BMJ open · 2021
Assessing the relationship between adverse pregnancy outcomes and area-level deprivation in Wales 2014-2019: a national population-based cross-sectional study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brown Heather, Jesurasa Amrita, Bambra Clare, Rankin Judith, McNaughton Amy, Heslehurst Nicola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between deciles of area-level deprivation and seven adverse pregnancy outcomes in Wales.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.
SETTING: 64 699 live births in Wales from 31 March 2014 to 16 September 2019.
PRIMARY OUTCOME VARIABLE: We examined each of the following seven adverse pregnancy outcomes: (1) small for gestational age (SGA); (2) large for gestational age; (3) preterm birth; (4) third-degree or fourth-degree perineal tear; (5) major postpartum haemorrhage (MPPH); (6) a lower Apgar score at 5 min and (7) emergency caesarean section.
RESULTS: There was no significant association between increasing aggregate measures of area-level deprivation and the adverse pregnancy outcomes we studied. Women living in an area with greater access to services are more likely to have a baby that is SGA (1.27, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.49), have a greater likelihood of a perineal tear (1.74, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.61), are significantly less likely to have MPPH (0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96), have a baby with an Apgar score of 0.26 higher (95% CI 0.22 to 0.29) and are significantly less likely to have an emergency caesarean section (0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.88). Women living in areas with higher employment (0.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.36) and better health (0.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.35) were less likely to experience perineal tear.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear social-spatial gradient in area-level deprivation and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We found a stronger association for individual-level behavioural risk factors than area-level factors. These findings support the benefits that accessible and holistic person-centred care may bring through addressing individual behavioural risk factors. There is a need for improved data completeness and further individual-level data on risk factors such as employment and income to better understand the role which may be played by population-level policies and their pathways to affecting outcomes.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.
SETTING: 64 699 live births in Wales from 31 March 2014 to 16 September 2019.
PRIMARY OUTCOME VARIABLE: We examined each of the following seven adverse pregnancy outcomes: (1) small for gestational age (SGA); (2) large for gestational age; (3) preterm birth; (4) third-degree or fourth-degree perineal tear; (5) major postpartum haemorrhage (MPPH); (6) a lower Apgar score at 5 min and (7) emergency caesarean section.
RESULTS: There was no significant association between increasing aggregate measures of area-level deprivation and the adverse pregnancy outcomes we studied. Women living in an area with greater access to services are more likely to have a baby that is SGA (1.27, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.49), have a greater likelihood of a perineal tear (1.74, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.61), are significantly less likely to have MPPH (0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96), have a baby with an Apgar score of 0.26 higher (95% CI 0.22 to 0.29) and are significantly less likely to have an emergency caesarean section (0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.88). Women living in areas with higher employment (0.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.36) and better health (0.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.35) were less likely to experience perineal tear.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear social-spatial gradient in area-level deprivation and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We found a stronger association for individual-level behavioural risk factors than area-level factors. These findings support the benefits that accessible and holistic person-centred care may bring through addressing individual behavioural risk factors. There is a need for improved data completeness and further individual-level data on risk factors such as employment and income to better understand the role which may be played by population-level policies and their pathways to affecting outcomes.