Literature DB >> 12937049

Social trends in singleton births and birth weight in Wirral residents, 1990-2001.

P Bundred1, D Manning, B Brewster, I Buchan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine social trends in the number of singleton births and birth weight in an English health district between 1990 and 2001, using an area based deprivation index.
DESIGN: Analysis of routinely collected hospital data.
SETTING: Wirral Health District in north west England. PARTICIPANTS: All 48 452 live births to Wirral residents from 1990 to 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Birth numbers, birth weight, and standard deviation score for birth weights for singleton births. Townsend material deprivation scores derived from postcodes.
RESULTS: The number of singleton births fell by 28% over the 12 years. The fall in the least deprived Townsend quartile (45%) was more than triple that in the most deprived quartile (gamma = 0.045; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.036 to 0.054; p < 0.001). Over the study period, the mean birth weight in the least deprived Townsend quartile was 141 g higher than in the most deprived quartile. There was a highly significant association between the standard deviation score for birth weight and Townsend quartile (tau-b = -0.062; 95% CI = -0.068 to -0.055; p < 0.001). Numbers of low birth weight babies in the least deprived quartile fell disproportionately compared with those from the most deprived quartile (gamma = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.25; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The reduction in birth rate in the Wirral was significantly less in the most deprived districts. This was accompanied by related differences in mean birth weight and the number of low birth weight babies, indicating increasing social inequality in birth trends. Previously described social inequity in birth weight and the number of low birth weight babies continues in the north west of England.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12937049      PMCID: PMC1721626          DOI: 10.1136/fn.88.5.f421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed        ISSN: 1359-2998            Impact factor:   5.747


  13 in total

1.  Trends and social patterning of birthweight in Sheffield, 1985-94.

Authors:  N J Spencer; S Logan; L Gill
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  Socioeconomic status and birth weight: comparison of an area-based measure with the Registrar General's social class.

Authors:  N Spencer; S Bambang; S Logan; L Gill
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Birth weight and cognitive function in the British 1946 birth cohort: longitudinal population based study.

Authors:  M Richards; R Hardy; D Kuh; M E Wadsworth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

Review 4.  Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly?

Authors:  M S Kramer; L Séguin; J Lydon; L Goulet
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  Research pointers: Unexplained differences in sex ratios at birth in Europe and North America.

Authors:  Victor Grech; Charles Savona-Ventura; P Vassallo-Agius
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-27

6.  Cause-specific perinatal death rates, birth weight and deprivation in the West Midlands, 1991-93.

Authors:  S Bambang; N J Spencer; S Logan; L Gill
Journal:  Child Care Health Dev       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.508

7.  Cerebral palsy: social class differences in prevalence in relation to birthweight and severity of disability.

Authors:  V M Dowding; C Barry
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Birth weight and later socioeconomic disadvantage: evidence from the 1958 British cohort study.

Authors:  M Bartley; C Power; D Blane; G D Smith; M Shipley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-12-03

9.  Social class difference in catch up growth in a national British cohort.

Authors:  H Teranishi; H Nakagawa; M Marmot
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.791

10.  Are our babies becoming bigger?

Authors:  E Alberman
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  6 in total

1.  Is the rate of biological aging, as measured by age at diagnosis of cancer, socioeconomically patterned?

Authors:  Jean Adams; Martin White; David Forman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Social deprivation and admission for neonatal care.

Authors:  D Manning; B Brewster; P Bundred
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.747

3.  Does area deprivation modify the association between exposure to a nitrate and low-dose atrazine metabolite mixture in drinking water and small for gestational age? A historic cohort study.

Authors:  F Limousi; M Albouy-Llaty; C Carles; A Dupuis; S Rabouan; V Migeot
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-06-16       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Alison L Weightman; Helen E Morgan; Michael A Shepherd; Hilary Kitcher; Chris Roberts; Frank D Dunstan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  The social determinants of infant mortality and birth outcomes in Western developed nations: a cross-country systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel Kim; Adrianna Saada
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Are there differences in birth weight between neighbourhoods in a Nordic welfare state?

Authors:  Eva Sellström; Göran Arnoldsson; Sven Bremberg; Anders Hjern
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.