Literature DB >> 33617565

Preterm disparities between foreign and Swedish born mothers depend on the method used to estimate gestational age. A Swedish population-based register study.

Sol P Juárez1,2, Marcelo L Urquia3,4, Eleonora Mussino5, Can Liu1,2,6, Yao Qiao4, Anders Hjern1,2,6.   

Abstract

This study aims to examine whether disparities in gestational age outcomes between foreign and Swedish-born mothers are contingent on the measure used to estimate gestational age and, if so, to identify which maternal factors are associated with the discrepancy. Using population register data, we studied all singleton live births in Sweden from 1992-2012 (n = 1,317,265). Multinomial logistic regression was performed to compare gestational age outcomes classified into very (<32 weeks) and late preterm (32-36 weeks), term and post-term derived from the last menstrual period (LMP) and ultrasound estimates in foreign- and Swedish-born women. Compared to Swedish-born women, foreign-born women had similar odds of very preterm birth (OR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.01]) and lower odds of moderately preterm birth (OR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.92, 0.98]) based on ultrasound, while higher risks based on LMP (respectively, OR: 1.10 [95% CI: 1.07, 1.14] and 1.09 [95% CI: 1.06, 1.13]). Conclusions on disparities in gestational age-related outcomes by mother's country of origin depend on the method used to estimate gestational age. Except for very preterm, foreign-born women had a health advantage when gestational age is based on ultrasound, but a health disadvantage when based on LMP. Studies assessing disparities in very preterm birth by migration status are not affected by the estimation method but caution should be taken when interpreting disparities in moderately preterm and preterm birth rates.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33617565      PMCID: PMC7899337          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  36 in total

1.  The Swedish Multi-generation Register.

Authors:  Anders Ekbom
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2011

2.  The influence of refugee status and secondary migration on preterm birth.

Authors:  Susitha Wanigaratne; Donald C Cole; Kate Bassil; Ilene Hyman; Rahim Moineddin; Marcelo L Urquia
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Measuring Gestational Age in Vital Statistics Data: Transitioning to the Obstetric Estimate.

Authors:  Joyce A Martin; Michelle J K Osterman; Sharon E Kirmeyer; Elizabeth C W Gregory
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2015-06-01

4.  Registration of vital data: are live births and stillbirths comparable all over Europe?

Authors:  G Gourbin; G Masuy-Stroobant
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 9.408

5.  Bias in studies of preterm and postterm delivery due to ultrasound assessment of gestational age.

Authors:  T B Henriksen; A J Wilcox; M Hedegaard; N J Secher
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Fetal head circumference: relation to menstrual age.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R L Deter; R B Harrist; S K Park
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Fetal biparietal diameter: rational choice of plane of section for sonographic measurement.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R L Deter; R B Harrist; S K Park
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1982-05       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Adverse Infant Outcomes Associated with Discordant Gestational Age Estimates.

Authors:  Nils-Halvdan Morken; Rolv Skjaerven; Jennifer L Richards; Michael R Kramer; Sven Cnattingius; Stefan Johansson; Mika Gissler; Siobhan M Dolan; Jennifer Zeitlin; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.980

9.  The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research.

Authors:  Jonas F Ludvigsson; Petra Otterblad-Olausson; Birgitta U Pettersson; Anders Ekbom
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 8.082

10.  Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Michaela Granfors; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.