maternal mortality
New data on violent deaths for pregnant people in the U.S.
High rates of maternal mortality have long plagued the U.S. There's also been another problem: poor data. Until 2018, states used to have varying procedures to note on death certificates if someone was pregnant or recently had a baby. And different data sources on maternal mortality have different standards for inclusion depending on how long it had been since giving birth when somebody died. (Former STAT reporter Annalisa Merelli had a great story on this dilemma of murky data at the end of last year.)
A new study, published yesterday in JAMA Network Open, attempts to clarify the problem, particularly when it comes to deaths by homicide, suicide, overdose, and firearms. Researchers analyzed all recorded deaths of pregnant people and those within one year postpartum between 2018 and 2022. Out of more than 10,700 total deaths in that timeframe, 837 were homicides, 579 suicides, 2,083 overdoses, and 851 involved guns.
Rates varied substantially between states, the authors wrote. Mississippi had the highest rate of murders among pregnant people and those within a year postpartum, at 12.86 per 100,000 live births. Montana had the highest rate of suicides at 21.55 per 100,000.
The state-level findings are important to establish an evidence base that can inform policy decisions, the authors write. The CDC funds state-based maternal mortality review committees that evaluate the circumstances of each death, but not every state has one, and they don't typically look at violent deaths. "Increasingly, the reporting of those findings have become a political issue, and there have been efforts to suppress their findings," researcher Greg Roth told Annalisa for another story.
Indeed, it's uncertain what data will be collected, evaluated and reported in the future. As the CDC's website continues to be modified to comply with recent executive orders on gender, mortality review committee reports and articles are unavailable.
funding
A judge blocks Trump's NIH funding cuts & universities react
A federal judge has ordered a nationwide temporary pause on plans by the NIH to substantially slash research overhead payments to universities, medical centers, and other grant recipients. The pause came late Monday after the same judge granted another temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from 22 states — meaning it only applied to those states.
In response to the court orders, several large research universities reversed policies they'd enacted less than 24 hours before to mitigate budget shortfalls due to the cuts. Still, scientists told STAT that the uncertainty has made it much more difficult to justify the time it takes to assemble a research proposal. Read the latest update.
And if you're wondering where the biotech industry is in all of this, we wondered that, too. STAT's Adam Feuerstein wrote yesterday that as outcry builds over these cuts, drugmakers are MIA.
first opinion
What it's like to be a scientist with autism
Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science, wasn't officially diagnosed with autism until six years ago at age 53. Since disclosing the diagnosis last year, Thorp has heard from many people in the biomedical community asking for advice about their own autism, whether it's diagnosed or simply suspected.
"I'm mostly just an expert on apologizing for missing a nonverbal cue or being overly blunt and not realizing it," Thorp writes in a new First Opinion essay. But he says the main reason he's found success is "by choosing the right partners in life and work, particularly people who make up for my weaknesses." Read more from Thorp on his advice for other researchers and how to better include autistic scientists in science.
No comments