Invited Perspective: What Do We Know about Fetal-Maternal Health and Health Care Needs after Wildfires? Not Nearly Enough.

Vol. 130, No. 8 Invited PerspectiveOpen AccessInvited Perspective: What Do We Know about Fetal–Maternal Health and Health Care Needs after Wildfires? Not Nearly Enoughis accompanied byBirth Outcomes, Health, and Health Care Needs of Childbearing Women following Wildfire Disasters: An Integrative, State-of-the-Science Review Colleen E. Reid Colleen E. Reid Address correspondence to Colleen Reid, Campus Box 260, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 USA. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8572-1162 Geography Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA Search for more papers by this author Published:18 August 2022CID: 081304https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11699AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit Although wildfires have always been a natural and necessary element of many ecosystems, they are becoming more frequent and more severe.1 This shift can be attributed to a combination of factors, including historical fire suppression, climate change, modifications to fuel loads across the landscape, and greater development at the wildlife–urban interface, which provides more opportunities for humans to ignite fires.2Several studies show that exposure to wildfire smoke can increase premature mortality,3 affect respiratory4 and cardiovascular5 health, and increase the risk of respiratory infections.6 Due to the large and growing literature on the impacts of air pollution on birth outcomes,7 some researchers have begun to investigate the impacts of wildfire smoke in this area as well. In addition to these physiological health effects, there is also growing evidence of significant mental health impacts of living through a wildfire event.8,9A review in this issue of Environmental Health Perspectives by Evans et al.10 aimed to clarify what we know about birth outcomes and the health and health care needs of childbearing people during and after exposure to a wildfire. By framing the paper in this way, the authors synthesized understanding of the health impacts through both air pollution and mental health pathways—which are not always possible to distinguish during a wildfire event—and provided a holistic perspective of health outcomes for both the pregnant person and the birthed child.The authors conducted a comprehensive search across four databases but identified only 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These 13 included both quantitative and qualitative studies and included studies not just on the health impacts of the newborn, but also on the health impacts to pregnant people, thus broadening the scope of the findings that have been previously reported in reviews solely on birth outcomes and wildfire smoke.11The lack of studies gave the authors little basis for drawing conclusions about how wildfire smoke affects the health of pregnant people and newborns. However, they stated that the weight of the evidence indicates wildfire smoke is associated with shorter gestation. The literature also supports an association with birth weight that deviates from the standard reference range for the newborn; however, these findings are inconclusive. Six of eight studies found lower birth weight to be associated with wildfire smoke, whereas two found an association with higher birth weight. Both high and low birth weight can be detrimental to the health of the developing child.Across the quantitative studies analyzed, the authors found differences in study design, particularly in exposure assessment, which made it hard to synthesize results or determine which studies were the least biased. Other differences included contextual factors, such as access to prenatal care and health of the study population. Such factors should be further investigated, given that both studies demonstrating higher birth weight following wildfire exposure were conducted in Australia, whereas the six studies showing lower birth weight were conducted not just in Australia but also in the United States and Brazil.The authors identified 1–2 studies for each of a variety of other pregnancy-related outcomes, including birth defects, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, assisted ventilation post birth, gestational diabetes mellitus, gestational hypertension, posttraumatic stress disorder–type symptoms, challenges in breastfeeding, access to health care, and changes in tobacco or alcohol use after a wildfire. Given the dearth of studies, Evans et al. highlighted the need for more research on these topics, including whether domestic violence against pregnant people increases following wildfire events.This review did document a consistent association between wildfire exposure and increased mental health morbidity among pregnant people exposed to wildfires across three studies. Very few studies on health impacts of wildfires have focused on mental health in general, and even fewer focused on the mental health impacts of pregnant people, despite the high prevalence of postpartum depression.12One key takeaway from this review is that there is an urgent need for more research into the impacts of these extreme events through both mental health and air pollution pathways. It is refreshing for researchers to consider the health of not just the baby but also the pregnant person; the literature on environmental exposures and birth outcomes tends to focus heavily on the child when the health of the pregnant person during and after birth is important in its own right but also important for the newborn to have a physically and mentally healthy parent to care for it. Given worldwide changes in the frequency and severity of wildfires, such information is essential to help inform effective interventions to protect pregnant people and their fetuses from this growing hazard.References1. Iglesias V, Balch JK, Travis WR. 2022. U.S. fires became larger, more frequent, and more widespread in the 2000s. Sci Adv 8(11):eabc0020, PMID: 35294238, 10.1126/sciadv.abc0020. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. Fusco EJ, Abatzoglou JT, Balch JK, Finn JT, Bradley BA. 2016. Quantifying the human influence on fire ignition across the western USA. Ecol Appl 26(8):2388–2399, PMID: 27907256, 10.1002/eap.1395. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Doubleday A, Schulte J, Sheppard L, Kadlec M, Dhammapala R, Fox J, et al.2020. Mortality associated with wildfire smoke exposure in Washington state, 2006–2017: a case-crossover study. Environ Health 19(1):4, PMID: 31931820, 10.1186/s12940-020-0559-2. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. 2016. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect 124(9):1334–1343, PMID: 27082891, 10.1289/ehp.1409277. Link, Google Scholar5. Chen H, Samet JM, Bromberg PA, Tong H. 2021. Cardiovascular health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Part Fibre Toxicol 18(1):2, PMID: 33413506, 10.1186/s12989-020-00394-8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Landguth EL, Holden ZA, Graham J, Stark B, Mokhtari EB, Kaleczyc E, et al.2020. The delayed effect of wildfire season particulate matter on subsequent influenza season in a mountain west region of the USA. Environ Int 139:105668, PMID: 32244099, 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105668. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Nyadanu SD, Dunne J, Tessema GA, Mullins B, Kumi-Boateng B, Lee Bell M, et al.2022. Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollution and adverse birth outcomes: an umbrella review of 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Environ Pollut 306:119465, PMID: 35569625, 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119465. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Dodd W, Scott P, Howard C, Scott C, Rose C, Cunsolo A, et al.2018. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can J Public Health 109(3):327–337, PMID: 29981098, 10.17269/s41997-018-0070-5. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. To P, Eboreime E, Agyapong VIO. 2021. The impact of wildfires on mental health: a scoping review. Behav Sci (Basel) 11(9):126, PMID: 34562964, 10.3390/bs11090126. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Evans J, Bansal A, Schoenaker D, Cherbuin N, Peek M, Davis DS. 2022. Birth outcomes, health and healthcare needs of childbearing women following wildfire disasters: an integrative state of the science review. Environ Health Perspect 130(8):086001, 10.1289/EHP10544. Link, Google Scholar11. Amjad S, Chojecki D, Osornio-Vargas A, Ospina MB. 2021. Wildfire exposure during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int 156:106644, PMID: 34030071, 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106644. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12. Anokye R, Acheampong E, Budu-Ainooson A, Obeng EI, Akwasi AG. 2018. Prevalence of postpartum depression and interventions utilized for its management. Ann Gen Psychiatry 17(1):18, PMID: 29760762, 10.1186/s12991-018-0188-0. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarThe author declares she has nothing to disclose.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesBirth Outcomes, Health, and Health Care Needs of Childbearing Women following Wildfire Disasters: An Integrative, State-of-the-Science Review18 August 2022Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 130, No. 8 August 2022Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received10 June 2022Manuscript revised11 July 2022Manuscript accepted1 August 2022Originally published18 August 2022 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.