Literature DB >> 10342799

Social differences of very preterm birth in Europe: interaction with obstetric history. Europop Group.

P Y Ancel1, M J Saurel-Cubizolles, G C Di Renzo, E Papiernik, G Bréart.   

Abstract

Social differences of very preterm birth (22-32 completed weeks of amenorrhea) were studied using data from a large case-control survey in Europe between 1994 and 1997; 1,675 very preterm births and 7,965 full-term births were included. The relation between social factors and very preterm birth was studied according to obstetric history and the mode of delivery onset. Very preterm birth was significantly related to low educational level among women with no previous adverse pregnancy outcome (odds ratio (OR) = 2.67, 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 1.66-4.28) and among primigravid women and those with previous first-trimester abortion (OR = 2.01, 95 percent CI 1.56-2.58). In this group, unemployment of all household members was associated with a double risk of very preterm birth. No significant association between very preterm birth and socioeconomic status was observed among women with previous second-trimester abortion or preterm birth. Socioeconomic indicators remained significantly associated with both spontaneous and induced very preterm births among women with no previous late fetal loss or preterm birth. The results are consistent with social factors affecting the risk of very preterm birth, but the relation differs according to obstetric history.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10342799     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009734

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  8 in total

1.  Neighbourhood socio-economic status and spontaneous premature birth in Alberta.

Authors:  Stephen Wood; Debbie McNeil; Wendy Yee; Jodie Siever; Sarah Rose
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2014-09-16

2.  Immigrants and preterm births: a nationwide epidemiological study in Sweden.

Authors:  Xinjun Li; Jan Sundquist; Kristina Sundquist
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-08

3.  Freestanding midwifery units versus obstetric units: does the effect of place of birth differ with level of social disadvantage?

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Maternal sociodemographic parameters: impact on trace element status and pregnancy outcomes in Nigerian women.

Authors:  Emmanuel I Ugwuja; Emmanuel I Akubugwo; Udu A Ibiam; Onyechi Obidoa
Journal:  J Health Popul Nutr       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Does unemployment in family affect pregnancy outcome in conditions of high quality maternity care?

Authors:  Kaisa Raatikainen; Nonna Heiskanen; Seppo Heinonen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Social inequality in birth outcomes in Korea, 1995-2008.

Authors:  Mi-Jin Park; Mia Son; Young-Ju Kim; Domyung Paek
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 2.153

7.  Preconceptional factors associated with very low birthweight delivery in East and West Berlin: a case control study.

Authors:  Ingrid Grimmer; Christoph Bührer; Joachim W Dudenhausen; Andrea Stroux; Horst Reiher; Horst Halle; Michael Obladen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2002-06-24       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Public Health Impact of Legal Termination of Pregnancy in the US: 40 Years Later.

Authors:  John M Thorp
Journal:  Scientifica (Cairo)       Date:  2012-12-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.