Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Stressful life events, social health issues and low birthweight in an Australian population-based birth cohort: challenges and opportunities in antenatal care

  • Stephanie J Brown1, 2Email author,
  • Jane S Yelland1,
  • Georgina A Sutherland1,
  • Peter A Baghurst3 and
  • Jeffrey S Robinson3
BMC Public Health201111:196

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-196

Received: 13 October 2010

Accepted: 30 March 2011

Published: 30 March 2011

Abstract

Background

Investment in strategies to promote 'a healthy start to life' has been identified as having the greatest potential to reduce health inequalities across the life course. The aim of this study was to examine social determinants of low birthweight in an Australian population-based birth cohort and consider implications for health policy and health care systems.

Methods

Population-based survey distributed by hospitals and home birth practitioners to >8000 women six months after childbirth in two states of Australia. Participants were women who gave birth to a liveborn infant in Victoria and South Australia in September/October 2007. Main outcome measures included stressful life events and social health issues, perceived discrimination in health care settings, infant birthweight.

Results

4,366/8468 (52%) of eligible women returned completed surveys. Two-thirds (2912/4352) reported one or more stressful life events or social health issues during pregnancy. Women reporting three or more social health issues (18%, 768/4352) were significantly more likely to have a low birthweight infant (< 2500 grams) after controlling for smoking and other socio-demographic covariates (Adj OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.1-2.8). Mothers born overseas in non-English speaking countries also had a higher risk of having a low birthweight infant (Adj OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.2-2.9). Women reporting three or more stressful life events/social health issues were more likely to attend antenatal care later in pregnancy (OR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.3-3.1), to have fewer antenatal visits (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and to experience discrimination in health care settings (OR = 2.69, 95% CI 2.2-3.3).

Conclusions

There is a window of opportunity in antenatal care to implement targeted preventive interventions addressing potentially modifiable risk factors for poor maternal and infant outcomes. Developing the evidence base and infrastructure necessary in order for antenatal services to respond effectively to the social circumstances of women's lives is long overdue.

Background

Several recent reports, including the Fair Society, Healthy Lives report (The Marmot Review) and World Health Organisation's Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) Closing the Gap in a Generation, have identified investment in strategies to promote 'a healthy start to life' as having the greatest potential to reduce health inequalities across the life course [13]. 'Giving every child the best start in life' was nominated by the Marmot Review as the number one priority for implementation [1]. Central to this recommendation is the accumulating evidence to show that brain development is highly sensitive to external influences in utero and in early childhood, with potential life long effects [4, 5]. Infants that are born preterm, small for gestational age and/or with a low birthweight have well documented increased health risks in childhood, with more recent evidence supporting effects continuing into later life [6]. This research provides a powerful argument for supporting early intervention to improve maternal health in pregnancy and pre-conception as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve maternal, newborn and child health.

The major contribution of the CSDH Report and the Marmot Review is to situate this strategy within the broader context of health equity and the social determinants of health [1, 2]. There is mounting evidence in both a developing and a developed country context, demonstrating higher prevalence of low birthweight and small for gestational age infants associated with individual and area-level measures of social adversity and deprivation [714]. Worse outcomes have been reported for 'blue collar workers' compared with 'white collar workers' [10, 12], lone parents [8, 11], low income households [11], and mothers living in deprived neighbourhoods [11, 13, 14]. A small number of studies have reported a positive association between low birthweight and stressful life events during or immediately preceding pregnancy [15, 16]. Intimate partner violence, trait anxiety in the second and third trimester, and maternal distress in pregnancy also show associations with low birthweight [1923]. Two potential pathways have been identified to explain these findings. The first posits that psychosocial factors such as stress or lack of social support impact on birth outcomes via neuroendocrine, immune or vascular mechanisms [14, 16, 17]. The second, more well-established pathway is via health behaviours which are known to be associated with increased risk such as smoking, maternal nutrition, infection and substance use [24].

The overall aim of this paper is to examine social determinants of low birthweight in an Australian population-based cohort and consider implications for health policy and health systems. The paper draws on data collected in an Australian population based survey of 4,366 women who gave birth in South Australia and Victoria to examine (i) the prevalence of stressful life events and social health issues in the 12 months before the birth, and (ii) women's experience of discrimination in health care settings as factors which may potentially contribute to poor infant health outcomes. To our knowledge, discrimination in maternal health care has not previously been investigated as a factor which may contribute to poor maternal and/or child health outcomes. Post hoc analyses are reported examining associations with attendance at antenatal care and with infant birthweight.

Method

Sample

The 2008 Healthy Mothers Healthy Families (HMHF) Survey questionnaire was mailed to women giving birth in two Australian states (Victoria and South Australia) in September/October 2007 at five to six months postpartum, excluding those who had a stillbirth, or whose baby was known to have died. Public and private maternity hospitals and homebirth practitioners in both states distributed questionnaires to women who gave birth under their care in the study period. All hospitals with births in the study period (n = 110) agreed to participate, however one small public hospital with approximately 90 confinements in the study period subsequently withdrew. Together South Australia and Victoria accounted for greater than 31% of the 289,496 births in Australia in 2007 [25]. The inclusion of two states provided for greater diversity in the sampled population compared with previous Victorian surveys [2628]. Compared with Victoria, South Australia has a higher proportion of births to women living in outer regional (11.8% versus 4.2%) and remote/very remote areas (3.9% versus 0%), a higher proportion of Aboriginal mothers (3.0% versus 1.0%) and women giving birth under 20 years (4.6% versus 2.6%), while Victoria has a higher proportion of births to women born overseas (26.6% versus 16.3%) [25].

Procedure

The primary aim of the study was to assess women's views and experiences of care received during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period in representative samples of women giving birth in South Australia and Victoria in 2007. Questionnaires, together with a covering letter inviting women to take part, an explanation of the study in six community languages (Arabic, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin, Somali and Turkish) and a reply paid envelope for returning the questionnaire free of charge, were posted to women at six months postpartum. Two reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the second including a repeat copy of the questionnaire. The timing of the survey at five to six months postpartum matches previous Victorian surveys [2628] and was decided taking into account the literature suggesting a 'halo' effect in relation to reporting of women's experiences of maternity care in the period immediately after childbirth [27] and the inclusion of questions on postpartum maternal health outcomes (e.g. maternal depression, urinary incontinence). A copy of the questionnaire is available on the study website: http://www.mcri.edu.au/HMHFSurvey. The study period - four weeks in September 2007 in Victoria, and eight weeks in September/October 2007 in South Australia - was chosen to ensure sub-groups of interest (e.g. women attending six main models of care, women <25 years, single women, and women whose infant was <2,500 grams at birth) were large enough for meaningful statistical comparisons.

Questionnaire

Information was collected on women's views and experiences of care, health service use, maternal socio-demographic characteristics, reproductive history, and maternal and infant health outcomes, including infant birthweight. The questionnaire also included questions on maternal smoking in pregnancy, maternal pre-pregnant weight and height, and stressful life events and social health issues in the 12 months before the index birth. Measures of socio-economic status included: pre-tax household income adjusted for household size and composition, possession of a current health care concession card and health insurance status (private cover/Medicare only). Women were classified as being at higher risk of complications in pregnancy if they had a previous low birthweight infant, preterm birth, or stillbirth, or if they had any substantial medical or obstetric risk factors in the current pregnancy (e.g. multiple pregnancy, gestational diabetes). Maternal pre-pregnant Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated as the ratio of body weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in metres. Smoking status was assessed using a multiple response question enabling women to indicate if they had never smoked, quit smoking before their pregnancy, quit since the beginning of pregnancy, cut down cigarette smoking since finding out they were pregnant, continued to smoke at about the same level or increased their smoking since the beginning of pregnancy [29]. Women who said they had quit before pregnancy or never smoked were categorised as non-smokers. Women who said they quit when they found out they were pregnant were categorised as smoking in early pregnancy; women who cut down, increased or continued to smoke about the same number of cigarettes as before their pregnancy were categorised as continuing to smoke throughout their pregnancy.

Assessment of stressful life events and social health issues drew on items included in the PRAMS study [30] with additional items incorporated based on results of a pilot survey and consultations with Aboriginal community organisations and communities in the two states. Women were asked "Did any of the following things happen to you in the 12 months before your new baby was born?" and invited to tick 'yes' or 'no' to 23 items including major life events, such as separation and divorce, moving house, losing your job, death of a close family member or friend and social health issues, such as having a lot of bills you couldn't pay, not having enough money to buy food, legal troubles or being involved in a court case, serious family conflict or being homeless. A complete list is provided in an additional file (see Additional File 1). Perceived discrimination was assessed using five questions (see Additional File 1) adapted from the Measure of Indigenous Racism Experience [31] to elicit information about women's experience of being discriminated against by health professionals in the perinatal period. The questions were designed to capture the concept of being 'treated unfairly', that is being treated as inferior, with less respect or courtesy, or receiving poorer care than other people. Women were also asked if they had been insulted, stereotyped, talked down to or ignored. Although based on a measure originally designed to assess racial discrimination, the questions were framed to illicit experiences of perceived discrimination in a variety of other contexts, for example, in relation to maternal age, education and other social characteristics.

The study was approved by the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Victorian Department of Human Services HREC, South Australian Department of Health HREC and a number of other university and hospital based HRECs.

Analysis

Data on the social and obstetric characteristics of study participants were compared with routinely collected Victorian and South Australian perinatal data for all women who gave birth in the study period in order to assess the representativeness of the sample. Reporting of stressful life events and social health issues was categorised according to whether women reported no social health issues, one or two issues, or three or more issues. Data on discrimination were dichotomised to distinguish women who reported any experience of discrimination from those who reported never experiencing any of the kinds of discrimination we asked about. Data were analysed using STATA version 11.0 [32] and involved the calculation of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between number of stressful life events and social health issues as the exposure of main interest (categorised as none, one to two issues, three or more issues) and low birthweight as the primary outcome variable. Four models are reported adjusting for: maternal smoking, social characteristics, number of antenatal visits and medical risk.

Results

Questionnaires were mailed to 8,597 women. The adjusted response fraction excluding a small number of questionnaires (n = 129) 'returned to sender', duplicate responses and women who gave birth outside the study period was 52% (4366/8468).

Social characteristics and risk factors

Table 1 shows the social and obstetric characteristics of participants compared with all Victorian and South Australian women who gave birth in the study period according to routinely collected perinatal data for both states. The mean age of women in the sample was 31 years (range 16 to 46 years). Comparisons with routinely collected data showed that women taking part in the survey were largely representative in terms of key obstetric characteristics including parity, method of birth, and infant birthweight, but included fewer women born overseas of non-English speaking background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, single women and women under 25 years. Eighteen percent of women reported smoking in pregnancy, including women who said that they quit or cut down smoking while pregnant. One third of participants who provided data on height and weight prior to pregnancy were overweight (25.0-29.9) or obese (≥30). Two-thirds of women reported one or more stressful life events or social health issues during pregnancy, and 17% reported three or more issues.
Table 1

Social and obstetric characteristics of participants in the 2008 HMHF Survey and all women who gave birth in Victoria and South Australia during the study period*

 

HMHF Survey participants

All women who gave birth

in study period

 

No.

%

No.

%

Maternal age

    

≤24 years

416

9.9

1385

16

25-29 years

1053

25

2301

26.7

30-34 years

1604

38.1

2928

33.8

≥35 years

1138

27

2035

23.5

Relationship status

    

Married or living with partner

4201

95.5

7573

87.6

Single

144

3.3

977

11.3

Divorced, separated or widowed

55

1.2

88

1.1

Equivalised household income (before tax) per annum (AUD)

    

≤ $20,000

938

24.2

Not collected

$21,000-$40,000

1959

50.5

  

≥$41,001

979

25.3

  

Health care concession card

    

Yes

949

21.9

Not collected

No

3394

78.2

  

Educational attainment (secondary)

    

Completed secondary school

3429

79.3

Not collected

Did not complete secondary school

894

20.7

  

Educational attainment (tertiary)

    

Completed tertiary education

2582

60

Not collected

Did not complete tertiary education

1722

40

  

Mother's Country of birth

    

Australia

3521

81.5

6605

76.3

Overseas - English speaking

272

6.3

478

5.6

Overseas - Non-English speaking

526

12.2

1567

18.1

Risk of medical complications in pregnancy

    

Higher risk

1712

39.2

Not available in both states

Lower risk

2654

60.8

  

Smoking in pregnancy

    

Yes

752

17.6

Not available in both states

No

3516

82.4

  

Maternal pre-pregnant BMI

    

Underweight (< 18.5)

182

4.5

Not available in both states

Normal weight (18.5-24.9)

2400

58.9

  

Overweight (25.0-29.9)

909

22.3

  

Obese (≥30)

583

14.3

  

Social health issues/stressful life events (12 months before birth)

    

None

1440

33.1

Not available in both states

One to two issues

2144

49.3

  

≥3 issues

768

17.7

  

Parity

    

First baby

1941

44.5

3609

41.6

Second or subsequent baby

2425

55.5

5060

58.4

Infant birthweight

    

< 2500 g

179

4.1

565

6.5

2500 g-3999 g

3413

78.2

7183

81.9

≥4000 g

560

13.5

1019

11.6

* Data on all women who gave birth in the study period obtained from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection Unit and South Australian Pregnancy Outcome Unit; totals vary because of missing values

Stressful life events and social health issues

Table 2 summarises data on associations between maternal social characteristics and stressful life events/social health issues experienced in the 12 months before the birth. Maternal characteristics that were associated with substantially raised odds of reporting three or more stressful life events or social health issues were: being under 25 years; single, divorced or widowed; having a below average equivalised income; not completing year 12; smoking at any stage of pregnancy; being underweight (BMI <18.5); being at higher risk of obstetric complications, and being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin.
Table 2

Relationship between stressful life events/social health issues, perceived discrimination and social and obstetric characteristics

 

No

social health issues

No. (%)

One to two

social health issues

No. (%)

Three or more social health issues

No. (%)

Odds Ratio (95% CI)*

Never experienced discrimination

No. (%)

Experienced discrimination

No. (%)

Odds Ratio

(95% CI)**

Maternal age

       

≤24 years

84 (20.3)

166 (40.2)

163 (39.5)

4.48

(3.4-5.9)

250 (60.7)

162 (39.3)

2.00

(1.6-2.5)

≥25 years

1315 (34.7)

1900 (50.2)

570 (15.1)

1.00 ref

2853 (75.6)

923 (24.4)

1.00 ref

Adjusted household income (AUD)

       

< $20,000

239 (25.6)

400 (42.9)

296 (31.7)

2.95

(2.4-3.7)

619 (66.5)

312 (33.5)

1.50

(1.3-1.8)

$20,000- $40,000

684 (35.0)

983 (50.3)

287 (14.7)

1.00 ref

1463 (74.9)

490 (25.1)

1.00 ref

> $40,000

364 (37.3)

524 (53.7)

88 (9.0)

0.58

(0.4-0.8)

764 (78.0)

215 (22.0)

0.84

(0.7-1.0)

Educational attainment

       

Completed Yr 12

1152 (33.7)

1739 (50.9)

529 (15.5)

1.00 ref

2556 (74.9)

856 (25.1)

1.00 ref

Did not complete Yr 12

272 (30.6)

390 (43.8)

228 (25.6)

1.83

(1.5-2.3)

617 (69.6)

270 (30.4)

1.31

(1.1-1.5)

Indigenous status

       

Not Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander

1328 (33.2)

1999 (50.1)

713 (16.7)

100 ref

2968 (73.6)

1067 (26.4)

1.00 ref

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander

8 (25.8)

11 (35.5)

12 (38.7)

2.79

(1.1-6.9)

21 (67.7)

10 (32.3)

1.32

(0.6-2.8)

Maternal country of birth

       

Australia

1165 (33.2)

1716 (48.8)

633 (18.0)

1.00 ref

2604 (74.2)

906 (25.8)

1.00 ref

Overseas - English speaking

82 (30.5)

149 (55.4)

38 (14.1)

0.85

(0.5-1.3)

195 (72.0)

76 (28.0)

1.12

(0.8-1.5)

Overseas - Non English speaking

178 (34.0)

258 (49.3)

87 (16.6)

0.90

(0.7-1.2)

381 (73.1)

140 (26.9)

1.06

(0.8-1.3)

Relationship status

       

Married

1181 (35.7)

1696 (51.2)

437 (12.2)

1.00 ref

2511 (76.3)

779 (23.7)

1.00 ref

Living with partner

236 (28.3)

379 (46.8)

219 (26.3)

2.51

(2.0-3.1)

555 (66.9)

274 (33.1)

1.59

(1.3-1.9)

Single/divorce/separated

20 (10.4)

61 (38.5)

111 (57.8)

15.0

(9.2-24.4)

119 (62.6)

71 (37.4)

1.92

(1.4-2.6)

Maternal pre-pregnant BMI

       

Underweight (< 18.5)

46 (25.3)

91 (50.0)

45 (24.7)

2.08

(1.4-3.2)

121 (68.0)

57 (32.0)

1.44

(1.0-2.0)

Normal weight (18.5-24.9)

814 (34.0)

1197 (50.0)

382 (16.0)

1.00 ref

1802 (75.5)

586 (24.5)

1.00 ref

Overweight (25-29.9)

308 (34.0)

435 (48.1)

162 (17.9)

1.12

(0.9-1.4)

669 (74.0)

235 (26.0)

1.08

(0.9-1.3)

Obese (≥30)

184 (31.6)

284 (48.7)

115 (19.7)

1.33

(1.0-1.7)

412 (71.0)

168 (29.0)

1.25

(1.0-1.5)

Smoking during pregnancy

       

Non-smoker

1232 (35.1)

1760 (50.2)

514 (14.7)

1.00 ref

2623 (75.2)

864 (24.8)

1.00 ref

Quit in pregnancy

95 (27.1)

169 (48.2)

87 (24.8)

2.20

(1.6-3.0)

248 (71.5)

99 (28.5)

1.21

(0.9-1.5)

Smoking throughout pregnancy

86 (21.5)

162 (40.5)

152 (38.0)

4.24

(3.2-5.6)

245 (62.0)

150 (38.0)

1.86

(1.5-2.3)

Medical risk

       

Lower risk

960 (36.3)

1295 (48.9)

392 (14.8)

1.00 ref

2008 (76.3)

624 (23.7)

1.00ref

Higher risk

480 (28.2)

849 (49.8)

376 (22.1)

1.92

(1.6-2.3)

1184 (70.0)

508 (30.0)

1.38

(1.2-1.6)

Gestation

       

≥37 weeks

1333 (33.7)

1939 (49.0)

686 (17.33)

1.00 ref

2913 (74.1)

1020 (25.9)

1.00 ref

< 37 weeks

79 (28.3)

146 (52.3)

54 (19.4)

1.32

(0.9-1.9)

198 (71.2)

80 (28.8)

1.15

(0.9-1.5)

Infant birthweight

       

≥2500 grams

1332 (33.6)

1954 (49.3)

676 (17.1)

1.00 ref

2903 (73.8)

1032 (26.2)

1.00 ref

< 2500 grams

44 (24.7)

88 (49.4)

46 (25.8)

2.06

(1.3-3.1)

121 (68.0)

57 (32.0)

1.32

(1.0-1.8)

* Odds ratios in this column refer to comparisons between women who experienced ≥2 stressful life events with those who experienced no events

** Odds ratios in the last column refer to comparisons between women who experienced discrimination with those reporting no discrimination

Experiences of discrimination in health care settings

Women were significantly more likely to report experiencing discrimination if they were: under 25 years, had a low income, had not completed year 12, were not married, had a very high (≥35) or a very low BMI (< 18.5), quit smoking in pregnancy or smoked throughout pregnancy and if they were at higher risk of medical complications. Women who reported three or more stressful life events/social health issues were significantly more likely to report discrimination (314/760, 41.3% versus 296/1429, 20.7%, OR = 2.69, 95% CI 2.2-3.3). Women who reported one or two stressful life events/social health issues also had significantly raised odds of experiencing discrimination (518/2123, 24.6% versus 20.7%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4) suggesting a 'dose response'.

Patterns of health service use

Despite the existence of universal health cover via Medicare, uptake of antenatal care varied in relation to maternal social characteristics and the number of stressful life events or social health issues women were coping with. Younger women, those who had below average household income, women who had not completed year 12, women without a partner and women who smoked throughout pregnancy were more likely to attend a first antenatal check-up at ≥13 weeks' gestation, and to attend less than five visits (Table 3). Women who reported stressful life events or social health issues were also more likely to attend late, and to attend fewer visits.
Table 3

Risk factors by pattern of health service use

 

Timing of first antenatal visit

Number of antenatal visits

 

≤12 weeks'

gestation

No. (%)

> 12 weeks'

gestation

No. (%)

Odds Ratio

(95% CI)

< 5 visits

No. (%)

5-8 visits

No. (%)

> 8 visits

No. (%)

Odds Ratio

(95% CI)**

Maternal age

       

≤24 years

365 (88.2)

49 (11.8)

1.00 ref

29 (7.3)

168 (42.4)

199 (50.3)

1.00 ref

≥25 years

3597 (95.2)

180 (4.8)

2.68

(1.9-3.7)

144 (3.9)

1503 (40.1)

2048 (55.4)

1.95

(1.3-2.9)

Adjusted household income (AUD)

       

< $20,000

839 (89.7)

96 (10.3)

2.94

(2.1-4.0)

53 (5.9)

412 (45.6)

439 (48.6)

1.62

(1.1-2.3)

$20,000-$40,000

1878 (96.3)

73 (3.7)

1.00 ref

71 (3.7)

770 (40.3)

1072 (56.0)

1.00 ref

> $40,000

941 (96.2)

37 (3.8)

1.01

(0.7-1.5)

30 (3.1)

372 (38.6)

561 (58.3)

0.83

(0.5-1.3)

Educational attainment

       

Completed year 12

3243 (94.9)

173 (5.1)

1.00 ref

118 (3.5)

1351 (40.4)

1875 (56.1)

1.00 ref

Did not complete year 12

821 (92.5)

67 (7.6)

1.53

(1.1-2.0)

59 (6.9)

360 (41.9)

440 (51.2)

2.02

(1.5-2.8)

Maternal country of birth

       

Australia

3330 (94.8)

182 (5.2)

1.00 ref

129 (3.7)

1375 (40.0)

1936 (56.3)

1.00 ref

Overseas - English speaking

247 (91.8)

22 (8.2)

1.63

(1.0-2.6)

16 (6.3)

117 (45.7)

123 (48.1)

1.71

(1.0-2.9)

Overseas - Non-English speaking

484 (93.3)

35 (6.7)

1.32

(0.9-1.9)

29 (5.8)

216 (43.1)

256 (51.1)

1.58

(1.0-2.4)

Relationship status

       

Married

3155 (95.7)

143 (4.3)

1.00 ref

118 (3.6)

1292 (40.0)

1821 (56.4)

1.00 ref

Living with partner

764 (92.0)

66 (8.0)

1.9

(1.4-2.6)

44 (5.5)

349 (43.4)

412 (51.2)

1.52

(1.0-2.2)

Single/divorced/separated

161 (84.3)

30 (15.7)

4.11

(2.7-6.3)

16 (8.9)

76 (42.2)

88 (48.9)

2.57

(1.5-4.4)

Risk of complications in pregnancy

       

Lower risk

2470 (93.9)

160 (6.1)

1.0 ref

108 (4.2)

1147 (44.8)

1306 (51.0)

1.00 ref

Higher risk

1622 (95.2)

82 (4.8)

0.78

(0.6-1.0)

71 (4.3)

576 (34.5)

1022 (61.2)

1.01

(0.7-1.4)

Maternal pre-pregnant BMI

       

Underweight (< 18.5)

167 (92.8)

13 (7.2)

1.41

(0.8-2.6)

8 (4.6)

67 (38.3)

100 (57.1)

1.05

(0.5-2.2)

Normal weight (18.5-24.9)

2268 (94.8)

125 (5.2)

1.00 ref

102 (4.4)

963 (41.3)

1266 (54.3)

1.00 ref

Overweight (25.0-29.9)

855 (94.6)

49 (5.4)

1.04

(0.7-1.5)

40 (4.5)

363 (40.7)

490 (54.9)

1.02

(0.7-1.5)

Obese (≥30)

546 (94.0)

35 (6.0)

1.16

(0.8-1.7)

15 (2.6)

226 (39.7)

328 (57.6)

0.59

(0.3-1.0)

Smoking in pregnancy

       

Non-smoker

3310 (94.8)

181 (5.2)

1.00 ref

124 (3.6)

1377 (40.4)

1906 (55.9)

1.00 ref

Quit in pregnancy

327 (93.7)

22 (6.3)

1.23

(0.8-1.9)

13 (3.8)

142 (41.3)

189 (54.9)

1.04

(0.6-1.9)

Smoking throughout pregnancy

363 (91.2)

35 (8.8)

1.76

(1.2-2.6)

34 (8.8)

166 (42.9)

187 (48.3)

2.55

(1.7-3.8)

Stressful life events/social health issues

       

None

1361 (95.3)

67 (4.7)

1.00 ref

40 (2.9)

551 (39.5)

805 (57.7)

1.00 ref

One to two issues

2009 (94.3)

122 (5.7)

1.36

(0.9-2.0)

94 (4.5)

865 (41.4)

1130 (54.1)

1.6

(1.1-2.3)

≥3 issues

709 (93.0)

53 (7.0)

2.06

(1.3-3.1)

44 (6.0)

301 (41.1)

387 (52.9)

2.17

(1.4-3.4)

** Odds ratios in the last column refer to comparisons of women attending <5 visits with women attending ≥ 5 visits.

Associations with low birthweight

Univariable associations between maternal characteristics and low birthweight (< 2500) are shown in Table 4. Women at higher risk of obstetric complications in pregnancy had a fourfold increase in odds of having a low birthweight infant. Other maternal factors significantly associated with low birthweight were: not completing secondary education, being born overseas, and having a low pre-pregnant BMI (< 18.5). Women reporting three or more stressful life events or social health issues had a twofold increase in odds of having a baby with a low birthweight compared with women reporting no social health issues.
Table 4

Associations with infant birthweight

 

≥2500 g

No. (%)

< 2500g

No. (%)

OR (95% CI)

Maternal age

   

≤24 years

3467 (95.8)

151 (4.2)

1.00 ref

> 24 years

376 (95.4)

18 (4.6)

1.10 (0.7-1.8)

Adjusted household income (AUD)

   

< $20,000

830 (95.7)

37 (4.3)

1.00 (0.7-1.5)

$20,000-$40,000

1799 (95.7)

81 (4.3)

1.00 ref

> $40,000

904 (95.9)

39 (4.1)

1.00 (0.6-1.4)

Educational attainment

   

Completed year 12

3147 (96.1)

127 (3.9)

1.00 ref

Did not complete year 12

789 (94.0)

50 (6.0)

1.57 (1.1-2.2)

Relationship status

   

Married

3035 (95.7)

135 (4.3)

1.00 ref

Living with partner

766 (96.0)

32 (4.0)

0.93 (0.6-1.4)

Single/divorced/separated

160 (93.0)

12 (7.0)

1.69 (0.9-3.1)

Maternal Country of birth

   

Australia

3230 (96.1)

130 (3.9)

1.00 ref

Overseas - English speaking

241 (93.8)

16 (6.2)

1.65 (1.0-2.8)

Overseas - Non-English speaking

457 (93.5)

32 (6.5)

1.73 (1.2-2.6)

Risk of complications in pregnancy

   

Lower risk

2473 (98.1)

49 (1.9)

1.00 ref

Higher risk

1500 (92.0)

130 (8.0)

4.37 (3.1-6.1)

Maternal pre-pregnant BMI

   

Underweight (< 18.5)

163 (92.6)

13 (7.4)

1.74 (1.0-3.2)

Normal weight (18.5-24.9)

2193 (95.6)

100 (4.7)

1.00 ref

Overweight (25.0-29.9)

837 (96.0)

35 (4.0)

0.92 (0.6-1.4)

Obese (≥30)

537 (96.4)

20 (3.6)

0.82 (0.5-1.3)

Smoking in pregnancy

   

Non-smoker

3222 (96.1)

132 (3.9)

1. 00 ref

Quit in pregnancy

325 (96.0)

13 (3.9)

0.98 (0.5-1.7)

Smoking throughout pregnancy

343 (92.4)

28 (7.6)

1.99 (1.3-3.0)

Stressful life events/social health issues

   

None

1332 (96.8)

44 (3.2)

1.00 ref

One to two issues

1954 (95.7)

88 (4.3)

1.36 (1.0-2.0)

≥3 issues

676 (93.6)

46 (6.4)

2.06 (1.3-3.1)

In order to obtain a more precise estimate of the association between low birthweight and the number of stressful life events and social health issues, we developed the four models shown in Table 5. Maternal smoking status was fitted in all models for a priori reasons based on the known aetiological relationship between maternal smoking and infant birthweight. The first model adjusts for maternal smoking alone, and shows that the association between number of stressful life events and social health issues and low birthweight remains statistically significant after adjusting for maternal smoking in pregnancy. Model 2 adjusts for other socio-demographic factors associated with the exposure of main interest (three or more social health issues) and the outcome variable (low birthweight) in univariable analyses. Models 3 and 4 include smoking status and all of the socio-demographic variables included in model 2, and adjust separately for number of antenatal visits (model 3) and risk of complications in pregnancy (model 4). All models indicate a dose effect related to number of stressful life events and social health issues. All models that fitted maternal country of birth indicated that women born overseas in non-English speaking countries had significantly raised odds of having a low birthweight infant.
Table 5

Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessing associations with low birthweight (n = 3650)

 

< 2500 grams

No. (%)

Unadjusted OR

(95% CI)

Model 1

Adj OR

(95% CI)

Model 2

Adj OR

(95% CI)s

Model 3

Adj OR

(95% CI)

Model 4

Adj OR

(95% CI)

Stressful life events/social health issues

      

No issues

40 (3.3)

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1-2 issues

75 (4.1)

1.27 (0.9-1.9)

1.26 (0.9-1.9)

1.24 (0.8-1.8)

1.22 (0.8-1.8)

1.13 (0.8-1.7)

≥3 issues

38 (6.2)

1.94 (1.2-3.1)

1.80 (1.1-2.9)

1.77 (1.1-2.8)

1.72 (1.1-2.8)

1.44 (1.0-2.3)

Smoking status

      

Non-smoker

120 (4.0)

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

Quit in pregnancy

9 (3.0)

0.76 (0.4-1.5)

0.72 (0.36-1.4)

0.69 (0.3-1.4)

0.71 (0.4-1.4)

0.67 (0.3-1.3)

Smoking throughout pregnancy

24 (7.5)

1.97 (1.3-3.1)

1.76 (1.1-2.8)

1.75 (1.1-2.8)

1.57 (1.0-2.6)

1.82 (1.1-3.0)

Maternal country of birth

      

Australia

113 (3.8)

1.00 ref

 

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

Overseas - English speaking

13 (5.8)

1.58 (0.9-2.8)

 

1.66 (0.9-3.0)

1.54 (0.8-2.8)

1.60 (0.9-2.9)

Overseas - Non-English speaking

27 (6.4)

1.76 (1.1-2.7)

 

1.85 (1.2-2.9)

1.80 (1.1-2.8)

1.90 (1.2-3.0)

Maternal pre-pregnant BMI

      

Underweight (< 18.5)

11 (6.8)

1.62 (0.8-3.1)

 

1.37 (0.7-2.6)

1.37 (0.7-2.6)

1.39 (0.7-2.7)

Normal weight (18.5-24.9)

93 (4.3)

1.00 ref

 

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

Overweight (25-29.9)

33 (4.0)

0.92 (0.6-1.4)

 

0.92 (0.6-1.4)

0.94 (0.6-1.4)

0.81 (0.5-1.2)

Obese (≥30)

16 (3.1)

0.69 (0.4-1.2)

 

0.69 (0.4-1.2)

0.72 (0.4-1.2)

0.54 (0.3-0.9)

Educational attainment

      

Completed year 12

113 (3.9)

1.00 ref

 

1.00 ref

1.00 ref

1.0 ref

Did not complete year 12

40 (5.4)

1.46 (1.0-2.1)

 

1.36 (0.9-2.0)

1.30 (0.9-1.9)

1.27 (0.9-1.9)

Number of antenatal visits

      

≥5 visits

133 (3.8)

1.00 ref

  

1.00 ref

 

< 5 visits

20 (14.3)

4.23 (2.6-7.0)

  

3.48 (2.1-5.8)

 

Risk of complications in pregnancy

      

Lower risk

40 (1.8)

1.00 ref

   

1.00 ref

Higher risk

113 (7.9)

4.72 (3.3-6.8)

   

4.83 (3.3-7.0)

Model 1: exposures of main interest adjusted for smoking status

Model 2: exposure of main interest adjusted for smoking status, maternal country of birth, maternal BMI, maternal education.

Model 3: exposure of main interest adjusted for smoking status, maternal country of birth, maternal BMI, maternal education and number of antenatal visits

Model 4: exposure of main interest adjusted for smoking status, maternal country of birth, maternal BMI, maternal education and risk of complications in pregnancy

Discussion

Over 30 years ago Archie Cochrane noted that antenatal care had escaped critical assessment in terms of content [33]. There is still a paucity of research evaluating the effectiveness of antenatal interventions specifically targeting modifiable risk factors for poor maternal and/or child health outcomes [3436]. Recent efforts to improve the evidence base for antenatal care have focused on clinical care, smoking cessation support and on assessment of recommended visit schedules [3740]. The relationship between the content and organisation of antenatal care and subsequent maternal and child health outcomes has received scant attention [36]. For example, scientific knowledge about the extent to which different approaches to care (e.g. model of maternity care, pregnancy outreach workers) may influence nutrition, exercise habits, oral health, smoking, drug use, choices regarding infant feeding method, maternal depression or anxiety, intimate partner violence, inter pregnancy interval, and post pregnancy use of health services is negligible.

Our findings from a large Australian population-based survey of recent mothers attest to the high prevalence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as smoking and overweight and obesity. They also highlight a concerning level of social adversity associated with stressful life events and social health issues co-occurring with pregnancy. One in six women reported three or more stressful life events or social health issues in the 12 months before the birth. These women were much more likely to perceive that they were discriminated against in health care settings, to attend later in pregnancy and to have fewer antenatal visits. Women coping with multiple life events or social health issues remain significantly more likely to have a low birthweight infant when maternal smoking, number of antenatal visits, and other covariates are taken into account. Interpretation of the relationship between timing and number of antenatal visits and infant birthweight is complex. Our data show that some groups of women are less likely to access antenatal care early, and to attend regularly during pregnancy. The same groups of women are more likely to have adverse outcomes. This does not signify causation, but it does suggest that women who most need care and support during pregnancy are more likely to not to engage with services.

Several study limitations need to be considered. First, we used a modified life events scale originally developed for use in pregnancy [41] that has also been used in large scale maternity surveys in the United States and Canada [16, 30, 42]. Modifications made based on piloting and consultations preceding implementation of the HMHF Survey have not been subject to psychometric testing. Nor have we sought in this paper to differentiate different types of stressors. Our primary aim was to assess the association between low birthweight and number of stressful life events and social health issues and consider potential implications for the care of women during pregnancy. Consideration of broader questions regarding the relationship between different types of stress in pregnancy and area level deprivation are beyond the scope of analyses presented in the paper.

Second, it is plausible that women having a low birthweight infant may be more inclined to recall adverse life events in pregnancy than women who have an infant of higher birthweight, although this potential source of bias may have been lessened by the time elapsed between the birth and completing the survey at around six months postpartum. Third, we were not able to validate maternal recall of infant birthweight or maternal smoking in pregnancy. Validation studies comparing mothers' accounts of infant birthweight with medical records have shown high levels of agreement for this outcome as opposed to gestation, where there are more mixed findings [43, 44]. This was the reason for reporting infant birthweight, rather than small for gestational age. We acknowledge the potential for misclassification of maternal smoking status in early and late pregnancy. However, our finding that 17.6% of study participants reported smoking in pregnancy is in accord with routinely collected data available for seven Australian states and territories in 2007 which indicate that 16.6% of women smoked in pregnancy [25]. We used a multiple response format for seeking information about maternal smoking which has been shown to improve disclosure of maternal smoking in self-administered questionnaires [29]. Fourth, the sample while relatively large, provided low numbers in sub-groups for some comparisons (e.g. single women, Indigenous women).

Strengths of the study include a population-based sample drawn from two out of the eight Australian states and territories. The sampled population for the survey comprised 15% of confinements in South Australia and 8% in Victoria in 2007. While it is not possible to determine causal pathways in an observational study, the findings draw attention to social circumstances in women's lives that may place them at higher risk of poor perinatal and longer term outcomes. They also draw attention to vulnerable population groups who may be at additional risk.

Conclusions

Developing the infrastructure to support an integrated primary care approach to antenatal care in which services have the capacity to respond effectively to social circumstances in women's lives and to vulnerable populations is long overdue, and requires far reaching changes involving both hospital and community based services [45]. The recently released NICE clinical guideline on service provision for pregnant women with complex social factors provides an excellent starting point and practical recommendations focusing on four vulnerable population groups: pregnant women who misuse substances, young pregnant women, pregnant women experiencing intimate partner violence and pregnant women who are recent migrants, asylum seekers or refugees [46]. Another important area for intervention is pre-conception, especially during adolescence and during early adulthood. There are major challenges for policy makers and health services in developing an appropriately skilled workforce; development of a life-course approach to promotion of maternal, newborn and child health that includes a focus on public health intervention during pregnancy and prior to conception; development of team work and collaboration within and across agencies; facilitating professional, consumer and community participation; and investment in monitoring and evaluation to ensure outcome based accountability. A shift in this direction requires fundamentally different thinking and co-ordinated action across sectors to bring about system wide changes [47, 48]. Only if this challenge is embraced will health care services be capable of developing effective proactive approaches to potentially modifiable risks and health needs in diverse populations.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the thousands of women who participated in the survey at a particularly busy time in their lives; staff at the hospitals in South Australia and Victoria who assisted with mailing out the survey; to the following study investigators who contributed to development of the research protocol and conduct of the study: Mary-Anne Biro, Jane Gunn, Georgie Stamp and Euan Wallace; and to staff at the Healthy Mothers Healthy Families research group, especially those who have made a significant contribution to the conduct of the study: Penny Marlowe, Jenny Kelly, Jan Wiebe, Maggie Flood, Monique Keel, Catherine Chisholm.

The study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council project grant ID: 433012 (2007-2010) and grants from the South Australian Department of Health (2007-2008) and Victorian Department of Human Services (2007-2008). All researchers are independent from these sources of funding. The study sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the article, and the decision to submit it for publication.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Healthy Mothers Healthy Families Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute
(2)
Department of General Practice and School of Population Health, University of Melbourne
(3)
Women's and Children's Hospital, University of Adelaide

References

  1. Marmot M: Fair society, healthy lives: The Marmot Review. 2010, London, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health: Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. 2009, Geneva, World Health OranisationGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Government, Preventative Health Taskforce: Australia: The Healthiest Country by 2020 - National Preventative Health Strategy - Overview;. 2009, Accessed June 2010, [http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/AEC223A781D64FF0CA2575FD00075DD0/$File/nphs-overview.pdf]Google Scholar
  4. Jefferis BJMH, Power C, Hertzman C: Birth weight, childhood economic environment, and cognitive development in the 1958 British birth cohort study. BMJ. 2002, 325: 305-10.1136/bmj.325.7359.305.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Power C, Jefferis BJ, Manor O, Hertzman C: The influence of birthweight and socioeconomic position on cognitive development: does early home and learning environment modify their effects?. J Pediatr. 2006, 148 (1): 54-61. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.07.028.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kuh D, Power C, Biane D, Bartley M: Social pathways between childhood and adult health. A Lifecourse Approach to Chronic Disease. Edited by: Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y. 1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 169-198.Google Scholar
  7. O'Campo P, Xue X, Wang MC, Caughy M: Neighbourhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimore: a multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1997, 87 (7): 1113-1118.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Pattenden S, Dolk H, Vrijheid M: Inequalities in low birthweight: parental social class, area deprivation, and "lone mother" status. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999, 3 (6): 355-358. 10.1136/jech.53.6.355.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Buka SL, Brennan RT, Rich-Edwards JW, Raudenbush SW, Earls F: Neighbourhood support and the birthweight of urban infants. Am J Epidemiol. 2003, 157 (1): 1-8. 10.1093/aje/kwf170.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moser K, Li L, Power C: Social inequalities in low birth weight in England and Wales: trends and implications for future population health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003, 57 (9): 687-691. 10.1136/jech.57.9.687.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Dibben C, Sigala M, Macfarlane A: Area deprivation, individual factors and low birthweight in England: is there eveidence of an "area effect"?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006, 60 (12): 1053-1059. 10.1136/jech.2005.042853.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gissler M, Rahkonen O, Arntzen A, Cnattingius S, Nybo Andersen A-M: Trends in socio-economic differences in Finnish perinatal care 1991-2006. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009, 63 (6): 420-425. 10.1136/jech.2008.079921.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pattenden S, Casson K, Cook S, Dolk H: Geographic variation in infant mortality, stillbirth and low birth weight in Northern Ireland, 1992-2002. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010, [published online ahead of print 30 August 2010]Google Scholar
  14. Janevic T, Stein CR, Savitz DA, Kaufman JS, Mason SM, Herring AH: Neighbourhood deprivation and adverse outcomes among diverse ethnic groups. Ann Epidemiol. 2010, 20 (6): 445-451. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.02.010.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Khashan AS, McNamee R, Abel KM, Pedersen MG, Webb RT, et al: Reduced infant birthweight consequent upon maternal exposure to severe life events. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2008, 70 (6): 688-694. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e318177940d.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nkansah-Amankra S, Luchok KJ, Hussey JR, Watkins K, Liu X: Effects of maternal stress on low birthweight and preterm birth outcomes across neighbourhoods of South Carolina, 2000-2003. Matern Child Health J. 2010, 14 (2): 215-226. 10.1007/s10995-009-0447-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhu P, Tao F, Hao J, Sun Y, Jiang X: Prenatal life events stress: implications for preterm birth and infant birthweight. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010, 203 (1): 34.e1-8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.023.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Janssen PA, Hot VL, Sugg NK, Emanuel I, Critchlow CM, Henderson AD: Intimate partner violence and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a population based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 188 (5): 1341-7. 10.1067/mob.2003.274.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Silverman JG, Decker MR, Reed E, Raj A: Intimate partner violence victimization prior to and during pregnancy among women residing in 26 US states: associations with maternal and neonatal health. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006, 195 (1): 140-148. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K: Abuse during pregnancy: associations with maternal health and infant birthweight. Nursing Research. 1996, 45 (1): 37-42. 10.1097/00006199-199601000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell JC: Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002, 359: 1331-1336. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rondó PH, Ferreira RF, Nogueira F, Ribeiro MC, Lobert H, Artes R: Maternal psychological stress and distress as predictors of low birth weight, prematurity and intrauterine growth retardation. European J Clin Nutrition. 2003, 57 (2): 266-272.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hosseini SM, Biglan MW, Larkby C, Brooks MM, Gorin MB, Day NL: Trait anxiety in pregnant women predicts offspring birth outcomes. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol. 2009, 23 (6): 557-566. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01065.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramer MS, Séguin L, Lydon J, Goulet L: Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fair so poorly?. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol. 2000, 14 (3): 194-210. 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2000.00266.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Laws P, Sullivan EA: Australia's mothers and babies 2007. 2009, Perinatal Statistics Series No. 23. Cat. No. PER 48, Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics UnitGoogle Scholar
  26. Brown S, Lumley J: Antenatal care: a case of the inverse care law?. Aust J Public Health. 1993, 17: 95-102. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1993.tb00115.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Brown S, Lumley J: The 1993 Survey of Recent Mothers: issues in design, analysis and influencing policy. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997, 9: 265-277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Brown S, Darcy M-A, Bruinsma F: Having a baby in Victoria 1989-2000. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002, 26 (3): 242-50. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2002.tb00681.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mullen PD, Carbonari JP, Tabak ER, Glenday MC: Improving disclosure of smoking by pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991, 165 (2): 409-13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitehead NS, Brogan DJ, Blackmore-Prince C, Hill HA: Correlates of experiencing life events just before or during pregnancy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2003, 24 (2): 77-86. 10.3109/01674820309042805.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Paradies YC, Cunningham J: Development and validation of the Measure of Indigenous Racism Experience (MIRE). Int J Equity Health. 2008, 7: 9-10.1186/1475-9276-7-9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Stata Corporation: Stata Statistical Software Release 11. 2009, College Station, Texas: Stat CorporationGoogle Scholar
  33. Cochrane A: Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections on health services. 1972, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals TrustGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindmark G, Berendes H, Meirik O: Antenatal care in developed countries. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol. 1998, 12 (Supp 2): 4-6. 10.1046/j.1365-3016.12.s2.5.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M: Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: history, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Reports. 2001, 116 (4): 306-316.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. WHO: Regional Office for Europe (Health Evidence Network report). Accessed April 2010, [http://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/finalreport/en/index.html]
  37. Carroli G, Villar J, Piaggio G, Khan-Neelofur D, Gülmezoglu M, Mugford M, Lumbiganon P, Bergsjo P, for the WHO Antenatal Care Trial Research Group: WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care. Lancet. 2001, 357: 1565-70. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04723-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sikorski J, Wilson J, Clement S, Das S, Smeeton N: A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project. BMJ. 1996, 312: 546-553.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Villar J, Ba'aqeel H, Piaggio G, Lumbiganon P, Belizan JM, Al-Mazrou Y, Carroli G, Pinol A, Donner A, Langer A, Nigenda G, Mugford M, Fox-Rushby J, Hutton G, Bergsjo P, Bakketeig L, Berendes H, for the WHO Antenatal Care Trial Research Group: WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care. Lancet. 2001, 357: 1551-1564. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04722-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lumley J, Chamberlain C, Dowswell T, Oliver S, Oakley L, Watson L: Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009, CD001055-3
  41. Newton RW, Hunt LP: Psychosocial stress in pregnancy and its relation to low birth weight. BMJ. 1984, 288: 1191-94. 10.1136/bmj.288.6425.1191.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Kingston D, Heaman M, Fell D, Dzakpasu S, Chalmers B: Factors associated with perceived stress and stressful life events in pregnant women: findings from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey. Matern Child Health J. 2010, [published online ahead of print 17 December 2010]Google Scholar
  43. Olson JE, Shu XO, Ross JA, Pendergrass T, Robison LL: Medical record validation of maternally reported birth characteristics and pregnancy-related events: a report from the Children's Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1997, 145 (1): 58-67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lansakara N, Brown S, Flood M, Gartland D: Congruity between maternal recall of obstetric events and hospital medical records. J Paed Child Health. 2010, 46 (Suppl 1): A129-Google Scholar
  45. Kerber KJ, de Graft-Johnson JE, Bhutta ZA, Okong P, Starrs A, Lawn JE: Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery. Lancet. 2007, 370: 1358-69. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61578-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. NICE clinical guideline 110: Pregnancy and complex social factors: a model for service provision for pregnant women with complex social factors. 2010, Accessed 24 September 2010, [http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance]Google Scholar
  47. Ekman B, Pathmanathan I, Liljestrand J: Integrating health interventions for women, newborn babies and children; a framework for action. Lancet. 2008, 372: 990-1000. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61408-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Frenk J: Reinventing primary health care: the need for systems integration. Lancet. 2009, 374: 170-173. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60693-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/196/prepub

Copyright

© Brown et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement