Pregnancy outcomes of forced migrants in the Netherlands: A national registry-based study

IF 3.9 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
J.B. Tankink , L.C.M. Bertens , J.P. de Graaf , M.E.T.C. van den Muijsenbergh , J.N. Struijs , B. Goodarzi , A. Franx
{"title":"Pregnancy outcomes of forced migrants in the Netherlands: A national registry-based study","authors":"J.B. Tankink ,&nbsp;L.C.M. Bertens ,&nbsp;J.P. de Graaf ,&nbsp;M.E.T.C. van den Muijsenbergh ,&nbsp;J.N. Struijs ,&nbsp;B. Goodarzi ,&nbsp;A. Franx","doi":"10.1016/j.jmh.2024.100261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The rise of global forced migration urges healthcare systems to respond to the needs of forced migrants (FM) during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, comprehensive data on the health outcomes of pregnant FM in destination countries remain scarce. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancy in this specific migrant population on a national scale in the Netherlands and to explore differences from other populations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Dutch perinatal registry was linked to national migration data to analyze pregnancy outcomes in FM (2014–2019), using non-migrants (NM) and resident migrants (RM) as reference populations. We reported outcome rates (% [95 % CI]) for a range of primary and secondary pregnancy outcomes. Primary outcomes included perinatal mortality, small for gestational age infants (SGA), preterm birth, and emergency cesarean section (CS), for which we also calculated the crude relative risk (RR [95 % CI]) of FM compared to NM and RM. In addition, we conducted binary logistic regression analyses on primary outcomes to report adjusted odds ratios (aORs [95 % CIs]) while controlling for multiple births, maternal age and parity.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Compared to the NM group, the FM group had increased risks of perinatal mortality (RR 1.50 [95 % CI 1.20–1.88]), SGA (1.65 [1.59–1.71], and emergency CS (1.19 [1.13–1.25]). Compared to RM, FM still had elevated risks of SGA (1.17 [1.13–1.22]). In contrast, the risk of preterm birth was lower in FM than in NM (0.81 [0.76–0.86]) and RM (0.83 [0.77–0.88]). These differences were confirmed in the adjusted analysis. Differences in secondary outcomes included higher rates of late antenatal care in FM (29.4 % [28.5–30.3]) than in NM (6.7 % [6.6–6.9]) and RM (15.5 % [15.1–15.9]). Rates of planned CS were similarly elevated (14.3 % [95 % CI 13.7–14.8] versus 7.·8 % [7.7–7.8] and 9.6 % [9.5–9.7]), while FM had lower rates of postpartum hemorrhage (3.9 % [3.6–4.2]) versus 6.8 % [6.8–6.9] and 5.7 % [5.6–5.9]).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This first Dutch registry-based study demonstrated increased risks of multiple, though not all, adverse pregnancy outcomes in forced migrants. Our results emphasize the imperative to further unravel and address migration-related disparities, dismantle structural barriers to health among forced migrants, and improve the inclusivity of data systems. Collaborative policy, clinical practice, and research efforts are essential to ensure equitable care for every individual, regardless of migration status.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34448,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Migration and Health","volume":"10 ","pages":"Article 100261"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623524000503/pdfft?md5=55b03b494b2619d5166bd63fa9a94278&pid=1-s2.0-S2666623524000503-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Migration and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623524000503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The rise of global forced migration urges healthcare systems to respond to the needs of forced migrants (FM) during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, comprehensive data on the health outcomes of pregnant FM in destination countries remain scarce. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancy in this specific migrant population on a national scale in the Netherlands and to explore differences from other populations.

Methods

The Dutch perinatal registry was linked to national migration data to analyze pregnancy outcomes in FM (2014–2019), using non-migrants (NM) and resident migrants (RM) as reference populations. We reported outcome rates (% [95 % CI]) for a range of primary and secondary pregnancy outcomes. Primary outcomes included perinatal mortality, small for gestational age infants (SGA), preterm birth, and emergency cesarean section (CS), for which we also calculated the crude relative risk (RR [95 % CI]) of FM compared to NM and RM. In addition, we conducted binary logistic regression analyses on primary outcomes to report adjusted odds ratios (aORs [95 % CIs]) while controlling for multiple births, maternal age and parity.

Findings

Compared to the NM group, the FM group had increased risks of perinatal mortality (RR 1.50 [95 % CI 1.20–1.88]), SGA (1.65 [1.59–1.71], and emergency CS (1.19 [1.13–1.25]). Compared to RM, FM still had elevated risks of SGA (1.17 [1.13–1.22]). In contrast, the risk of preterm birth was lower in FM than in NM (0.81 [0.76–0.86]) and RM (0.83 [0.77–0.88]). These differences were confirmed in the adjusted analysis. Differences in secondary outcomes included higher rates of late antenatal care in FM (29.4 % [28.5–30.3]) than in NM (6.7 % [6.6–6.9]) and RM (15.5 % [15.1–15.9]). Rates of planned CS were similarly elevated (14.3 % [95 % CI 13.7–14.8] versus 7.·8 % [7.7–7.8] and 9.6 % [9.5–9.7]), while FM had lower rates of postpartum hemorrhage (3.9 % [3.6–4.2]) versus 6.8 % [6.8–6.9] and 5.7 % [5.6–5.9]).

Conclusion

This first Dutch registry-based study demonstrated increased risks of multiple, though not all, adverse pregnancy outcomes in forced migrants. Our results emphasize the imperative to further unravel and address migration-related disparities, dismantle structural barriers to health among forced migrants, and improve the inclusivity of data systems. Collaborative policy, clinical practice, and research efforts are essential to ensure equitable care for every individual, regardless of migration status.

荷兰被迫移民的妊娠结局:基于全国登记册的研究
背景全球被迫移民人数的增加敦促医疗保健系统应对被迫移民(FM)在怀孕和分娩期间的需求。然而,有关目的地国被迫移民孕妇健康状况的综合数据仍然很少。本研究旨在描述荷兰全国范围内这一特殊移民群体的妊娠特征、孕产妇和围产期结局,并探讨与其他人群的差异。方法将荷兰围产期登记与全国移民数据相链接,以非移民(NM)和常住移民(RM)为参考人群,分析FM的妊娠结局(2014-2019年)。我们报告了一系列主要和次要妊娠结局的结果率(% [95 % CI])。主要结果包括围产期死亡率、小于胎龄儿(SGA)、早产和紧急剖宫产(CS),我们还计算了与 NM 和 RM 相比,FM 的粗相对风险(RR [95 % CI])。此外,我们还对主要结果进行了二元逻辑回归分析,以报告调整后的几率比(aORs [95 % CIs]),同时控制多胎、产妇年龄和奇偶数。结果与 NM 组相比,FM 组围产期死亡(RR 1.50 [95 % CI 1.20-1.88])、SGA(1.65 [1.59-1.71] 和紧急剖宫产(1.19 [1.13-1.25])的风险增加。与 RM 相比,FM 的 SGA 风险仍然较高(1.17 [1.13-1.22])。相比之下,FM 的早产风险低于 NM(0.81 [0.76-0.86])和 RM(0.83 [0.77-0.88])。这些差异在调整分析中得到了证实。次要结果的差异包括:FM(29.4% [28.5-30.3])的晚产前护理率高于NM(6.7% [6.6-6.9])和RM(15.5% [15.1-15.9])。计划内分娩率同样升高(14.3% [95 % CI 13.7-14.8] 对 7.-8 % [7.7-7.8] 和 9.6 % [9.5-9.7]),而新生儿产后出血率较低(3.9 % [3.6-4.结论这项首次基于荷兰登记册的研究表明,被迫移民发生多种不良妊娠结局的风险增加,但并非所有不良妊娠结局。我们的研究结果表明,必须进一步揭示和解决与移民相关的差异,消除影响被迫移民健康的结构性障碍,并提高数据系统的包容性。政策、临床实践和研究方面的合作对于确保为每个人提供公平的医疗服务至关重要,无论其移民身份如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Migration and Health
Journal of Migration and Health Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
65
审稿时长
153 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信