Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:57:49.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of Prenatal Exposure to the Spring 2011 Alabama and Missouri Tornadoes on Birth Outcomes

Part of: Tornadoes collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2018

Kenneth E. Christopher ,
Panagiota Kitsantas ,
Kiara K. Spooner ,
Joseph F. Robare  and
Dan Hanfling
Kenneth E. Christopher*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Panagiota Kitsantas
Affiliation:
College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Kiara K. Spooner
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN
Joseph F. Robare
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN College of Health, Environment and Science, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA
Dan Hanfling
Affiliation:
Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Kenneth E. Christopher, Department of Global and Community Health, MS 5B7, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, 4400 University Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030 (e-mail: kchristo@gmu.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Despite emerging evidence of the detrimental effects of natural disasters on maternal and child health, little is known about exposure to tornadoes during the prenatal period and its impact on birth outcomes. We examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to the spring 2011 tornado outbreak in Alabama and Joplin (Missouri) and adverse birth outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study using the 2010-2012 linked infant births and deaths data set from the National Center for Health Statistics for tornado-affected counties in Alabama (n=126,453) and Missouri (Joplin, n=6,897). Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate associations between prenatal exposure to tornadoes and birth outcomes.

Results

Prenatal exposure to the tornado incidents did not influence birth weight outcomes. Women exposed to Alabama tornadoes were less likely to have a preterm birth compared to unexposed mothers (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Preterm births among Joplin-tornado exposed mothers were slightly higher (13%) compared with unexposed mothers (11.2%). Exposed mothers from Joplin were also more likely to have a cesarean section compared to their counterparts (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.26).

Conclusions

We found no association between tornado exposure and adverse birth weight and infant mortality rates. Our findings suggest that prenatal exposure can amplify the odds for a cesarean section. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:279–286)

Keywords

2011 Alabama and Joplin tornado outbreakbirth outcomesemergency preparednessnatural disastersprenatal exposure
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 279 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Antipova, A, Curtis, A. The post-disaster negative health legacy: pregnancy outcomes in Louisiana after Hurricane Andrew. Disasters. 2015;39(4):665-686. doi: 10.1111/disa.12125.Google Scholar
2. Grabich, SC, Robinson, WR, Engel, SM, et al. Hurricane Charley exposure and hazard of preterm delivery, Florida 2004. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(12):2474-2482. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-2069-y.Google Scholar
3. Simeonova, E. Out of sight, out of mind? Natural disasters and pregnancy outcomes in the USA. CESifo Economic Studies. 2011;57(3):403-431. doi: 10.1093/cesifo/ifr005.Google Scholar
4. Boulet, SL, Schieve, LA, Boyle, CA. Birth weight and health and developmental outcomes in US children, 1997-2005. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15(7):836-844. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0538-2.Google Scholar
5. Kajantie, E, Hovi, P. Is very preterm birth a risk factor for adult cardiometabolic disease? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;19(2):112-117. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2013.11.006.Google Scholar
6. McCormick, MC, Litt, JS, Smith, VC, Zupancic, JA. Prematurity: an overview and public health implications. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:367-379. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090810-182459.Google Scholar
7. Moster, D, Lie, RT, Markestad, T. Long-term medical and social consequences of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(3):262-273. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706475.Google Scholar
8. Saigal, S, Doyle, LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008;371(9608):261-269. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60136-1.Google Scholar
9. Johnson, TJ, Patel, AL, Jegier, BJ, et al. Cost of morbidities in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr. 2013;162(2):243-249 e241. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.07.013.Google Scholar
10. Owen, CM, Goldstein, EH, Clayton, JA, Segars, JH. Racial and ethnic health disparities in reproductive medicine: an evidence-based overview. Semin Reprod Med. 2013;31(5):317-324. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1348889.Google Scholar
11. Russell, RB, Green, NS, Steiner, CA, et al. Cost of hospitalization for preterm and low birth weight infants in the United States. Pediatrics. 2007;120(1):e1-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2386.Google Scholar
12. Soilly, AL, Lejeune, C, Quantin, C, et al. Economic analysis of the costs associated with prematurity from a literature review. Public Health. 2014;128(1):43-62. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.09.014.Google Scholar
13. Zhang, S, Cardarelli, K, Shim, R, et al. Racial disparities in economic and clinical outcomes of pregnancy among Medicaid recipients. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(8):1518-1525. doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1162-0.Google Scholar
14. Dunkel Schetter, C, Glynn, L. Stress in pregnancy: empirical evidence and theoretical issues to guide interdisciplinary researchers. In: Contrada R, Baum A, eds. The handbook of stress science: biology, psychology, and health. New York: Springer Publishing; 2011:321-343.Google Scholar
15. Dunkel Schetter, C, Tanner, L. Anxiety, depression and stress in pregnancy: implications for mothers, children, research, and practice. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2012;25(2):141-148. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283503680.Google Scholar
16. King, S, Laplante, D. Using natural disasters to study prenatal maternal stress in humans. In: Antonelli MC, ed. Perinatal programming of neurodevelopment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Publishing; 2015:285-313.Google Scholar
17. National Centers for Environmental Information. State of the climate: tornadoes page. Tornadoes- Annual 2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201113. Accessed March 1, 2017.Google Scholar
18. National Weather Service. Service assessment: the historic tornadoes of April 2011. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service US Dept of Commerce; 2011.Google Scholar
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Instruction Manual, Part 8, Vital Records. Geographic Classification, 2014. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
20. Tornado Recovery Action Council of Alabama. Cultivating a state of readiness: our response to April 27, 2011; 2012.Google Scholar
21. Knupp, KR, Murphy, TA, Coleman, TA, et al. Meteorological overview of the devastating 27 April 2011 tornado outbreak. Bull Am Meteorolog Soc. 2014;95(7):1041-1062. doi: 10.1175/bams-d-11-00229.1.Google Scholar
22. National Weather Service Central Region. NWS central region service assessment: Joplin, Missouri, tornado – May 22, 2011. Kansas City, MO: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Central Region Headquarters US Dept of Commerce; 2011.Google Scholar
23. Joplin, Missouri. Joplin general demographics and tornado facts page. City of Joplin, Missouri. http://www.joplinmo.org/253/fact-sheet-for-city. Accessed March 8, 2017.Google Scholar
24. SHELDUS [database online]. Version 15.2. Columbia, South Carolina: Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina; 2014. http://hvri.geog.sc.edu/SHELDUS/. Accessed March 1, 2017.Google Scholar
25. Zahran, S, Breunig, IM, Link, BG, et al. Maternal exposure to hurricane destruction and fetal mortality. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(8):760-766. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-203807.Google Scholar
26. Bluestein, H. Severe convective storms and tornadoes: observations and dynamics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013:307-416.Google Scholar
27. Wallace, A. Tornadoes. In: Koenig K, Schultz C, eds. Disaster medicine: comprehensive principles and practices, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2016:635-641.Google Scholar
28. Harville, EW, Xiong, X, Pridjian, G, et al. Postpartum mental health after Hurricane Katrina: a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-21.Google Scholar
29. Xiong, X, Harville, EW, Mattison, DR, et al. Exposure to Hurricane Katrina, post-traumatic stress disorder and birth outcomes. Am J Med Sci. 2008;336(2):111-115. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318180f21c.Google Scholar
30. Grabich, SC, Robinson, WR, Konrad, CE, Horney, JA. Impact of hurricane exposure on reproductive health outcomes, Florida, 2004. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(4):407-411. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2016.158.Google Scholar
31. Grabich, SC, Robinson, WR, Engel, SM, et al. County-level hurricane exposure and birth rates: application of difference-in-differences analysis for confounding control. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2015;12:19. doi: 10.1186/s12982-015-0042-7.Google Scholar
32. Currie, J, Rossin-Slater, M. Weathering the storm: hurricanes and birth outcomes. J Health Econ. 2013;32(3):487-503. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.01.004.Google Scholar
33. Hamilton, BE, Sutton, PD, Mathews, TJ, et al. The effect of Hurricane Katrina: births in the U.S. Gulf Coast region, before and after the storm. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;58(2):1-28, 32.Google Scholar
34. Harville, EW, Tran, T, Xiong, X, Buekens, P. Population changes, racial/ethnic disparities, and birth outcomes in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2010;4(Suppl 1):S39-S45. doi: 10.1001/dmp.2010.15.Google Scholar
35. Callaghan, WM, Rasmussen, SA, Jamieson, DJ, et al. Health concerns of women and infants in times of natural disasters: lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Matern Child Health J. 2007;11(4):307-311. doi: 10.1007/s10995-007-0177-4.Google Scholar
36. Zotti, ME, Williams, AM, Robertson, M, et al. Post-disaster reproductive health outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(5):783-796. doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1068-x.Google Scholar
37. Zahran, S, Peek, L, Snodgrass, JG, et al. Abnormal labor outcomes as a function of maternal exposure to a catastrophic hurricane event during pregnancy. Natural Hazards. 2012;66(1):61-76. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-0065-5.Google Scholar
38. Ko, YL, Lin, PC, Chen, SC. Stress, sleep quality and unplanned Caesarean section in pregnant women. Int J Nurs Pract. 2015;21(5):454-461. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12267.Google Scholar
39. Lowe, NK. A review of factors associated with dystocia and cesarean section in nulliparous women. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2007;52(3):216-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2007.03.003.Google Scholar
40. Saunders, TA, Lobel, M, Veloso, C, Meyer, BA. Prenatal maternal stress is associated with delivery analgesia and unplanned cesareans. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;27(3):141-146.Google Scholar
41. Zahran, S, Snodgrass, JG, Peek, L, Weiler, S. Maternal hurricane exposure and fetal distress risk. Risk Anal. 2010;30(10):1590-1601. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01453.x.Google Scholar
42. Andrade, SE, Scott, PE, Davis, RL, et al. Validity of health plan and birth certificate data for pregnancy research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(1):7-15. doi: 10.1002/pds.3319.Google Scholar
43. Martin, JA, Wilson, EC, Osterman, MJ, et al. Assessing the quality of medical and health data from the 2003 birth certificate revision: results from two states. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(2):1-19.Google Scholar
44. Vinikoor, LC, Messer, LC, Laraia, BA, Kaufman, JS. Reliability of variables on the North Carolina birth certificate: a comparison with directly queried values from a cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010;24(1):102-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01087.x.Google Scholar
45. Mathews, TJ, MacDorman, MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 2010 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(8):1-26.Google Scholar
46. Schoendorf, KC, Branum, AM. The use of United States vital statistics in perinatal and obstetric research. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(4):911-915. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.11.020.Google Scholar
47. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). 2017 – 2022 Health care preparedness and response capabilities. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Office of Emergency Management, Division of National Healthcare Preparedness Programs US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2016.Google Scholar