4.3 Article

Risk Factors for Preterm Birth and Small-for-gestational-age Births among Canadian Women

期刊

PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 54-61

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12016

关键词

preterm birth; small-for-gestational-age; risk factors; epidemiology; Maternity Experiences Survey

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Preterm births (PTB) and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births are distinct but related pregnancy outcomes, with differing aetiologies and short and long-term morbidities. Few studies have compared a broad array of predictors among these two outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare risk factors for PTB and SGA births using a national sample of Canadian women. Methods We analysed data from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey (n?=?6421). Mothers were =15 years of age, gave birth to a singleton infant and were living with their infant at the time of the interview (between 5 and 14 months post-partum). Backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression models were constructed for each outcome. Results Risk profiles for the two outcomes had both differences and similarities. Risk factors specific to PTB were education less than high school, having a previous medical condition, developing a new medical condition or health problem during pregnancy, being a primigravida, or being a multigravida with a previous PTB or a previous miscarriage or abortion. Risk factors unique to SGA were low pre-pregnancy body mass index (<18?kg/m2), smoking during pregnancy and being a recent immigrant. Risk factors for both outcomes included low weight gain during pregnancy (<9.1?kg), short stature (<155?cm) and reporting life as very stressful in the year prior to birth of the baby. Conclusion A greater understanding of the risk factors related to PTB and SGA may help to reduce the prevalence of these conditions and the associated risk of infant mortality and morbidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据