57)	1.33 (1.10, 1.61)
Induction and/or augmentation during delivery^g	95 (52.2)	602 (46.1)	11,078 (51.4)	1.05 (0.76, 1.45)	1.03 (0.74, 1.42)	1.28 (0.91, 1.80)	1.14 (0.79, 1.62)	0.82 (0.73, 0.92)	0.88 (0.78, 0.99)
Epidural during pregnancy delivery^h	90 (75.6)	602 (60.2)	11,396 (69.4)	1.38 (0.87, 2.19)	1.35 (0.80, 2.29)	2.08 (1.28, 3.38)	1.40 (0.81, 2.43)	0.66 (0.57, 0.76)	1.01 (0.86, 1.19)
Postpartum care
Had postpartum visit (within 12 months)	215 (86.7)	1993 (82.9)	25,520 (88.3)	0.85 (0.57, 1.27)	1.00 (0.65, 1.53)	1.27 (0.84, 1.91)	1.06 (0.68, 1.65)	0.66 (0.59, 0.75)	0.86 (0.75, 0.99)
Mean week of postpartum visit (SD)	4.34 (3.0)	4.77 (2.9)	4.27 (2.9)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Postpartum ED visit within 6 months	59 (23.8)	518 (21.6)	3690 (12.8)	2.13 (1.57, 2.91)	1.78 (1.28, 2.47)	1.16 (0.84, 1.60)	1.05 (0.74, 1.49)	1.86 (1.66, 2.08)	1.67 (1.48, 1.88)
Postpartum hospitalization within 6 months	8 (3.2)	112 (4.7)	605 (2.1)	1.54 (0.76, 3.09)	1.58 (0.77, 3.22)	0.68 (0.33, 1.39)	0.68 (0.32, 1.42)	2.30 (1.86, 2.83)	2.29 (1.83, 2.86)

Boldface indicates statistical significance.

Among the pregnancies with a prenatal visit. One hundred and thirty-three pregnancies had no prenatal visits.

Among pregnancies of individuals without pre-existing diabetes and with delivery between 1997 and 2023.

Among those who had GDM screening.

Among pregnancies with onsets in 2011 and later, when Tdap during pregnancy recommendation began.

Among pregnancies with onsets in 2004 and later, when flu vaccine during pregnancy recommendation began.

Data only available for births 2011–2024.

Among pregnancies with vaginal births only, and for birth years 2008–2024.

ED, emergency department; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; OB/GYN, obstetrics/gynecology.

Discussion

In this population-based sample of patients receiving care from the same integrated health care system in California, we found both shared and unique risks of pregnancy complications as well as patterns of obstetric care among autistic individuals and those with other DD relative to GP. Individuals diagnosed with autism or other DDs were less likely than GP peers to have pregnancies ending in live birth and were at higher risk of complications both during and after pregnancy. Both groups had higher likelihoods of pregnancy-related vomiting, particularly hyperemesis gravidarum, preterm birth, and babies with low 5-minute Apgar scores. Pregnant people with other DD also had increased risks of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, gestational hypertension, small-for-gestational age babies, and NICU admission. However, we observed the largest disparities between these groups and GP peers on indicators of mental health during pregnancy and postpartum, with the highest rates of perinatal depression and anxiety observed among autistic individuals. While the use of standard prenatal care was generally similar between the groups, both the autistic and DD groups were more likely to use the ED during the pregnancy and postpartum periods and deliver via c-section.

A previous study, based in Medicaid, reported a higher incidence of miscarriage, stillbirth, and therapeutic abortion in autistic birthing people compared with peers without intellectual disabilities and DDs.¹⁹ Our study disaggregated these pregnancy outcomes, finding that therapeutic abortion was more common in the autistic group than in the other study groups. While we do not know the reasons for therapeutic abortion, there are several possibilities that could explain this finding in the autistic group. Previous work demonstrates that people with DDs, including autism, have lower access to sexual education resources, are less likely to be prescribed hormonal contraceptives,^1-3 and are more likely to experience sexual victimization²⁵ and unwanted or regretted sexual encounters³² than people without DDs. These factors could increase the risk of unintended or unwanted pregnancy. Furthermore, patients with disabilities may terminate the pregnancy on the advice or direction of conservators, family members, or clinicians who often play a large role in the patient’s health care decision-making.³³ Lastly, autistic people often experience heightened sensory challenges during pregnancy,^21,34,35 including hyperemesis gravidarum—a severe form of nausea and vomiting—which we found to be more prevalent in the autistic group in our study. In a previous survey of people with this condition, many chose therapeutic abortion because of their symptoms.³⁶ Greater understanding of the reasons that autistic people use therapeutic abortion is needed to better address and support the reproductive autonomy of this population.

Prior work, primarily from qualitative interviews and survey studies, corroborates our finding of a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety during and after pregnancy in autistic people^16,19,21,22 and people with DD more broadly compared with nondisabled peers.^37-39 Depression and anxiety often co-occur with autism and other DD, affecting up to 35% of autistic women across all ages,⁵ which can predispose these groups to poor perinatal mental health. However, several additional factors in the perinatal period may further increase risk or make symptoms worse. For example, autistic and DD pregnant individuals commonly experience known risk factors for perinatal depression, including intimate partner abuse and pregnancy complications, which we observed in our sample, as well as a history of trauma before pregnancy and low social support.^18,40,26 Autistic people may also experience greater stress than non-autistic counterparts with respect to the wide range of social and sensory changes during pregnancy, including the attention it brings, the frequent health care appointments and procedures, and heightened sensitivity to odors, physical touch, lights, and noisy environments.^41,42 Although we lacked sufficient data to examine it, LGBTQ+ identity, which is more common in autistic than non-autistic people,⁴³ is also linked to greater vulnerability to perinatal mental health problems.⁴⁴

Within the autistic and DD groups, the prevalences of depression and anxiety diagnosis in the postpartum period returned to or fell below their pre-pregnancy levels. A decline in psychiatric symptoms in autistic people between the pregnancy and postpartum period was also observed in a small survey study.²⁰ Whether this is attributable to a true decrease in symptoms after delivery, missed screening, or patient under-reporting merits further study.

We found an elevated risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy among the DD group but not among the autistic group relative to GP peers. This finding is in line with previous reports of an increased risk of pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension among pregnant people with intellectual disabilities and DDs from studies in Canada,³⁷ Australia,⁴⁵ and the United States.^46,47 Several possibilities may explain this increased risk, including cooccurring conditions such as pre-existing hypertension, lifestyle factors such as lower diet quality and physical activity, as well as social determinants of health such as low social support and neighborhood factors.⁴⁸ Interestingly, we did not see disparities in the autistic and DD groups for GDM, aligning with some previous evidence in pregnant people with DDs,^37,49 although not with recent findings in Medicaid data.¹⁸

Several birth complications were also more common in the autistic and other DD groups relative to the GP. Notably, preterm birth was about 2-fold more likely in the autistic and DD groups relative to GP. Clinical diagnosis of autism and greater autistic traits in birthing people have also been associated with preterm birth in the Medicaid population and GP samples from Sweden and Japan.^17-19 Other studies have also reported higher risk of preterm birth in the broader pregnant population with intellectual disabilities and DDs,^7,8,46,50,51 underscoring the need for better understanding of the underlying risk factors and prevention strategies for both preterm births that are spontaneous or medically indicated. Known risk factors for preterm birth include prenatal depression,⁵² intimate partner abuse,⁵³ gestational hypertensive disorders,⁵⁴ and hyperemesis gravidarum,⁵⁵ which were elevated in our autistic and DD samples. Babies born to those with other DD were also more likely to be small for gestational age and be admitted to the NICU than those in the GP group, echoing findings from studies in the United States and Canada.^{7,37,49,50,56}

We also observed higher likelihood of c-section and slightly more prenatal visits in the autistic and DD groups. Other studies have also documented a higher rate of c-section in birthing people with DDs, likely influenced by their increased risk of pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational hypertension and diabetes), although additional research is needed to fully understand the reasons. We did not see disparities in uptake of recommended screenings, immunizations, and epidural use in these groups relative to the GP. This is in contrast to other studies in samples of individuals with either autism only or intellectual disabilities and DDs broadly that have found these groups to be less likely than peers without these disabilities to initiate prenatal care in the first trimester or to attend the recommended number of appointments.^{7,16,27,47,57} As an integrated health care system, KPNC has active outreach to all obstetric patients, which may have resulted in high use of prenatal care and universal screenings across groups. Nevertheless, despite these high screening rates, GDM screening was less likely to be done on time in the autistic and DD groups, which could lead to missed diagnoses or delayed management of GDM and may represent an area for more targeted outreach.

Both the autistic and DD groups were more likely than the GP to use the ED during pregnancy and in the 6 months postpartum, perhaps indicating that standard prenatal and postpartum care is not adequately meeting the health care needs of this population. In fact, the DD group in our study was less likely than the GP group to have a postpartum visit within 12 months and more likely to be hospitalized both during pregnancy and in the 6 months postpartum. These latter findings corroborate similar trends observed in other US-based studies of postpartum among people with DDs.⁵⁸ Negative interactions, including miscommunication or perceptions of being judged or disrespected by prenatal providers, may reduce engagement with routine care both during pregnancy and postpartum.^41,59,60 Autistic patients and peers with other DD also tend to have more chronic health conditions than the GP, which can lead to greater use of the ED in general.^5,61 However, earlier studies at KPNC have not observed significantly elevated ED use among autistic versus non-autistic women.^62,63 The postpartum period merits closer scrutiny to better understand how to tailor postpartum outreach and care to this population.

Our study has several notable strengths. First, using the comprehensive medical records of KPNC’s integrated health care system, we were able to examine a wider range of pregnancy-related diagnoses and perinatal care indicators than has been included in previous studies of this topic. Furthermore, the KPNC population is socioeconomically and racially diverse, serving a mix of members on both private and public insurance.⁶⁴ KPNC has also implemented universal GDM screening since 2006 and universal perinatal mental health screening since 2011, which reduces bias in the ascertainment of these conditions during pregnancy.

Nevertheless, there are some limitations to this analysis. First, our sample of autistic people with pregnancy histories was relatively small, which reduced our statistical power to rule out several potential pregnancy-related risks that were elevated in the autistic group but not statistically significantly different in comparison with the GP (e.g., gestational hypertension and large-for-gestational age babies). There are several reasons to expect that the actual prevalence of autistic people experiencing pregnancy is much larger, both in our health system and elsewhere. For example, autism is underdiagnosed in older cohorts¹⁴ and has historically been underdiagnosed in AFAB individuals, in part due to diagnostic criteria developed based on male presentations of autism and social masking of autism in girls and women.¹³ While we included individuals who received autism diagnoses in childhood through adulthood, it is also common for many AFAB adults to become aware of their autism after pregnancy when their children are diagnosed with autism, at which point it can be challenging to receive a formal diagnosis from an adult specialist. Second, we had incomplete information on gravidity and parity, key factors that may modify or confound the associations we observed.

Third, patterns of obstetric care and record-keeping changed over the course of the study period, which may have led to lower detection or documentation of certain diagnoses or procedures in earlier years. Although this likely did not affect the autistic versus GP comparisons, which were matched on pregnancy year, it may have influenced the differences seen in the DD group. Lastly, we did not match groups on sociodemographic variables such as age, race/ethnicity, or insurance type. While we adjusted for these factors in regression models, we recognize that adjustment is not equivalent to matching and some residual confounding may remain. This decision was intentional, as our primary aim was descriptive and preserving the differences in these characteristics allows for future examination of how sociodemographic factors and disability intersect to influence obstetric health.

Conclusion

These findings, drawing attention to potential pregnancy-related health and health care disparities, underscore significant opportunities for researchers, health care providers, and policymakers to improve the obstetric care of people with autism and other DDs. Given that these findings reflect care in an integrated health care system with strong obstetric care programs, it is likely that the disparities we observed may be more prominent in the wider U.S. population of pregnant people with autism and other DDs. Key priority areas emerging from our findings include expanding access to family planning services, enhancing quality of prenatal and postpartum care, and strengthening perinatal mental health support.

Future studies should incorporate community-engagement and patient perspectives to deepen understanding of this population’s pregnancy and obstetric care experiences, improve provider training on the specific care needs of pregnant people with autism and DDs, and develop comprehensive care models and accessible educational resources tailored to the unique needs of each disability community. Additionally, a closer examination of common co-occurring conditions, including depression, ADHD, eating disorders, hypermobility conditions, and sleep disorders, may also be valuable to establish evidence-based, individualized guidance for disabled pregnant people on how to best manage obstetric risks, nutrition and physical activity, and medications before, during, and after pregnancy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

A portion of the study data was obtained through the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research’s Perinatal Research Unit’s Perinatal Obstetric Database and Gestational Diabetes Registry. We would also like to recognize the feedback and insights on this work contributed by our community partners on the Autism and Reproductive Health Advisory Committee (funded by of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health, grant UT2MC39440): Lindsey Nebeker, Kayla Rodriguez, Chloe Rothschild, and Inge Sorenson.

Authorship Confirmation Statement

J.L.A. conceptualized the study design, obtained funding for this study, performed analysis and interpretation of the data, drafted the article, critically reviewed and revised the article for important intellectual content, had full access to all of the data in the study, and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. M.A. acquired the data, performed statistical analysis and interpretation of the data, critically reviewed the article for important intellectual content, and had full access to all of the data in the study. L.A.C., E.C., and C.L. conceptualized the study design, obtained funding for this study, performed interpretation of the data, and critically reviewed the article for important intellectual content. D.L.G., M.G.O., and M.G. performed interpretation of the data and critically reviewed and revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final article as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. The article has been submitted solely to Autism in Adulthood.

Disclaimer

The information, content, and/or conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding Information

This project was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (R03HD105164), Kaiser Permanente Community Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health, grant UT2MC39440. The funders/sponsors did not participate in the work.

Supplementary Material

References

1. Wu

, McKee

, Meade

, Plegue

, Sen

. Use of reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women with physical or sensory disabilities. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017;49(3):141–147; doi: 10.1363/psrh.12031

2. Mosher

, Bloom

, Hughes

, Horton

, Mojtabai

, Alhusen

. Disparities in receipt of family planning services by disability status: New estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth. Disabil Health J. 2017;10(3):394–399; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.03.014

3. Gavin

, Benedict

, Adams

. Health service use and outcomes among disabled Medicaid pregnant women. Womens Health Issues. 2006;16(6):313–322; doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2006.10.003

4. Iezzoni

, Yu

, Wint

, Smeltzer

, Ecker

. General health, health conditions, and current pregnancy among U.S. women with and without chronic physical disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2014;7(2):181–188; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.12.002

5. Croen

, Zerbo

, Qian

, et al. The health status of adults on the autism spectrum. Autism. 2015;19(7):814–823; doi: 10.1177/1362361315577517

6. Signore

, Spong

, Krotoski

, Shinowara

, Blackwell

. Pregnancy in women with physical disabilities. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(4):935–947; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182118d59

7. Mitra

, Parish

, Clements

, Cui

, Diop

. Pregnancy outcomes among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(3):300–308; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.09.032

8. Ransohoff

, Sujin Kumar

, Flynn

, Rubenstein

. Reproductive and pregnancy health care for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2022;35(3):655–674; doi: 10.1111/jar.12977

9. Taouk

, Fialkow

, Schulkin

. Provision of reproductive healthcare to women with disabilities: A survey of obstetrician-gynecologists’ training, practices, and perceived barriers. Health Equity. 2018;2(1):207–215; doi: 10.1089/heq.2018.0014

10.

10. Amir

, Smith

, Valentine

, Mitra

, Parish

, Moore Simas

. Clinician perspectives on the need for training on caring for pregnant women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2022;15(2):101262; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101262

11.

11. Smith

, Valentine

, Moore Simas

, Parish

, Levy

, Mitra

. Clinician-reported barriers to providing perinatal care to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2023;48(1):12–22; doi: 10.3109/13668250.2022.2086110

12.

12. Zablotsky

, Ng

, Black

, Blumberg

. Diagnosed developmental disabilities in children aged 3–17 years: United States, 2019–2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2023(473):1–8.

13.

13. Lockwood Estrin

, Milner

, Spain

, Happe

, Colvert

. Barriers to autism spectrum disorder diagnosis for young women and girls: A systematic review. Rev J Autism Dev Disord. 2021;8(4):454–470; doi: 10.1007/s40489-020-00225-8

14.

14. Lai

M-C

, Baron-Cohen

. Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism spectrum conditions. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(11):1013–1027.

15.

15. Zerbo

, Massolo

, Qian

, Croen

. A study of physician knowledge and experience with autism in adults in a large integrated healthcare system. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(12):4002–4014; doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2579-2

16.

16. Pohl

, Crockford

, Blakemore

, Allison

, Baron-Cohen

. A comparative study of autistic and non-autistic women’s experience of motherhood. Mol Autism. 2020;11(1):3; doi: 10.1186/s13229-019-0304-2

17.

17. Hosozawa

, Cable

, Ikehara

, et al.; Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group. Maternal autistic traits and adverse birth outcomes. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e2352809-e2352809; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52809

18.

18. Sundelin

, Stephansson

, Hultman

, Ludvigsson

. Pregnancy outcomes in women with autism: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Clin Epidemiol. 2018;10:1817–1826; doi: 10.2147/clep.S176910

19.

19. Shea

, Sadowsky

, Tao

, et al. Perinatal and postpartum health among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(8):e2428067-e2428067; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.28067

20.

20. Hampton

, Allison

, Aydin

, Baron-Cohen

, Holt

. Autistic mothers’ perinatal well-being and parenting styles. Autism. 2022;26(7):1805–1820; doi: 10.1177/13623613211065544

21.

21. Hampton

, Allison

, Baron-Cohen

, Holt

. Autistic people’s perinatal experiences I: A survey of pregnancy experiences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2024;54(1):211–223; doi: 10.1007/s10803-022-05754-1

22.

22. Hampton

, Man

, Allison

, Aydin

, Baron-Cohen

, Holt

. A qualitative exploration of autistic mothers’ experiences I: Pregnancy experiences. Autism. 2023;27(5):1271–1282; doi: 10.1177/13623613221132435

23.

23. Khalifeh

, Dolman

, Howard

. Safety of psychotropic drugs in pregnancy. BMJ. 2015;350:h2260; doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2260

24.

24. Camden

, Grandi

, Lunsky

, et al. Prescription medication use in pregnancy in people with disabilities: A population-based cohort study. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2024;33(9):1224–1232; doi: 10.1089/jwh.2023.1138

25.

25. Dike

, DeLucia

, Semones

, Andrzejewski

, McDonnell

. A systematic review of sexual violence among autistic individuals. Rev J Autism Dev Disord. 2023;10(3):576–594; doi: 10.1007/s40489-022-00310-0

26.

26. Moseley

, Turner-Cobb

, Spahr

, Shields

, Slavich

. Lifetime and perceived stress, social support, loneliness, and health in autistic adults. Health Psychol. 2021;40(8):556–568; doi: 10.1037/hea0001108

27.

27. Horner-Johnson

, Biel

, Caughey

, Darney

. Differences in prenatal care by presence and type of maternal disability. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(3):376–382; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.021

28.

28. Nishat

, Lunsky

, Tarasoff

, Brown

. Prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities: A population-based study. Am J Prev Med. 2022;62(1):39–49; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.05.037

29.

29. Gordon

. Similarity of the Adult Kaiser Permanente Membership in Northern California to the Insured and General Population in Northern California: Statistics from the 2011-12 California Health Interview Survey. Kaiser Permanente Division of Research. Available from: https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/projects/memberhealthsurvey/SiteCollectionDocuments/chis_non_kp_2011.pdf [Last accessed: June 12, 2019].

30.

30. Coleman

, Lutsky

, Yau

, et al. Validation of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses in large healthcare systems with electronic medical records. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(7):1989–1996; doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2358-0

31.

31. Escobar

, Fischer

, Kremers

, Usatin

, Macedo

, Gardner

. Rapid retrieval of neonatal outcomes data: The Kaiser Permanente neonatal minimum data set. Qual Manag Health Care. Summer. 1997;5(4):19–33.

32.

32. Pecora

, Hancock

, Mesibov

, Stokes

. Characterising the sexuality and sexual experiences of autistic females. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019;49(12):4834–4846; doi: 10.1007/s10803-019-04204-9

33.

33. Burke

, Ce

, Rossetti

, Hall

. Parent and sibling roles in decision making with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In: ( Khemka

, Hickson

., eds). Decision Making by Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Integrating Research into Practice. Springer International Publishing; 2021:95–113.

34.

34. Talcer

, Duffy

, Pedlow

. A qualitative exploration into the sensory experiences of autistic mothers. J Autism Dev Disord. 2023;53(2):834–849; doi: 10.1007/s10803-021-05188-1

35.

35. Grahame

, Thompson

, Freeth

. “A Wild and Inaccessible Place”: The lived experiences of autistic pregnancy and birth. Autism in Adulthood. 2024; doi: 10.1089/aut.2024.0033

36.

36. Poursharif

, Korst

, Macgibbon

, Fejzo

, Romero

, Goodwin

. Elective pregnancy termination in a large cohort of women with hyperemesis gravidarum. Contraception. 2007;76(6):451–455; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.08.009

37.

37. Brown

, Cobigo

, Lunsky

, Vigod

. Maternal and offspring outcomes in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2017;124(5):757–765; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14120

38.

38. Horner-Johnson

, Garg

, Darney

, Biel

, Caughey

. Severe maternal morbidity and other perinatal complications among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual and developmental disabilities. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2022;36(5):759–768; doi: 10.1111/ppe.12873

39.

39. Mitra

, Iezzoni

, Zhang

, Long-Bellil

, Smeltzer

, Barton

. Prevalence and risk factors for postpartum depression symptoms among women with disabilities. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(2):362–372; doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1518-8

40.

40. Douglas

, Sedgewick

. Experiences of interpersonal victimization and abuse among autistic people. Autism. 2024;28(7):1732–1745; doi: 10.1177/13623613231205630

41.

41. Gardner

, Suplee

, Bloch

, Lecks

. Exploratory study of childbearing experiences of women with Asperger syndrome. Nurs Womens Health. 2016;20(1):28–37; doi: 10.1016/j.nwh.2015.12.001

42.

42. Samuel

, Yew

, Hooley

, Hickey

, Stokes

. Sensory challenges experienced by autistic women during pregnancy and childbirth: A systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;305(2):299–311; doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06109-4

43.

43. Dewinter

, De Graaf

, Begeer

. Sexual orientation, gender identity, and romantic relationships in adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2017;47(9):2927–2934; doi: 10.1007/s10803-017-3199-9

44.

44. Kirubarajan

, Barker

, Leung

, et al. LGBTQ2S+ childbearing individuals and perinatal mental health: A systematic review. BJOG. 2022;129(10):1630–1643; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17103

45.

45. McConnell

, Mayes

, Llewellyn

. Women with intellectual disability at risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2008;52(Pt 6):529–535; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01061.x

46.

46. Parish

, Mitra

, Son

, Bonardi

, Swoboda

, Igdalsky

. Pregnancy outcomes among U.S. women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2015;120(5):433–443; doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-120.5.433

47.

47. Rubenstein

, Ehrenthal

, Mallinson

, Bishop

, Kuo

, Durkin

. Pregnancy complications and maternal birth outcomes in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Wisconsin Medicaid. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0241298; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241298

48.

48. Kassee

, Lunsky

, Patrikar

, Brown

. Impact of social-, health-, and disability-related factors on pregnancy outcomes in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A population-based latent class analysis. Disabil Health J. 2023;16(2):101426; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2022.101426

49.

49. Tarasoff

, Ravindran

, Malik

, Salaeva

, Brown

. Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(1):27.e1–27.e32; doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.015

50.

50. Rubenstein

, Ehrenthal

, Mallinson

, Bishop

, Kuo

, Durkin

. Birth outcomes affecting infants of mothers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2021;35(6):706–716; doi: 10.1111/ppe.12765

51.

51. Höglund

, Lindgren

, Larsson

. Newborns of mothers with intellectual disability have a higher risk of perinatal death and being small for gestational age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(12):1409–1414; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01537.x

52.

52. Accortt

, Cheadle

, Dunkel Schetter

. Prenatal depression and adverse birth outcomes: An updated systematic review. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(6):1306–1337; doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1637-2

53.

53. Hill

, Pallitto

, McCleary-Sills

, Garcia-Moreno

. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intimate partner violence during pregnancy and selected birth outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;133(3):269–276; doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.10.023

54.

54. Ananth

, Peedicayil

, Savitz

. Effect of hypertensive diseases in pregnancy on birthweight, gestational duration, and small-for-gestational-age births. Epidemiology. 1995;6(4):391–395; doi: 10.1097/00001648-199507000-00011

55.

55. Jansen

LAW

, Nijsten

, Limpens

, et al. Perinatal outcomes of infants born to mothers with hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;284:30–51; doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.03.004

56.

56. Gleason

, Grewal

, Chen

, Cernich

, Grantz

. Risk of adverse neonatal outcomes among pregnant women with disabilities. Int J Epidemiol. 2023;52(1):203–213; doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac183

57.

57. Mueller

, Crane

, Doody

, Stuart

, Schiff

. Pregnancy course, infant outcomes, rehospitalization, and mortality among women with intellectual disability. Disabil Health J. 2019;12(3):452–459; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.01.004

58.

58. Mitra

, Parish

, Akobirshoev

, Rosenthal

, Moore Simas

. Postpartum hospital utilization among Massachusetts women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A retrospective cohort study. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22(10):1492–1501; doi: 10.1007/s10995-018-2546-6

59.

59. Rogers

, Lepherd

, Ganguly

, Jacob-Rogers

. Perinatal issues for women with high functioning autism spectrum disorder. Women Birth. 2017;30(2):e89–e95; doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.09.009

60.

60. Khan

, Brown

, Lunsky

, et al. A socio-ecological approach to understanding the perinatal care experiences of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in Ontario, Canada. Womens Health Issues. 2021;31(6):550–559; doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2021.08.002

61.

61. Gilmore

, Krantz

, Weaver

, Hand

. Healthcare service use patterns among autistic adults: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. Autism. 2022;26(2):317–331; doi: 10.1177/13623613211060906

62.

62. Zerbo

, Qian

, Ray

, et al. Health care service utilization and cost among adults with autism spectrum disorders in a U.S. integrated health care system. Autism Adulthood. 2019;1(1):27–36; doi: 10.1089/aut.2018.0004

63.

63. Ames

, Massolo

, Davignon

, Qian

, Croen

. Healthcare service utilization and cost among transition-age youth with autism spectrum disorder and other special healthcare needs. Autism. 2021;25(3):705–718; doi: 10.1177/1362361320931268

64.

64. Davis

, Voelkel

, Remmers

, Adams

, McGlynn

. Comparing Kaiser Permanente members to the general population: Implications for generalizability of research. Perm J. 2023;27(2):87–98; doi: 10.7812/TPP/22.172

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB