Skip to main content
Download PDF

Social determinants and exposure to intimate partner violence in women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit: a systematic review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 656 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Studying severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit improves our understanding of potential factors affecting maternal health.

Aim

To review evidence on maternal exposure to intimate partner violence and social determinants of health in women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit.

Methods

The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016037492). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, LILACS and SciELO using the search terms “intensive care unit”, “intensive care”, “critical care” and “critically ill” in combination with “intimate partner violence”, “social determinants of health”, “severe acute maternal morbidity”, pregnancy, postpartum and other similar terms. Eligible studies were (i) quantitative, (ii) published in English and Spanish, (iii) from 2000 to 2021, (iv) with data related to intimate partner violence and/or social determinants of health, and (v) investigating severe acute maternal morbidity (maternity patients treated in the intensive care unit during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of pregnancy termination). Of 52,866 studies initially identified, 1087 full texts were assessed and 156 studies included. Studies were independently assessed by two reviewers for screening, revision, quality assessment and abstracted data. Studies were categorised into high/middle/low-income countries and summarised data were presented using a narrative description, due to heterogenic data as: (i) exposure to intimate partner violence and (ii) social determinants of health.

Results

One study assessed intimate partner violence among mothers with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit and found that women exposed to intimate partner violence before and during pregnancy had a nearly four-fold risk of severe acute maternal morbidity requiring ICU admission. Few social determinants of health other than age were reported in most studies.

Conclusion

This review identified a significant gap in knowledge concerning intimate partner violence and social determinants of health in women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit, which is essential to better understand the complete picture of the maternal morbidity spectrum and reduce maternal mortality.

Peer Review reports

Background

Maternal mortality and intimate partner violence (IPV) are potentially preventable public health issues. Globally, one in three women have experienced lifetime prevalence of IPV [1] and during pregnancy the IPV rate varies from 1 to 49% [2]. In high-income countries, there has been increased recognition of an association between IPV and maternal mortality [3]; however, maternal mortality is the tip of the iceberg, with the unexposed base formed by maternal morbidity cases [4]. This includes women with severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM), who are obstetric patients who nearly died but have survived [5].

Currently, there is no accepted operational definition for SAMM, and it has been evaluated using diverse criteria across studies [5,6,7]. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a tool including organ system dysfunction parameters for defining SAMM [5], however, some investigators consider that the application of this tool may be too complex in both low and high-income countries [8]. ICU admission has a high sensitivity and specificity for identifying most very sick women (the near miss maternal patients) [6, 9]. Thus, obstetric patients with SAMM in the intensive care unit (ICU) represent the most critically ill obstetric patients and can be considered as an alternative marker for SAMM [6, 7]. The ICU SAMM admission rate ranges from 0.04 to 4.54%, and the main causes are hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, obstetric haemorrhage, and sepsis [10,11,12].

According to the maternal morbidity framework [13], it is important to consider not only clinical and biological aspects, but also other factors, among which IPV and social determinants of health are included, in order to capture everything that matters to better understand maternal morbidity [13]. Social determinants of health are non-medical factors; conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life [14, 15]. Studying SAMM provides data to complement the review of maternal deaths [16,17,18,19], and makes it possible to investigate underlying factors that may contribute to making improvements in maternity care [5, 18].

The association of violence against women and maternal death has been highlighted in recent years (3), and some studies have shown adverse outcomes of IPV on women’s health including during pregnancy [20, 21], when women could be more vulnerable to IPV [22]. More knowledge is needed about IPV and social determinants of health in women with SAMM to better understand factors relevant to the maternal morbidity framework [13]. Therefore, this study aimed to review available evidence of exposure to IPV as well as social determinants of health in maternity patients with SAMM in the ICU.

Methods

This systematic review was registered (CRD42016037492) in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement [23]. Detailed design and methodology were published in a study protocol [24].

Search strategy

A systematic search was performed in December 2021 in MEDLINE, ProQuest, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) and SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) between 1st January 2000 and 15th December 2021. The following subject heading and/or free text words were used: intensive care unit, intensive care, critical care and critically ill in combination with the following terms: IPV, social determinants of health, severe acute maternal morbidity, pregnancy, postpartum, etc. Other relevant terms are described in detail in Supplementary Appendix S1. Hand searching was also conducted.

The starting point of the year 2000 was considered appropriate because associations between social inequalities and vulnerabilities, IPV and maternal death were first described in the 1997–1999 UK mortality review [25]. We expected that literature from 2000 would better recognise these associations to address the lack of data on social determinants of health and IPV in studies investigating severe maternal morbidity [24].

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were: (i) experimental and observational studies; (ii) women admitted to an ICU during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of pregnancy termination; (iii) the total population of maternity patients managed in an ICU (and not a sub-set e.g., preeclampsia); (iv) studies written in English or Spanish; (v) published between the period January 2000 and December 2021; and (vi) studies with data related to IPV and/or social determinants of health.

The exclusion criteria were (i) any qualitative investigations, theses, study protocols, congress abstracts or reviews, case reports, editorials, opinions, letters, and weekly reports; (ii) studies evaluating specific condition(s) or subgroup of patients managed in the ICU during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of pregnancy termination; and (iii) duplicate studies using the same data published in different journals (in this case the most recent or relevant publication was selected).

Study selection

The screening of titles and/or abstracts and/or full texts of studies were assessed independently by two reviewers (BPAQ and SMc or WP). The first reviewer retrieved full texts of potentially eligible studies. After that, the assessment and decision for inclusion of studies were performed independently by the reviewers, two for studies written in English (BPAQ and SMc or WP), and two for studies in Spanish (BPAQ and JR). Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus between the reviewers, and consultation with another reviewer was not needed.

Data extraction

Three reviewers (BPAQ, WP and JR) independently extracted data [24] using a standardised data extraction form. We extracted data on country, language, study design, study period, setting, sample size, name of journal, IPV, social determinants of health and substance use. Data on social determinants of health included age, race, ethnicity and migration status, marital status, place of residence, education, employment and income, socio-economic status, and health insurance status. Data on substance abuse comprised alcohol consumption, smoking and drug abuse.

Data were analysed and presented using narrative description. When data were sufficient, findings were explained using the World Bank’s classification of countries [26] and presented in the following main categories (i) exposure to IPV; and (ii) social determinants of health. Data on age were meta-analysed and were shown as means (± standard deviation). All authors discussed and revised the synthesised data and extracted data.

Risk of bias and quality appraisal of the studies

Bias and quality were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist [27]. CASP is a tool which systematically assesses the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of the studies. This process was performed independently by two reviewers for studies in English (BPAQ and SMc or WP), and two for studies in Spanish (BPAQ and JR).

Results

We initially identified 52,866 studies from the five databases and manual search of references, of which 35,188 titles and abstracts were screened once duplicates were removed. Then, full texts of 1087 studies were checked and the 156 studies which met eligibility criteria were included for this review (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Appendix S4).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection. Adapted from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Full size image

Description of included studies

All 156 included studies were observational and represented 324,848 obstetric patients admitted to the ICU from 45 different countries (Supplementary Appendix S2). Overall, 26.2% (n = 43) reported data from low-income/lower-middle-income countries, 34.5% (n = 55) upper-middle-income countries, 40.2% (n = 66) high-income countries (Table 1). Four studies were undertaken in more than one country [28,29,30,31]. The studies were mainly published in English (83.3% n = 130), retrospective (76.3% n = 119) and conducted in a single centre (80.1% n = 125).

Table 1 Studies reporting data on intimate partner violence and social determinants of health among women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit
Full size table

Assessment of study quality

There were 22 (14.1%) studies classified as moderate quality, 95 (60.9%) low quality and 39 (25.0%) very low quality (Supplementary Appendix S3). In some studies, precise definition of the study population was missing with participants referred to as ‘obstetric’ without further definition, or the source of data or case identification method was not stated [32,33,34].

Exposure to IPV

Only one study from an upper-middle-income country (Peru) investigated IPV before and during pregnancy among SAMM patients admitted to an ICU, and found that exposure to IPV (aOR 3.83, 95% CI 1.99, 7.37) was significantly associated with SAMM in the ICU (Tables 1 and 2) [35]. Another study undertaken in New Zealand [36] reported that family violence (violence by an intimate partner or other family member) can be a contributory factor for potentially avoidable SAMM in the ICU; and the authors considered that family violence was one of the barriers to access or engage with maternity care. No patients were described as affected by family violence in that study, however no structured process to document family violence was evident. Even though 24 studies reported that trauma was one of the causes of maternal ICU admissions, with rates from 0.5% in Argentina [37] to 14.0% in USA [38], the authors did not report whether IPV was the reason leading to trauma or ICU admission.

Table 2 Findings on intimate partner violence and social determinants of health among women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit
Full size table

Social determinants of health

Other than age data regarding social determinants of health were described in very few studies (Tables 1 and 2).

Age

Age was reported in all studies and women’s mean ages increased gradually from low-income/lower-income to high-income countries (Tables 1 and 2).

Race, ethnicity and migration status

The role of race, ethnicity, and migration status as independent contributory factors for maternal ICU admission was not clear, and diverse findings were reported in 33 studies (26 from high-income countries and seven upper-middle income countries) (Table 2).

Several studies from USA [39, 40] and UK reported that Black ethnicity [41, 42] was a risk factor for maternal ICU admission; and women with Black ethnicity was associated with an increased risk of ICU death among maternal ICU admissions [39]. Additionally, minority ethnicities - Hispanic women (40), or Asian, Filipino and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander [43] - were associated with maternal ICU admission in USA and Hawaii, respectively. Madan et al., (2009) [44] reported a high proportion of African American (47.2%) followed by Caucasian women (28.7%) and other races/ethnicities in the ICU, however, the proportion of African American were significantly lower in maternal ICU admissions than obstetric non-ICU admissions (47.2% vs. 53.6%, respectively). On the contrary, Wanderer et al., (2013) [45] reported a higher rate of Black ethnicity in obstetric ICU admissions (47.1%) than obstetric non-ICU admissions (32.5%). Whilst, Small et al., (2012) [46] and Thakur et al., (2016) [38] reported that African American women comprised the majority of maternal ICU admissions in the USA, Sadler et al., (2013) [36] reported no significant differences in admission to the ICU by ethnicity in women with SAMM in New Zealand.

Furthermore, immigration status could be a contributory factor for SAMM in the ICU. Women from sub-Sahara Africa and Eastern Asia experienced increased risk of ICU admission in the Netherlands [47]. The rate of immigrant women in Italy with SAMM in the ICU was higher compared with Italian women (3.0 vs., 1.9 per 1000 deliveries) [48]. In France, obstetric patients born in regions other than Europe or Africa were more likely to be admitted to an ICU with additional severe morbidity criterion (presence of other severe morbidity criteria than ICU admission) [7]; and immigrant population was a risk factor for maternal ICU admission in China [49].

Marital status

Marital status was described in eleven studies. Five were from high-income countries (Israel [50], UK [41] and USA [39, 44, 46]), five from upper-middle-income countries (Brazil [51,52,53], Peru [35] and Venezuela [54]) and one from a lower-middle-income country (Nigeria) [55] (Table 2).

The rates of marriage ranged from 10.6% [51] in Brazil to 96.4% in Israel [50]. A higher rate of married women treated in the ICU has been described in some studies, and being married (aOR 3.86, 95% CI 1.27, 11.73) was significantly associated with SAMM in the ICU in a study from Peru [35]. However, no significant difference in the married rate was found between ICU admitted and non-ICU admitted mothers in USA [39, 44] and UK [41]; and between women with SAMM in the ICU and ICU maternal deaths in USA [39] and Nigeria [55].

Place of residence

Women’s place of residence was reported in fifteen studies, six from low-lower-middle-income countries (India [56,57,58,59], Nepal [60] and Pakistan [61]), eight upper-middle-income countries (Brazil [51, 53, 62], China [63, 64], Colombia [65, 66] and Venezuela [54]) and one high-income country (Canada [67]) (Table 2).

A higher rate of maternal ICU admission was reported for women from rural areas. This rate was from 18.8% in Canada [67] to 84.0% in India [59]. Bajwa et al., (2010) [59] found a significant difference between the rate of critically ill obstetric patients from rural areas compared with urban areas; while Gupta et al., (2011) [56] did not find any association of place of residence and distance travelled for reaching the hospital between women with SAMM and maternal mortality cases in an Indian ICU, but the sample size of the latter study was small. In a study from Nepal, all the women who died in the ICU were from rural areas (14.3%), and according to the authors, those deaths may be explained due to late diagnosis and referral, and fewer experienced health personnel in rural areas [60]. On the contrary, urban residence was a factor associated with maternal ICU admission in Canada (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02, 1.16) [67].

Education

Level of education was assessed in sixteen studies, of which nine were from low- lower-middle-income countries (Egypt [68, 69], India [56, 59, 70, 71], Nepal [60] and Nigeria [55, 72], six from upper middle-income countries (Argentina [73], Brazil [51, 53], China [49], Peru [35] and Venezuela [54]) and one study from a high-income country (USA) [40] (Table 2). These studies suggested that a higher proportion of maternity patients admitted to the ICU have lower level of education.

Higher rates of illiteracy among ICU maternity patients were described from 14.2% in Venezuela [54] to 55.8% in India [70], and 60.5% for ‘uneducated’ obstetric patients in Nigeria [72]. In India, Bajwa et al., (2010) [59] reported significantly higher rates of illiteracy (46%) in maternal ICU admissions; however, Gupta et al., (2011) [56] and Igbaruma et al., (2016) [55] did not find significant differences in the maternal education rate between women with SAMM and maternal death cases admitted to an ICU in India and Nigeria, respectively. Poor educational attainment was a risk factor for maternal ICU admission in China [49] and women with higher education were less likely to be admitted to an ICU than obstetric patients without ICU admission, even though this was not shown in the logistic regression analysis in USA [40]. No significant difference was reported between SAMM patients in the ICU and maternity patients not admitted to an ICU in Peru [35].

Rate of illiteracy was significantly higher among maternal death cases than women with SAMM in the ICU in India [70] and Egypt [69]; and a higher rate of maternal mortality was found in uneducated obstetric patients admitted to the ICU in India [71]. Furthermore, Vasquez et al., (2015) [73] found that there was a significantly higher educational level in women with SAMM in the ICU (11.8 ± 4.3 years) than those who died in the ICU (8.3 ± 3 years) in Argentina [73].

Employment and income

Employment was evaluated in five studies [35, 41, 46, 53, 69] (Table 2), and there were lower rates of employment among obstetric patients admitted to the ICU in studies from lower and upper-middle income countries (Egypt 6.5% [69], Peru 23.9% [35] and Brazil 37.9% [53]) than data found in two studies from high-income countries (USA 48.8% [41] and UK 48.5% [46]). Sultan et al., (2017) [69] reported no significant differences in working status rate between SAMM patients in the ICU and maternal ICU deaths in Egypt; while Ayala Quintanilla et al., (2020) [35] found no difference in the employment rate in SAMM patients in the ICU than parturient not admitted to ICU in Peru.

Income was reported in two studies (India [59] and Peru [35]). Bajwa et al., (2010) [59] indicated that 97.0% of obstetric patients admitted to the ICU had a poor financial status, and a significant number (74.0%) were below the poverty line. In contrast, Ayala Quintanilla et al., (2020) [35] reported that the minority of SAMM patients in the ICU in Peru had a low income (≤ 260.0 US dollars per month).

Socio-economic status

Socio-economic status was evaluated in six studies, four studies were from a lower-middle-income country (India [57, 71, 74, 75]) and two from high-income countries (UK [42] and Canada [67]), but the results were ambivalent (Table 2). Most obstetric Indian patients admitted to the ICU were from low socioeconomic status with values from 64.1% [57] to 84.7% [75]. Miglani et al., (2020) [71] suggested that maternal outcomes in the ICU were worst in Indian patients with lower socioeconomic status; however, no significant differences in relation to socioeconomic status were found between women with SAMM in the ICU and ICU maternal deaths in another study from India [74]. Residing at the lowest income quintile was a factor associated with maternal ICU admission in Canada (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.34, 1.55) [67], but no statistically significant differences were observed among quintile groups (socio-economic deprivation) of women admitted to an ICU during pregnancy or postpartum in the UK [42].

Health insurance

Health insurance was assessed in ten studies. Two studies from upper-middle-income countries described that 96.7% (Colombia) [76] and 98.2% (Peru) [35] of women with SAMM in the ICU had health insurance provided by the government. The other eight studies were from USA [38,39,40, 45, 46, 77, 78] including Hawaii [43] (Table 2).

In studies from USA, one study showed that majority of pregnant women admitted to ICU (76.8%) had government assisted insurance [38]. In four studies the rates of private insurance ranged from 40.7% [46] to 66.9% [78] and another study described a percentage of 62.6% for commercial insurance or self-pay insurance [39] among maternal ICU admissions. This latter study reported that the type of health insurance was not a risk factor for maternal ICU admission when compared with patients without ICU admission, or between women with SAMM in the ICU and maternal ICU deaths [39]. In contrast, Wanderer et al., (2013) [45] reported a higher usage rate of Medicare/Medicaid (42.4%) in obstetric ICU admissions than obstetric non-ICU admissions (36.8%); Estrada et al., (2021) [43] indicated that pregnant and postpartum women with Medicaid/Medicare had higher rates of ICU admission than those with private health insurance (aOR: 1.69, 95% CI 1.49, 1.96); and Rossi et al., (2019) [40] found that women admitted to the ICU in were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2, 1.3) compared with those not admitted to ICU in the peripartum period.

Substance abuse

Alcohol consumption

Two studies from high-income countries reported that the alcohol consumption rate was 3.0% in Hong-Kong [79], and 6.0% for the use of either alcohol or drugs during pregnancy among women admitted to ICU in USA [78] (Table 2). Another study from an upper-middle-income country (Peru) reported no significant differences in alcohol consumption rates between SAMM patients in the ICU (9.2%) and maternity patients not admitted to an ICU (5.5%) [35].

Smoking

Data on smoking among maternal ICU admissions were described in fourteen studies from high-income countries (Australia [80, 81], Canada [82], Finland [83], Hong-Kong [79, 84], Israel [50], New Zealand [36, 85], UK [41, 42] and USA [40, 44] including Hawaii [43]) and one upper-middle-income country (Peru) [35], with rates from 4.0% in Hong Kong [84] to 42.0% in Australia [81] (Table 2). Madan et al. (2009) [44] reported that smoking was significantly associated with obstetric ICU admissions; but similar results were not found in the USA [40, 43], UK [42] and Canada [82].

Drug use

Eleven studies reported data on drug use from 0.0% in India [30] and Peru [35] to 15.0% in USA [86]. Eight were from high-income countries (Austria [87], Hong-Kong [79, 84] and USA [30, 39, 78, 86], including Hawaii [43], two upper-middle-income countries (Brazil [62] and Peru [35]) and one lower-income country (India [30]) (Table 2). Substance use disorder (aOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.61, 2.74) had an increased likelihood for ICU admission among pregnant and postpartum women in Hawaii [43]. Additionally, drug dependence was significantly associated with maternal ICU admissions and maternal mortality in the ICU in another study undertaken in USA [39].

Discussion

This systematic review is the first to highlight that while a socio-economic gradient is associated with most rates of illness, few studies described data on social determinants of health other than age in maternal ICU admissions. Furthermore, only one study reported data on exposure to IPV in women with SAMM in the ICU [35].

There was absence of data on IPV among women with SAMM in the ICU. A single study, undertaken in Peru, assessed IPV among women with SAMM in the ICU [35]. This case-control study demonstrated that there was an increased risk of SAMM resulting in ICU admissions for those women exposed to IPV, suggesting a more severe impact of IPV on pregnancy and the mother-baby dyad than has been previously understood. Only one other study [36] hypothesised that family violence could be a contributory factor for SAMM in the ICU; however, as family violence was not routinely screened and recorded in medical reports during pregnancy in New Zealand, the reported absence of family violence may be related to lack of data rather than an absence of violence at the time of the study. This gap in knowledge of IPV exposure among women with SAMM in the ICU is concerning given the nearly four-fold increase reported by Ayala Quintanilla et al., (2020) [35] and the association of IPV with all causes of maternal death [3].

Few studies examined social determinants of health among women with SAMM in the ICU, with just age routinely reported in all studies. Most did not report on socio-economic status, and in those studies that did, there was a higher proportion of women who were poorly educated, from rural areas, and with low incomes, and in high income countries, either Black/Afro-American [7, 40] or others of an immigrant/minority ethnicity background [43, 49]. These indicate that it is important to gain more insight into immigration background, and investigate the relevance of length of migrant status, country of birth or origin, language, and other characteristics that may contribute to access and engagement with a health care service.

Poor socio-economic status is associated with poor health [14], and with IPV [88, 89], consistently across high/middle/low-lower-income countries. The association between maternal mortality, and social and economic factors has been previously reported [90, 91], and a few studies have shown that risk of SAMM may be increased with lower socioeconomic status [92,93,94].

Social determinants of health, such as poverty level, educational attainment, economic, social and behavioural factors among others, shape the exposure and vulnerability of populations and play an important role in the health of women and their newborns [14]. We suggest that there may be a likely association between socio-economic factors and SAMM in the ICU in the manner previously reported for maternal mortality [90, 91], but there is a lack of data about it. Without including such relevant items in studies, prediction studies have incomplete data when examining factors related to increased likelihood of maternal ICU admission or maternal outcomes, and health service interventions aimed at preventing SAMM will miss targeting the needs of women to be effective. For example, broader interventions, such as improving literacy rates may play a role to reduce SAMM in some regions. Similar to previous systematic reviews, all included studies were observational [10, 11] and described very few data on social determinants of health [11]. We need a better understanding of social determinants of health in women with SAMM to improve maternity outcomes.

Our systematic review has confirmed that there has been no improvement in the consistency of data reported by studies on obstetric ICU patients, and studies are persistently of a low to moderate quality only. Thus, the project to develop a core outcome set for research on critically ill obstetric patients that is underway is timely and should improve data collection in future studies [95].

Strengths and limitation of this study

Even though one important strength of this review was the effort in the use of the PRISMA Statement [23] and the comprehensive search for relevant studies published in English and Spanish in five databases; we cannot exclude the possibility that there may be other relevant studies published in other languages.

The findings of this review should be seen in light of some limitations. For instance, not all studies reported the primary/secondary outcome investigated in this review, which may influence the present findings. Data on ICU may also be diverse according to criteria used for ICU admission, availability of resources, model of maternal healthcare and healthcare systems across settings and countries. There was high heterogeneity across the studies and different studies applied different definitions for study participants and assessment of social determinants of health. In addition, most studies reported data of the variables of interest of the study only for maternal ICU admissions (which included information from both women with SAMM in the ICU and maternal ICU deaths); and did not show data on the general obstetric population or non- ICU obstetric population; so it was not possible to compare and have a broader understanding of SAMM in the ICU. Furthermore, studies that defined severe maternal morbidity more broadly than ICU admission were excluded in this review and such studies may include relevant data on social health determinants and severe maternal morbidity. Additionally, the quality of the studies ranges from moderate to very low.

Conclusions

There is a significant evidence gap regarding women with SAMM in the ICU and their social determinants of health, including IPV. These data are essential to better understand the complete picture of the maternal morbidity spectrum and its potential and modifiable causes. A concerted effort should be made to improve data collected on women with SAMM by including social determinants of health and IPV. Our findings suggest that many relevant factors contribute to SAMM and a better understanding of these offer new opportunities to improve maternal health.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Even though, most data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

CASP:

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IPV:

Intimate partner violence

LILACS:

Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database

SAMM:

Severe acute maternal morbidity

SciELO:

Scientific Electronic Library Online

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of North America

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organization. Violence against women prevalence estimates., 2018: global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. 2021 [cited 2022 May 14]; Available from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256.

  2. World Health Organization. (2011). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy. 2011 [cited 2022 June 02]; Available from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70764/WHO_RHR_11.35_eng.pdf.

  3. Knight M, Tuffnell DJ, Kenyon S, Shakespeare J, Gray R, Kurinczuk JJE, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. (2015). Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care - Surveillance of maternal deaths in the UK 2011-13 and lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009-13. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford. 2015 [cited 2022 July 15]; Available from https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/.

  4. Firoz T, Chou D, von Dadelszen P, Agrawal P, Vanderkruik R, Tuncalp O, et al. Measuring maternal health: focus on maternal morbidity. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(10):794–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Say L, Souza JP, Pattinson RC. Maternal near miss–towards a standard tool for monitoring quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23(3):287–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Callaghan WM, Grobman WA, Kilpatrick SJ, Main EK, D’Alton M. Facility-based identification of women with severe maternal morbidity: it is time to start. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):978–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Godeberge C, Deneux-Tharaux C, Seco A, Rossignol M, Chantry AA, Bonnet MP. Maternal intensive care unit admission as an Indicator of severe acute maternal morbidity: a Population-Based study. Anesth Analg. 2022;134(3):581–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Witteveen T, Bezstarosti H, de Koning I, Nelissen E, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J, et al. Validating the WHO maternal near miss tool: comparing high- and low-resource settings. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kilpatrick SJ, Berg C, Bernstein P, Bingham D, Delgado A, Callaghan WM, et al. Standardized severe maternal morbidity review: rationale and process. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:361–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Senanayake H, Dias T, Jayawardena A. Maternal mortality and morbidity: epidemiology of intensive care admissions in pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(6):811–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pollock W, Rose L, Dennis C. Pregnant and postpartum admissions to the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(9):1465–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zieleskiewicz L, Chantry A, Duclos G, Bourgoin A, Mignon A, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. Intensive care and pregnancy: epidemiology and general principles of management of obstetrics ICU patients during pregnancy. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(Suppl 1):51–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Filippi V, Chou D, Barreix M, Say L. A new conceptual framework for maternal morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(S1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organization. A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice). 2010 [cited 2021 Jan 18]; Available from http://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/ConceptualframeworkforactiononSDH_eng.pdf.

  15. World Health Organization. Social Determinants of Health. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 21]; Available from https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1.

  16. Knight M, Lewis G, Acosta CD, Kurinczuk JJ. Maternal near-miss case reviews: the UK approach. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 4):112–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Einav S, Leone M. Epidemiology of obstetric critical illness. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019;40:128–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mohan KM, Naik G. Maternal near miss: reaching the last mile. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(5):675–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geller SE, Koch AR, Garland CE, MacDonald EJ, Storey F, Lawton B. A global view of severe maternal morbidity: moving beyond maternal mortality. Reprod Health. 2018;15(Suppl 1):98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ayala Quintanilla BP, Taft A, McDonald S, Pollock W. An examination of femicides in Peru between 2009 and 2014. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(3):342–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sugg N. Intimate partner violence: prevalence, health consequences, and intervention. Med Clin North Am. 2015;99(3):629–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chisholm CA, Bullock L, Ferguson JE. Intimate Partner violence and pregnancy: epidemiology and impact. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):141–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ayala Quintanilla BP, Taft A, McDonald S, Pollock W, Roque Henriquez JC. Social determinants and maternal exposure to intimate partner violence of obstetric patients with severe maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. (2001). Why mothers die 1997–1999. The fifth report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths. Chapter 19 Intensive care. 2001; 309–316 [cited 2021 Feb 21]; Available from http://www.hqip.org.uk/national-programmes/a-z-of-clinical-outcome-review-programmes/cmace-reports/.

  26. World Bank. Data. Country and Lending groups. 2022 [cited 2022 Jan 8]; Available from https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

  27. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). CASP Checklists. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 28]; Available from http://www.casp-uk.net/.

  28. Karolinski A, Mazzoni A, Belizan JM, Althabe F, Bergel E, Buekens P. Lost opportunities for effective management of obstetric conditions to reduce maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity in Argentina and Uruguay. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;110(2):175–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lapinsky SE, Hallett D, Collop NA, Drover J, Lavercombe P, Leeman M, et al. Evaluation of standard and modified severity of illness scores in the obstetric patient. J Crit Care. 2011;26(5):535e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Munnur U, Karnad DR, Bandi VD, Lapsia V, Suresh MS, Ramshesh P, et al. Critically ill obstetric patients in an american and an indian public hospital: comparison of case-mix, organ dysfunction, intensive care requirements, and outcomes. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(8):1087–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Maiden MJ, Finnis ME, Duke GJ, Huning E, Crozier T, Nguyen N, et al. Obstetric admissions to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: a registry-based cohort study. BJOG. 2020;127(12):1558–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baloch R, Jakhrani N, Zeb E, Hafeez S, Abassi M, Abbasi F. Pattern and outcome of obstetric admissions to the surgical intensive care unit - a ten years study. J Surg Pak. 2010;15(4):171–6.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Demirkiran O, Dikmen Y, Utku T, Urkmez S. Critically ill obstetric patients in the intensive care unit. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2003;12(4):266–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Muench MV, Baschat AA, Malinow AM, Mighty HE. Analysis of disease in the obstetric intensive care unit at a university referral center. J Reprod Med. 2008;53(12):914–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ayala Quintanilla BP, Pollock W, McDonald S, Taft A. Intimate partner violence and severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit: a case-control study in Peru. Birth. 2020;47(1):29–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sadler LC, Austin DM, Masson VL, McArthur CJ, McLintock C, Rhodes SP, Farquhar CM. Review of contributory factors in maternity admissions to intensive care at a New Zealand tertiary hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(6):549e541–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Malvino E. Morbilidad materna aguda severa y condiciones de gravedad de enfermas obstétricas al ingreso en una unidad de Cuidados Intensivos. Revista Medicina Intensiva. 2014;31(4):1–9. https://revista.sati.org.ar/index.php/MI/article/view/378/327.

  38. Thakur M, Gonik B, Gill N, Awonuga AO, Rocha FG, Gonzalez JM. Intensive care admissions in pregnancy: analysis of a level of support scoring system. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(1):106–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Panchal S, Arria AM, Harris AP. Intensive care utilization during hospital admission for delivery: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes in a statewide population. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(2):1537–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rossi RM, Hall E, Dufendach K, DeFranco EA. Predictive model of factors Associated with maternal intensive care unit admission. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):216–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Selo-Ojeme DO, Omosaiye M, Battacharjee P, Kadir RA. Risk factors for obstetric admissions to the intensive care unit in a tertiary hospital: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;272(3):207–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jardine J, Gurol-Urganci I, Harris T, Hawdon J, Pasupathy D, Meulen J, et al. Associations between ethnicity and admission to intensive care among women giving birth: a cohort study. BJOG. 2022;129(5):733–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Estrada P, Jun Ahn H, Harvey SA. Racial/Ethnic disparities in Intensive Care admissions in a pregnant and Postpartum Population, Hawai’i, 2012–2017. Public Health Rep. 2022;137(4):711–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Madan I, Puri I, Jain NJ, Grotegut C, Nelson D, Dandolu V. Characteristics of obstetric intensive care unit admissions in New Jersey. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(9):785–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wanderer JP, Leffert LR, Mhyre JM, Kuklina EV, Callaghan WM, Bateman BT. Epidemiology of obstetric-related ICU admissions in Maryland: 1999–2008. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(8):1844–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Small MJ, James AH, Kershaw T, Thames B, Gunatilake R, Brown H. Near-miss maternal mortality: cardiac dysfunction as the principal cause of obstetric intensive care unit admissions. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):250–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zwart JJ, Dupuis JR, Richters A, Ory F, van Roosmalen J. Obstetric intensive care unit admission: a 2-year nationwide population-based cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):256–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Donati S, Senatore S, Ronconi A, Regional Maternal Mortality Working Group. Obstetric near-miss cases among women admitted to intensive care units in Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(4):452–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lin L, Chen YH, Sun W, Gong JJ, Li P, Chen JJ, et al. Risk factors of obstetric admissions to the intensive care unit: an 8-year retrospective study. Medicine. 2019;98(11):e14835.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Rottenstreich M, Reznick O, Sela HY, Ioscovich A, Grisaro Granovsky S, Weiniger CF, et al. Severe maternal morbidity cases in Israel in a high-volume high-resource Referral Center: a retrospective cohort study. Isr Med Assoc J. 2020;22(3):142–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Silva DCE, Lopes LGF, Nunes MGS, Souza MAF, Moura RN, Medeiros HHA. Perfil de pacientes obstétricas ingresadas en la unidad de cuidados intensivos de un hospital público. Revista Baiana de Enferm. 2020;34:e35874. http://www.revenf.bvs.br/pdf/rbaen/v34/en_0102-5430-rbaen-34-e35874.pdf.

  52. Lotufo FA, Parpinelli MA, Haddad SM, Surita FG, Cecatti JG. Applying the new concept of maternal near-miss in an intensive care unit. Clinics. 2012;67(3):225–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Monte AS, Teles LMR, Oria MOB, Carvalho FHC, Brown H, Damasceno AKC. Comparison between near miss criteria in a maternal intensive care unit. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2018;52:e03404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nava ML, Silva Bentacourt Á, Labarca L, Urdaneta MJR, González IME. Caracterización de la paciente obstétrica críticamente enferma, experiencia de la maternidad “Dr. Armando Castillo Plaza”, Maracaibo, Venezuela: 2011–2014. Revista chilena de obstetricia y ginecología. 2016;81(4):288–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Igbaruma S, Olagbuji B, Aderoba A, Kubeyinje W, Ande B, Imarengiaye C. Severe maternal morbidity in a general intensive care unit in Nigeria: clinical profiles and outcomes. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2016;28:39–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gupta, Naithani U, Doshi V, Bhargava V, Vijay BS. Obstetric critical care: a prospective analysis of clinical characteristics, predictability, and fetomaternal outcome in a new dedicated obstetric intensive care unit. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(2):146–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Panda SR, Jain M, Jain S. Clinical Profile of Obstetric Patients getting admitted to ICU in a Tertiary Care Center having HDU facility: a retrospective analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;68(6):477–81.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gupta GN, Mahajan R. Profile of Obstetric Patients in Intensive Care Unit: a retrospective study from a Tertiary Care Center in North India. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021;25(4):388–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Bajwa SK, Bajwa SJ, Kaur J, Singh K, Kaur J. Is intensive care the only answer for high risk pregnancies in developing nations? J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010;3(4):331–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Shrestha A, Kayastha BA. Study on Obstetric Intensive Care in Dhulikhel Hospital. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2017;15(9):240–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bibi S, Memon A, Sheikh JM, Qureshi AH. Severe acute maternal morbidity and intensive care in a public sector university hospital of Pakistan. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20(1):109–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Alves PP, Costa Volpon L, Carmona F. Pregnant adolescents admitted to the intensive care unit have better outcomes than pregnant adult women: a retrospective cohort study in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;155(3):524–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yuqi L, Tan G, Chengming S, Xuri S. The ICU is becoming a main battlefield for severe maternal rescue in China: an 8-Year single-center clinical experience. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):e1106–e10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhao Z, Han S, Yao G, Li S, Li W, Zhao Y, et al. Pregnancy-related ICU admissions from 2008 to 2016 in China: A First Multicenter Report. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(10):e1002–e9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Paternina-Caicedo AJ, Rojas-Suarez JA, Dueñas-Castel C, Miranda-Quintero JE, Bourjeily G. Mortality risk prediction with an updated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score in critically ill obstetric patients: a cohort study. J Intensive Care Med. 2015;30(2):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rojas JA, Cogollo M, Miranda JE, Ramos EC, Fernández JC, Bello AM. Morbilidad materna extrema en cuidados intensivos obstétricos: Cartagena (Colombia) 2006–2008. Maternal near miss in obstetric critical care. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecologia. 2011;62(2):131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Aoyama K, Pinto R, Ray JG, Hill AD, Scales DC, Lapinsky SE, et al. Variability in intensive care unit admission among pregnant and postpartum women in Canada: a nationwide population-based observational study. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):381.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Fouly H, Abdou FA, Abbas AM, Omar AM. Audit for quality of care and fate of maternal critical cases at women’s Health Hospital. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;39:175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sultan EA, Shehata SI, Shaarawy SS, Ashry MHH. Near-miss cases admitted to a maternal intensive care unit, Alexandria, Egypt. East Mediterr Health J. 2017;23:694–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Saif KM, Tahmina S, Maitree P. A prospective study of clinical profile and outcome of critically ill obstetric patients in ICU at a tertiary level hospital in India. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care. 2013;17(3):243–7.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Miglani U, Pathak AP, Laul P, Sarangi S, Gandhi S, Miglani S, et al. A study of Clinical Profile and Fetomaternal Outcome of Obstetric Patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit: a prospective hospital-based study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24(11):1071–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Osinaike BB, Amanor-Boadu SD, Sanusi AA. Obstetric intensive care: a developing country experience. Internet J Anesthesiology. 2006;10(2):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Vasquez DN, Das Neves AV, Vidal L, Moseinco M, Lapadula J, Zakalik G, et al. Characteristics, outcomes, and predictability of critically ill obstetric patients: a Multicenter prospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(9):1887–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Jain S, Guleria K, Suneja A, Vaid NB, Ahuja S. Use of the sequential organ failure Assessment score for evaluating outcome among obstetric patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):332–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ramachandra Bhat PB, Navada MH, Rao SV, Nagarathna G. Evaluation of obstetric admissions to intensive care unit of a tertiary referral center in coastal India. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(1):34–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Rojas JA, Cogollo M, Miranda JE, Ramos EC, Fernández JC, Bello AM. Maternal near miss in obstetric critical care. Cartagena, Colombia, 2006–2008. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecologia. 2011;62(2):131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Oud L. Epidemiology of Pregnancy-Associated ICU utilization in Texas: 2001–2010. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(2):143–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Gilbert TT, Smulian JC, Martin AA, Ananth CV, Scorza W, Scardella AT. Obstetric admissions to the intensive care unit: outcomes and severity of illness. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(5):897–903.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ng VKS, Lo TK, Tsang HH, Lau WL, Leung WC. Intensive care unit admission of obstetric cases: a single centre experience with contemporary update. Hong Kong Med J. 2014;20(1):24–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Paxton JL, Presneill J, Aitken L. Characteristics of obstetric patients referred to intensive care in an australian tertiary hospital. Aus N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54(5):445–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Jayaratnam S, Jacob-Rodgers S, de Costa C. Characteristics and preventability of obstetric intensive care unit admissions in Far North Queensland. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(6):871–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Ryan HM, Jones MA, Payne BA, Sharma S, Hutfield AM, Lee T, et al. Validating the performance of the modified early obstetric warning System Multivariable Model to predict maternal intensive care unit admission. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(9):728–33e723.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Seppänen P, Sund R, Roos M, Unkila R, Meriläinen M, Helminen M, et al. Obstetric admissions to ICUs in finland: a multicentre study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2016;35:38–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Leung NYW, Lau ACW, Chan KKC, Yan WW. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of obstetric patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: a 10-year retrospective review. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16(1):18–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lawton BA, Wilson LF, Dinsdale RA, Rose SB, Brown SA, Tait J, et al. Audit of severe acute maternal morbidity describing reasons for transfer and potential preventability of admissions to ICU. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(4):346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Afessa B, Green B, Delke I, Koch K. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, organ failure, and outcome in critically ill obstetric patients treated in an ICU. Chest. 2001;120(4):1271–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Farr A, Lenz-Gebhart A, Einig S, Ortner C, Holzer I, Elhenicky M, et al. Outcomes and trends of peripartum maternal admission to the intensive care unit. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(17–18):605–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Ince-Yenilmez M. The role of socioeconomic factors on women’s risk of being exposed to intimate Partner violence. J Interpers Violence. 2020;37(9–10):NP6084–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kaukinen CE, Powers RA. The role of economic factors on women’s risk for intimate Partner violence: a cross-national comparison of Canada and the United States. Violence Against Women. 2014;21(2):229–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kassebaum NJ, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Dandona L, Gething PW, Hay SI, et al. Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1775–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Knight M, Bunch K, Tuffnell DJ, Shakespeare J, Konis R, Kenyon S, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care. Lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2016-18. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford 2020. 2020 [cited 2021 Nov 09]; Available from https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/mbrrace-uk/reports/maternal-report-2020/MBRRACE-UK_Maternal_Report_Dec_2020_v10_ONLINE_VERSION_1404.pdf.

  92. Lindquist A, Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ. Variation in severe maternal morbidity according to socioeconomic position: a UK national case-control study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002742.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Lindquist A, Kurinczuk JJ, Wallace EM, Oats J, Knight M. Risk factors for maternal morbidity in Victoria, Australia: a population-based study. BMJ. 2015;5(8):e007903.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Lindquist A, Noor N, Sullivan E, Knight M. The impact of socioeconomic position on severe maternal morbidity outcomes among women in Australia: a national case-control study. BJOG. 2015;122(12):1601–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Viau-Lapointe J, D’Souza R, Rose L, Lapinsky SE. Development of a core outcome set for research on critically ill obstetric patients: a study protocol. Obstet Med. 2018;11(3):132–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No funding bodies had any role and participation in study design, collecting data, analysing data, writing, or revising this manuscript.

Funding

This systemic review was a doctoral study funded by La Trobe University, Australia and PRONABEC (National Program of Scholarship and Educational Loan), Peru.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, The Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Plenty Road & Kingsbury Drive, Level 3, George Singer Building, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla, Angela Taft, Susan McDonald & Wendy Pollock

  2. Universidad de San Martin de Porres, La Molina, Lima, Peru

    Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla & Joel Christian Roque Henriquez

  3. Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Wendy Pollock

Authors
  1. Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Taft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wendy Pollock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joel Christian Roque Henriquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BPAQ, AT, SMc, WP and JR designed this study. BPAQ performed screening, revised full texts, assessed quality and abstracted data of English and Spanish articles. SMc, WP and JR performed screening, revised full texts, assessed quality of English articles. BPAQ wrote the initial version of the manuscript. BA, AT, SMc, WP and JR revised the manuscript and improved the content of the findings of this study. BA, AT, SMc, WP and JR approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Appendix S1.

General search strategy of studies on women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Appendix S2.

Characteristics of included studies of women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit.

Additional file 3: Supplementary Appendix S3.

Quality of the studies on women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

Additional file 4: Supplementary Appendix S4.

List of included studies on women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayala Quintanilla, B.P., Taft, A., McDonald, S. et al. Social determinants and exposure to intimate partner violence in women with severe acute maternal morbidity in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 656 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05927-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05927-5

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us