Home  ›  These Babies Are Twice as Likely as Caucasian or Hispanic Babies to Suffer From Low Birth Weight.

These Babies Are Twice as Likely as Caucasian or Hispanic Babies to Suffer From Low Birth Weight.

Written By Sunday, 6 March 2022 Add Comment Edit
  • Research article
  • Open Admission
  • Published:

Recent trends, risk factors, and disparities in low birth weight in California, 2005–2014: a retrospective written report

  • Steven South. Parryone,
  • Vivi N. Ariefthree,
  • Ian H. DeLacyiii,
  • Laura A. Halliday2,
  • Ralph J. DiLibero1 &
  • Kaye E. Basford3,four

Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology volume iv, Commodity number:fifteen (2018) Cite this commodity

  • 15k Accesses

  • 18 Citations

  • 20 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Depression birth weight (LBW) is a leading take chances factor for infant morbidity and bloodshed in the Usa. In that location are large disparities in the prevalence of LBW by race and ethnicity, especially between African American and White women. Despite extensive research, the practise of clinical and public health, and policies devoted to reducing the number of LBW infants, the prevalence of LBW has remained unacceptably and consistently high. There have been few detailed studies identifying the factors associated with LBW in California, which is dwelling to a highly diverse population. The aim of this report is to investigate recent trends in the prevalence of LBW infants (measured as a percentage) and to identify take chances factors and disparities associated with LBW in California.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study included data on 5,267,519 births recorded in the California Nascency Statistical Master Files for the period 2005–2014. These data included maternal characteristics, wellness behaviors, data on health insurance, prenatal care apply, and parity. Logistic regression models identified significant take chances factors associated with LBW. Using gestational age based on obstetric estimates (OA), small for gestational historic period (SGA), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and big for gestational age (LGA) infants were identified for the periods 2007–2014.

Results

The number of LBW infants declined, from 37,603 in 2005 to 33,447 in 2014. However, the prevalence of LBW did not modify significantly (6.ix% in 2005 to half-dozen.7% in 2014). The mean maternal age at get-go delivery increased from 25.7 years in 2005 to 27.2 years in 2014. The adapted odds ratio showed that women aged 40 to 54 years were twice as probable to have an LBW baby equally women in the 20 to 24 age group. African American women had a persistent ii.4-fold greater prevalence of having an LBW infant compared with white women. Maternal age was a pregnant risk factor for LBW regardless of maternal race and ethnicity or education level. During the menstruation 2017–2014, 5.4% of the singleton births at 23–41 weeks based on OE of gestational age were SGA infants (preterm SGA + term SGA). While all the preterm SGA infants were LBW, both preterm AGA and term SGA infants had a higher prevalence of LBW.

Conclusions

In California, during the 10 years from 2005 to 2014, there was no significant decline in the prevalence of LBW. However, maternal historic period was a significant adventure factor for LBW regardless of maternal race and ethnicity or education level. Therefore, there may exist opportunities to reduce the prevalence of LBW by reducing disparities and improving nascence outcomes for women of advanced maternal age.

Background

The terminology currently used to describe infants with a depression birth weight (LBW) for a given gestational historic period varies, including the terms small-scale for gestational historic period, intrauterine growth restriction, and fetal growth restriction (FGR) [one, 2]. Modest for gestational age is defined as a birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age [1]. Still, some infants with a birth weight below the tenth percentile are normal, and their depression weight is due to maternal constitutional factors including weight, elevation, parity, and ethnicity. These infants exercise not necessarily have an increased risk for perinatal morbidity and mortality [i, 2]. The term FGR is defined every bit an antepartum estimated fetal weight less than the tenth percentile for gestational age and its presence may exist due to genetic or environmental factors. Well-nigh infants with FGR are built-in pocket-size for gestational historic period. Moderate FGR is defined as a nascency weight in the 3rd to tenth percentile, and astringent FGR is defined as a birth weight less than the third percentile [i, ii].

The prevalence of LBW is greater in resource-limited countries. While current data testify that up to 10% of term infants in developed countries have LBW, that figure is 20% in developing countries [three]. A recent report indicates that 19% of infants in resources-express areas are born with LBW, and 22% of reported neonatal deaths occur in infants with LBW [3]. In 2012, the Kid Health Epidemiology Reference Group evaluated 14 nativity cohorts and practical the nascence weight standards specified by the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the twenty-showtime Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). Using this definition, LBW was found in 19.3% of alive births in depression-income and centre-income countries, and 22% of neonatal deaths occurred in infants built-in pocket-sized for gestational age [iii].

Perinatal bloodshed increases in infants with LBW, whether they are born at term or preterm [ii, four, 5]. Perinatal mortality increases every bit birth weight decreases, as shown in a recently published population-based study from Canada, where the highest infant mortality was establish in infants with a nascency weight less than the fifth percentile, for both term and preterm infants [5]. There are several factors that contribute to increased morbidity and mortality in LBW infants, including congenital malformations, cardiac and respiratory disorders, and perinatal asphyxia [2]. Co-ordinate to the INTERGROWTH-21st standards, infants with LBW are those born weighing less than 2500 g. Intrauterine growth restriction and preterm birth are often associated with LBW. Outcomes associated with LBW include curt-term fetal or neonatal morbidity, including respiratory distress syndrome and necrotizing enterocolitis; long-term morbidity, including blindness and cerebral palsy; and early neonatal and infant bloodshed [6].

In 1995, David Barker first proposed that the fetal environment and early on infant health status permanently program the development of the individual into old age, a theory known as the Barker hypothesis, or "fetal origins of developed disease" [7, 8]. Several epidemiological studies have confirmed that LBW is associated not only with developmental issues in surviving infants [9], simply with the development of chronic weather or diseases in adulthood, including coronary artery affliction [9,x,eleven,12,xiii], stroke, reduced os mass, dyslipidemia, hypertension, type II diabetes mellitus [14], cancer, osteoporosis, and psychiatric illnesses [viii, 15,xvi,17,xviii]. Despite extensive enquiry devoted to reducing the number of LBW infants, as well every bit policy statements and clinical and public health practices with the same aim, the prevalence of LBW in the The states has remained unacceptably and consistently high. In addition, racial and ethnic disparities in nativity outcomes are well documented in the United States.

Life grade health development models may exist used to improve public wellness outcomes, including in the maternal and child health community [19]. As Pies and Kotelchuck (2014) described, there is a need for a framework to address the social determinants and causes of health inequalities and the current facilitators of disparities in maternal and babe wellness [20, 21].

The aim of this study is to examine the electric current trends in the prevalence of LBW in California, using the Birth Statistical Master Files (BSMF) compiled by the California Section of Public Wellness (CDPH), and to identify meaning predictors of LBW and racial and ethnic disparities in LBW. Past identifying these risk factors and disparities, intervention strategies can exist developed to reduce the prevalence of LBW and ameliorate the health of the general population, now and into the futurity.

Methods

Data sources and study design

We consulted the BSMF, compiled by the CDPH, for the period 2005 through 2014. The written report was approved by the California Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects (Protocol ID: sixteen–10-2759) and the CDPH Vital Statistics Advisory Committee.

In this retrospective cohort report, we collected data on Californian resident births in the years 2005 to 2014. Descriptive statistics were used to narrate all resident births and the prevalence of LBW each twelvemonth, according to maternal characteristics and perinatal health behavior variables obtained from the BSMF information fix.

LBW equally a response variable

The response variable in this study was LBW infants. Nativity weight was obtained from the birth files and coded as a dichotomous variable to indicate whether the infant was LBW (< 2500 grand). Data cleaning was performed before analysis to exclude births with missing data on nativity weight and those with any out-of-range values. There were 877 excluded nativity records out of v,267,519 resident births from 2005 to 2014.

Explanatory maternal variables

The explanatory variables considered were maternal sociodemographic status, prenatal health beliefs, wellness insurance condition, prenatal intendance use during the beginning trimester, and parity [22]. Maternal sociodemographic characteristics included maternal age, education, race and ethnicity, and identify of birth and residence. Prenatal health behaviors included smoking during both first and second trimesters and maternal prepregnancy body mass index (BMI). Obesity is commonly classified according to BMI, which is calculated as the individual's weight in kilograms divided by their pinnacle in meters squared (kg/mii). Using the criteria of the World Health Organization, underweight is classified every bit a BMI < 18.v kg/m2, normal weight as 18.v to 24.9 kg/g2, overweight as 25.0 to 29.nine kg/m2; obesity course I equally 30.0 to 34.9 kg/thou2, obese obesity course II every bit 35.0 to 39.9, kg/chiliad2 and obesity class III as ≥ 40 kg/one thousandii [23]. The type of wellness insurance was divided into public (Medi-Cal) and private, considered rough predictors of depression and high income, respectively.

Relationship between birth weight and gestational age on fetal growth

Gestational age affects fetal growth and birth weight can be categorized every bit small for gestational age (SGA) (< tenth percentile), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) (tenth to 90th percentile), and large for gestational age (LGA) (> 90th percentile), using new gender specific intrauterine growth curves based on Usa data by Olsen et al. (2010) [24].

We extended these 3 categories to six categories by characterizing gestational age of 23–41 weeks for singleton births equally preterm (< 37 weeks of gestation) and term (≥ 37 weeks of gestation) births: preterm SGA, preterm AGA, preterm LGA, term SGA, term AGA, and term LGA [3]. The preterm AGA and term SGA groups were further extended into with and without LBW (< 2500 grand) infants.

Statistical analysis

To identify significant risk factors among the maternal characteristics and perinatal maternal health behaviors associated with LBW, we performed both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analysis. The adjusted analysis used multivariable logistic regression, decision-making for potential misreckoning variables in maternal and perinatal health behaviors.

The analysis was extended to study the prevalence of LBW based on all births according to two unlike interaction scenarios: first, between maternal age and maternal race and ethnicity; and 2d, between maternal education level and maternal race and ethnicity. Finally, multivariate logistic regression modeling approaches were used to written report these two interaction scenarios afterward controlling for appropriate confounding variables. Multivariate modeling was stratified by maternal age and maternal instruction level to elaborate disparities in race and ethnicity and to place the high-take a chance subgroups. The reference groups for maternal age, race and ethnicity, and educational activity level were the historic period group xx–24 years, white race, and an education level of a available's degree or college, respectively. Calculated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and p values are presented in the tables.

The logistic regression models were restricted to singleton births. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. All analyses were conducted using SAS, version nine.3 (SAS Plant Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

The descriptive statistics for the 5,267,519 resident births that occurred in California during the ten-year flow from 2005 to 2014 are listed in Additional file i: Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials. During this period, the mean maternal age for primiparous women increased past i.5 years, from 25.seven years in 2005 to 27.2 years in 2014.

Tabular array 1 shows the prevalence of LBW, according to each variable evaluated. Although the number of LBW infants decreased, from 37,603 in 2005 to 33,447 in 2014, the prevalence of LBW did not modify significantly during the study period (six.9% in 2005 to 6.7% in 2014).

Table i Total number of low nascence weight infants and prevalence according to maternal characteristics and perinatal health behaviors in California for the catamenia 2005–2014

Total size tabular array

Both unadjusted and adapted logistic regression analyses (Tabular array 2) showed pregnant differences in the prevalence of LBW within each characteristic studied: maternal historic period, education level, race and ethnicity, place of nascence and residence, demographic region, smoking condition, prepregnancy BMI, source of perinatal care payment, kickoff-trimester perinatal care, and parity (all p < 0.001).

Table 2 Crude and adjusted odds ratio of low nascence weight singleton births according to maternal characteristics and perinatal health behaviors in California for the catamenia 2005–2014

Full size table

Maternal historic period

The prevalence of births in younger women declined over the study period (Additional file i: Tabular array S1). Births in women younger than xx years decreased past 41%, from nine.3% in 2005 to v.4% in 2014. In young adults (age xx–24 years), births decreased past 18%, from 22.nine% in 2005 to eighteen.viii% in 2014. In contrast, births in older women increased over the ten-year study catamenia. Births in women aged 40–54 years increased by 20%, from 3.5% in 2005 to 4.3% in 2014; similar trends were observed for women in the age groups 30–34 years and 35–39 years. Table 1 shows the prevalence of LBW according to maternal characteristics and perinatal wellness behaviors for each twelvemonth of the study catamenia.

The unadjusted prevalence and AORs of LBW for singleton births by maternal age is presented in Fig. 1. Women in the oldest age group (40–54 years) were twice as likely to accept an LBW infant than women in the 20–24 years reference historic period grouping (AOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.95–2.06). The 35–39 years age group was 54% more probable to have an LBW baby compared with the reference historic period group (AOR, 1.54; 95% CI, ane.51–1.56). Women in the 30–34 years age grouping had a 25% greater chance of having an LBW baby (AOR, ane.25; 95% CI, one.23–1.27) (Fig. 1 and Tabular array two). Maternal age was a significant predictor of LBW in California.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Unadjusted prevalence and adapted odds ratios of low birth weight of singleton births by maternal age in California for the period 2005–2014

Full size image

Maternal race and ethnicity

Nearly 50% of births in California were to women of Hispanic ethnicity, followed by women who were White and Asian. Women of Asian ethnicity accounted for more 32% of the increment in LBW births, from xi.3% in 2005 to 14.9% in 2014 (Additional file ane: Tabular array S1).

In 2014, the overall prevalence of LBW was half dozen.7% (Tabular array i). Withal, eleven.8% of infants born to African American women were LBW compared with five.vii% of those born to White women and 6.3% of those born to Hispanic women (Table 1). In 2014, the prevalence of LBW infants born to African American women was near twice that of White women and 88% greater than in Hispanic women. From 2005 to 2014, the prevalence of LBW births decreased at a slower rate in African American women (7.7%) compared with White women (12.3%).

As shown in Tabular array ii, there were marked disparities in the prevalence of LBW infants born to women of different racial and ethnic groups. African American women had a persistent ii.4-fold prevalence of LBW infants throughout the written report period compared with White women (AOR, ii.41; 95% CI, 2.36–2.46).

Compared with White women, Asian women were eighty% more likely to give birth to an LBW infant (AOR, one.80; 95% CI, 1.76–i.83). Pacific Islanders were 50% more likely to give nascency to an LBW infant than White women (AOR, ane.50; 95% CI, 1.39–1.62), and Hispanic women were xxx% more probable to give birth to an LBW infant than White women (AOR, 1.30; 95% CI, one.28–one.32) (Table 2).

Interaction between maternal age and maternal race and ethnicity

To identify the association betwixt maternal age and race and ethnicity for LBW, nosotros cross-tabulated the data for LBW according to these two variables. As shown in Fig. 2, the prevalence of LBW was not consistent across maternal historic period for racial and indigenous groups. African American women had a consistently college prevalence of LBW compared with other races and ethnicities in each maternal age grouping. The broad gap in the prevalence of LBW between African American and White or Hispanic women was consistent for each age group (Fig. 2). Moreover, an about equivalent higher observed prevalence of LBW was observed for Asian women in the youngest and oldest historic period groups, resulting in a U-shaped response (Fig. 2). All race and indigenous groups showed rising prevalence of LBW with increasing age, especially from 30 years of age (Fig. 2), just the rate of increase was greatest for American Indian women.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Unadjusted prevalence of low birth weight by maternal historic period and maternal race and ethnicity in California for the menstruum 2005–2014

Full size image

Boosted file 1: Table S2 provides the adjusted odds ratios for maternal age for each racial and ethnic group. Equally indicated in the unadjusted prevalence (Fig. 2), the likelihood of having a LBW infant was greater with increasing maternal age, mostly from xxx years of age, with the highest prevalence for women in the age group 40–54 years. In contrast to other race and indigenous groups, Asian women were more than likely to have LBW infants when they were younger, less than 20 years of age, compared with the reference group - women in the age grouping twenty–24 years. American Indian women with a maternal historic period of 40–54 years were three times more likely to accept LBW infants than the reference age group of 20–24 years (Additional file 1: Table S2).

Maternal didactics level

In California, births in women with less than a complete high schoolhouse education decreased by 40%, from 27.3% in 2005 to 16.3% in 2014. During the same period, births in women with a loftier school diploma equally their highest level of education decreased by 12% (Boosted file 1: Table S1).

Tabular array 1 shows the prevalence of LBW co-ordinate to maternal pedagogy level. The prevalence of LBW differed in women by didactics level, although these variations were smaller than those observed for differing age or racial-ethnic group (Table 1). Women with less than a high school diploma had a 36% greater chance (AOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.34–1.39) of having an LBW infant than the reference group of women with a bachelor'southward caste or higher (Tabular array ii).

Interaction between maternal teaching level and race and ethnicity

To elaborate on the differences in LBW prevalence between maternal educational levels and race and ethnicity, we cantankerous-tabulated the data for LBW accordingly. As shown in Fig. iii, the prevalence of LBW from lower to higher educational levels differed beyond racial and indigenous groups (Fig. 2). Unadjusted LBW prevalence was quite like for women of Hispanic ethnicity, regardless of their educational level, but the magnitude of the disparity varied for other races (Fig. three). African American women of all education levels had a higher unadjusted prevalence of LBW than women of every other race and education level. The higher prevalence of LBW was most prominent amongst African American women with a less than high schoolhouse diploma. However, prevalence of LBW significantly declined with higher educational attainment, with the lowest prevalence amidst women with a available's degree or higher (Fig. iii).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Unadjusted prevalence of low nascency weight by maternal educational activity level and maternal race and ethnicity in California for the menstruation 2005–2014

Full size image

Boosted file 1: Table S3 presents adjusted odds ratios for maternal instruction level for each racial and ethnic group. Women in most race and ethnic groups with educational level less than a high school diploma were more likely to evangelize LBW infants when compared with women having a bachelor's degree or higher, simply to a lesser extent for Asian and Pacific Islander women (Additional file 1: Table S3).

Maternal identify of birth

From 2005 to 2014, births to strange-born women decreased by 18%, and births to United states-built-in women increased by nigh xvi% (Additional file 1: Table S1). Women built-in in the United States were fifteen% more than likely (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, i.thirteen–1.16) to take an LBW baby than were foreign-built-in women (Table 2).

Maternal geographic region

Inside each year, about 26% of California births occurred in Los Angeles County, followed by the greater Bay Surface area region with slightly more than 17%, and San Joaquin Valley with virtually 13% of births in the state (Boosted file 1: Table S1). Women in the San Joaquin Valley region were 20% more probable (AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, ane.16–ane.24) to accept an LBW babe compared with those in the Northern and Sierra regions (Table ii).

Perinatal wellness behaviors

Maternal smoking during both get-go and second trimesters decreased significantly, by 31%, from 2007 to 2014 (Additional file 1: Table S1). Women who smoked during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy were nigh twice equally likely (AOR, i.98; 95% CI, 1.92–ii.04) to take an LBW infant than women who did not fume (Table two).

The prevalence of LBW births in women who were underweight or of normal weight, based on their prepregnancy BMI, decreased past 9.1 and 6.3%, respectively, from 2007 to 2014. However, the prevalence of LBW births to women who were in the obese I, obese II, and obese III categories increased past 12.0, 21.3, and 26.9%, respectively, from 2007 to 2014 (Tabular array 1). While obesity did non increment the likelihood of LBW, underweight women (prepregnancy BMI < 18.5 kg/10002) were 49% more than probable to accept an LBW infant than were women of normal prepregnancy weight (AOR, 1.49; 95% CI, i.46–ane.52) (Table two).

Insurance type and first-trimester perinatal care

Consistent trends were observed for the percentages of births paid for by Medi-Cal and private insurance. The 2014 figures for California bear witness that 52.7% of births were covered by private insurance and 47.three% were covered by Medi-Cal. Women dependent on Medi-Cal as their source of perinatal care payment were 13% more than likely to have an LBW infant than women with private insurance (AOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.12–ane.xv) (Table ii). Overall, the use of first-trimester perinatal care decreased slightly, from 86.6% in 2005 to 83.ii% in 2014.

Birth characteristics

From 2005 to 2014, the prevalence of multiple births was consistent at 3.2% (Boosted file ane: Tabular array S1). Parity was consequent over the report period for each of the 3 groups considered: primiparous, multiparous with two to 5 deliveries, and multiparous with half dozen to 12 deliveries (Additional file ane: Tabular array S1). Women who were primiparous (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.55–1.58) or multiparous with vi to 12 births (AOR, i.20; 95% CI, 1.17–1.25) were more than likely to have an LBW infant than multiparous women with 2 to 5 births (Table 2).

Human relationship between birth weight and gestational historic period on fetal growth

Information on three,974,973 singleton births in California for the period 2007–2014 was available to elaborate on the human relationship between birth weight and gestational age based on OE (Fig. four). For these births at 23–41 weeks, the 7% of preterm births (< 37 weeks of gestation) comprised of 0.5% preterm SGA, 5.6% preterm AGA, and 1.0% preterm LGA. Among preterm AGA, 49.ii% of births were LBW infants while 100% of the preterm SGA births were LBW infants (Fig. 4).

Fig. four
figure 4

Distribution of singleton births at 23–41 weeks of gestation with respect to birth weight and gestational age based on obstetric estimates (OE) in California for the period 2007–2014. SGA: small for gestational age; AGA appropriate for gestational age, LGA large for gestational age, LBW low birth weight (< 2500 m)

Full size epitome

Of the 93% of term births (≥ 37 weeks of gestation), 4.9% were term SGA births, 81.7% term AGA births, and 6.4% term LGA births. Amongst term SGA births, the prevalence of LBW was 28.6% (Fig. 4). Overall, 5.4% of these singleton births at 23 to 41 weeks based on OE of gestational age were SGA infants (preterm SGA + term SGA).

Discussion

This retrospective cohort study, evaluating 5,267,519 resident births that occurred in California from 2005 to 2014, shows that the prevalence of LBW did not change significantly over that 10-yr menses.

Births to older women, aged from thirty to 54 years, increased over the study period, a tendency that is consistent with the steadily increasing national mean maternal historic period since 2006 [22, 25,26,27,28]. The term "advanced maternal age" is used for women who are aged 35 years or greater at the time of delivery; advanced maternal age is considered a major chance cistron for poorer pregnancy and perinatal outcomes [29, xxx]. Sauer (2015) discussed the underlying reasons for the increased LBW prevalence in women of avant-garde maternal historic period [28]. The strong association between maternal age and nascency weight reported past other studies was also establish in our study [25, 31]. Women 35–39 years of age were more likely, and women aged forty–54 years were twice as likely, to have an LBW baby compared with women aged 20–24 years. Women aged less than 20 years and aged 40–54 years had a college prevalence of LBW infants, regardless of their education level. Even so, Goisis et al. (2017) found that advanced maternal age is not independently associated with the risk of LBW or preterm delivery among women who take had at least 2 previous live births [30].

Disparities in the prevalence of LBW infants betwixt racial and ethnic groups in the United states have been well documented [32, 33]. The persistence of a gap in LBW prevalence between African Americans and Whites is seen throughout the state and continues to exist a serious public health problem (Table one).

The findings of our study are consequent with those of previously published studies that have reported substantial disparities in the prevalence of LBW between women of different racial and ethnic groups. In our written report, African American women had a more than 2-fold increment in the prevalence of LBW throughout the report menses compared with White women (Tabular array 2). The wide gap in the prevalence of LBW between African American and White or Hispanic women was consistent for each age group and beyond the ten-year period of the study.

During 2005, the prevalence of LBW in Hispanic women was 0.3% lower than in White women (6.2% vs. 6.5%). Notwithstanding, the prevalence of LBW was 0.6% greater in Hispanic births compared with births in White women (6.iii% vs. 5.7%) in 2014. Therefore, given the increasing number of Hispanic births in California, the findings of this ten-year written report provide an alert to the increasing gap in nativity weights between Hispanic and White babies.

Overall, the prevalence of LBW when the mother is 40–54 years of age is double that when she is 20–24 years of age. This finding holds true for all groups except for Asian women and those a Multirace origin. Even at the highest instruction level, African American women had a greater prevalence of LBW compared with other ethnic groups, suggesting persistent disparities based on ethnicity.

The prevalence of United States adults who fume cigarettes declined, from 20.9% in 2005 to xvi.8% in 2014 [34]. Consequent with national studies, the number of women in our study who smoked tobacco during the get-go and second trimester decreased between 2007 and 2014 (Table 1). Withal, pregnant smokers have been reported to be almost twice as probable to accept an LBW infant than nonsmokers [35]. The latest United States Surgeon Full general's Report on Smoking and Health states that tobacco use during pregnancy remains a major preventable cause of disease and death of the mother, fetus, and infant [36]. Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to deliver LBW babies, fifty-fifty if the pregnancy is carried to full term.

Data on maternal smoking and prepregnancy meridian and weight accept been collected in California simply since 2007; this study is the first to report trends in prepregnancy BMI. The results of our report provide population-based information on BMI for women of childbearing age. The prevalence of births in women who were underweight or of normal weight, based on prepregnancy BMI, decreased during the study period, but the prevalence of births to women who were in the obese I, obese Two, and obese III categories increased significantly (Table 2). Consistent with previous studies, ours found that underweight women are more than likely to have an LBW infant than women with a normal prepregnancy weight [37, 38]. Our report found no significant clan between prepregnancy obesity and the risk of having an LBW infant.

The rising prevalence of women in all three obesity classes in California is a public wellness concern for both women and children. Co-ordinate to a recent Institute of Medicine report, maternal obesity before, during, and subsequently pregnancy poses serious wellness issues for both mothers and children [39]. Obesity contributes to gestational diabetes [40,41,42], preterm delivery [40, 42, 43], fetal injury during delivery, intrauterine mortality [44], and shorter duration of breastfeeding [45]. The long-term outcomes of maternal obesity include chronic disease such every bit diabetes, cardiovascular affliction, and premature death. Obesity also carries an increased adventure of agin complications in the subsequent pregnancy for both mother and baby [forty, 44, 46].

This report constitute pregnant differences in LBW according to the maternal place of birth and residence (Table two). From 2005 to 2014, births in strange-born women decreased from 46.6 to 38.1%, but they increased for United states of america-born women, from 53.four to 61.9%. The former were less probable to evangelize an LBW infant, a finding that has been reported in previous studies. In a written report of mothers in New York Urban center, foreign-born women had lower prevalence of LBW than did United States-born women [32]. Acevedo-Garcia et al. (2005) noted that the upshot of existence foreign-born on LBW differs co-ordinate to maternal teaching and race and ethnicity [47].

We did not encounter any previously published studies that included maternal geographic region as a predictor of having an LBW babe. Our findings testify that the prevalence of LBW differs in different regions of California (Table 2). Infants born in the San Joaquin Valley region are more likely to be of LBW compared with those born in the Northern and Sierra regions. Our study too shows that women who depend on Medi-Cal as their source of perinatal intendance payment, an indicator of lower socioeconomic status, are more than likely to take an LBW infant than women who have private wellness insurance.

Alexander and Korenbrot (1995) reported on the role of perinatal care in preventing LBW. Our results ostend their finding, that attendance at perinatal intendance during the commencement trimester is associated with reduced LBW [48].

Maternal parity is a well-recognized predictor of infant birth weight; the lowest nativity weights are plant in infants born to primiparous women [49]. Our results confirm that parity is a significant predictor of LBW (Table two). Primiparous and multiparous women with vi to 12 prior deliveries were more than likely to have an LBW infant than were multiparous women with 2 to 5 prior deliveries. This finding is consistent with a report past Hinkle et al. (2014), which constitute a nonlinear association in which birth weight increased upward to parity of 4, then stabilized from parity of iv to 7 [fifty].

Both preterm AGA and term SGA births demonstrated a high prevalence of LBW infants. Infants built-in SGA, whether term or preterm, conduct a considerably higher risk of bloodshed and morbidity in the neonatal flow and beyond when compared with AGA infants [iii]. The risk is fifty-fifty greater amidst infants born both preterm and SGA [51].

At that place are several limitations to this report. Maternal characteristics were restricted to those contained within the BSMF compiled by the CDPH from 2005 to 2014. Maternal historic period, race and ethnicity, instruction level, smoking status during pregnancy (usually under-reported), and prepregnancy height and weight were cocky-reported. Despite these limitations and the inclusion of many possible confounding variables, our study demonstrates significant trends in LBW over a ten-year period in the highly diverse population of California and includes analysis of almost 5 million births.

Conclusions

In that location was no meaning decline in the prevalence of LBW during this 10-year period in California, but maternal age, race and ethnicity, instruction level, smoking status during pregnancy, and parity are significant hazard factors for LBW. Therefore, there may exist opportunities to reduce LBW past improving birth outcomes for women giving birth at an advanced maternal age, and past developing public health models to address the identified adventure factors and improve the wellness of the population. The findings of this written report illustrate the opportunities to meliorate fetal, babe, and adult wellness outcomes, not only in California but throughout the Us. Given the complexity of the etiology of LBW, further research is required on the genetic and epigenetic factors that interact with the social, indigenous, and age-related influences identified in this study.

Abbreviations

95% CI:

95% confidence interval

AGA:

Appropriate for gestational age

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

BSMF:

Nativity Statistical Master Files

CDPH:

California Department of Public Health

FGR:

Fetal growth restriction

LBW:

Depression birth weight

LGA:

Large for gestational age

OE:

Obstetric estimates

SGA:

Small for gestational age

References

  1. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr. 1967;71:159–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  2. Malin GL, Morris RK, Riley R, Teune MJ, Khan KS. When is birthweight at term abnormally low? A systematic review and meta-assay of the association and predictive power of electric current birthweight standards for neonatal outcomes. BJOG. 2014;121:515–26.

    Commodity  PubMed  PubMed Key  CAS  Google Scholar

  3. Lee Air conditioning, Kozuki N, Cousens Southward, Stevens GA, Blencowe H, Silveira MF, et al. CHERG pocket-sized-for-gestational-age preterm birth working grouping. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants built-in small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: assay of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;j3677:358.

    Google Scholar

  4. Baer RJ, Rogers EE, Partridge JC, Anderson JG, Morris Grand, Kuppermann Yard, et al. Population-based risks of mortality and preterm morbidity past gestational historic period and birth weight. J Perinatol. 2016;36:1008–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  5. Ray JG, Park AL, Brutal DB. Mortality in infants affected by preterm birth and severe pocket-size-for-gestational age birth weight. Pediatrics. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-1881.

  6. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF. Low nativity weight in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:584s–90s.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  7. Barker DJ. Fetal origins of coronary centre disease. BMJ. 1995;311:171–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Key  CAS  Google Scholar

  8. Calkins K, Devaskar SU. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Intendance. 2011;41:158–76.

    Commodity  PubMed  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

  9. Barker DJ, Osmond C. Baby mortality, childhood nutrition, and ischaemic centre disease in England and Wales. Lancet. 1986;1:1077–81.

    Commodity  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  10. Eriksson JG, Forsén T, Tuomilehto J, Osmond C, Barker DJ. Early growth and coronary eye affliction in later life: longitudinal study. BMJ. 2001;322:949–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar

  11. Leeson CP, Kattenhorn Yard, Morley R, Lucas A, Deanfield JE. Bear upon of low birth weight and cardiovascular risk factors on endothelial part in early developed life. Circulation. 2001;103:1264–viii.

    Commodity  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  12. Barker DJ, Osmond C. Depression birth weight and hypertension. BMJ. 1988;297:134–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  CAS  Google Scholar

  13. Barker DJ, Osmond C, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG. Growth and chronic illness: findings in the Helsinki birth cohort. Ann Hum Biol. 2009;36:445–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  14. Whincup PH, Kaye SJ, Owen CG, Huxley R, Melt DG, Anazawa S, et al. Nascency weight and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;300:2886–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  15. Boardman JD, Powers DA, Padilla YC, Hummer RA. Low birth weight, social factors, and developmental outcomes among children in the United States. Demography. 2002;39:353–68.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

  16. Reichman NE. Low birth weight and school readiness. Futur Child. 2005;xv:91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar

  17. Barker DJ. The developmental origins of adult disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004;23(Suppl half dozen):588S–95S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  18. Lahti J, Räikkönen Chiliad, Pesonen AK, Heinonen M, Kajantie E, Forsén T, et al. Prenatal growth, postnatal growth and trait feet in late adulthood - the Helsinki birth cohort study. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010;121:227–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  19. Halfon Northward, Larson K, Lu M, Tullis Eastward, Russ S. Lifecourse health development: past, nowadays and future. Matern Child Health J. 2014;eighteen:344–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  20. Pies C, Kotelchuck K. Bringing the MCH life course perspective to life. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18:335–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  21. Reichman NE, Hamilton ER, Hummer RA, Padilla YC. Racial and ethnic disparities in low birthweight among urban unmarried mothers. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12:204–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  22. Montan Southward. Increased risk in the elderly parturient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;xix(2):110–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  23. No authors listed. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Study of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser, 2000. 894:i–xii.

  24. Olsen IE, et al. New intrauterine growth curves based on United States data. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):e214–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  25. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64:1–64.

    Google Scholar

  26. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: terminal data for 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62:1–68.

    Google Scholar

  27. Kenny LC, Lavander T, McNamee R, O'Neill SM, Mills T, Khashan As. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy effect: show from a big gimmicky cohort. PLoS ONne. 2013;8:e56583. https://doi.org/x.1371/periodical.pone.0056583.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  28. Sauer MV. Reproduction at an advanced maternal historic period and maternal wellness. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  29. Saloojee H, aCoovadia H. Maternal historic period matters: for a lifetime, or longer. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3:e342–3. https://doi.org/ten.1016/S2214-109X(15)00034-0.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

  30. Goisis A, Remes H, Barclay Thou, Martikainen P, Myrskylä M. Advanced maternal historic period and the risk of depression nascence weight and preterm delivery: a within-family assay using Finnish population registers. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186:1219–26.

    Commodity  PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Google Scholar

  31. Manyeh AK, Kukula Five, Odonkor Thou, Ekey RA, Adjei A, Narh-Bana S, et al. Socioeconomic and demographic determinants of birth weight in southern rural Republic of ghana: bear witness from Dodowa health and demographic surveillance organisation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;xvi:160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Google Scholar

  32. Almeida J, Mulready-Ward C, Bettegowda VR, Ahluwalia IB. Racial/indigenous and nativity differences in nascence outcomes among mothers in New York City: the role of social ties and social support. Matern Child Health J. 2014;xviii:90–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  33. Chang JJ, Tabet M, Elderberry K, Kiel DW, Flick LH. Racial/ethnic differences in the correlates of mental health services utilise among significant women with depressive symptoms. Matern Child Health J. 2016;twenty:1911–22.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

  34. Jamal A, Homa DM, O'Connor E, Babb SD, Caraballo RS, Singh T. Current cigarette smoking amid adults - United States, 2005-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:1233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  35. Inoue S, Naruse H, Yorifuji T, Kato T, Murakoshi T, Doi H. Affect of maternal and paternal smoking on nascence outcomes. J Public Wellness (Oxf). 2017;39:1–10.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  36. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Wellness Promotion (Usa) Role on Smoking and Wellness. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/ (2014). Accessed 7 January 2018.

  37. Han Z, Mulla South, Beyene J, Liao M, McDonald SD, Noesis Synthesis Group. Maternal underweight and the risk of preterm nascence and depression birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;xl:65–101.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

  38. Liu P, Xu L, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Du Y, Dominicus Y. Association between perinatal outcomes and maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index. Obes Rev. 2016;17:1091–102.

    Commodity  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  39. Plant of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (U.s.a.) Committee to Reexamine IOM Pregnancy Weight Guidelines. In: Rasmussen KM, Yaktine AL, editors. Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC): National Academy of Sciences; 2009.

    Google Scholar

  40. Davis EM, Stange KC, Horwitz RI. Childbearing, stress and obesity disparities in women: a public health perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16:109–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Primal  Google Scholar

  41. Catalano PM, Kirwan JP, Haugel-de Mouzon S, King J. Gestational diabetes and insulin resistance: role in short- and long-term implications for mother and fetus. J Nutr 2003;133 Suppl 2:1674S–83S.

  42. Siega-Riz AM, Viswanathan 1000, Moos MK, Deierlein A, Mumford S, Knaack J. A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:339.e1–fourteen. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar

  43. Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Morrow B, Cogswell ME. Population-based assessment of the risk of master cesarean commitment due to backlog prepregnancy weight among nulliparous women delivering term infants. Matern Kid Health J. 2005;9:237–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  44. Viswanathan M, Siega-Riz AM, Moos MK, Deierlein A, Mumford Southward, Knaack J. Outcomes of maternal weight gain. Evid Rep Technol Appraise (Full Rep). 2008;(168):1–223.

  45. Hilson JA, Rasmussen KM, Kjolhede CL. Excessive weight gain during pregnancy is associated with before termination of chest-feeding among white women. J Nutr. 2006;136:140–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar

  46. Gunderson EP, Jacobs DR Jr, Chiang V, Lewis CE, Tsai A, Quesenberry CP Jr, et al. Childbearing is associated with higher incidence of the metabolic syndrome among women of reproductive age controlling for measurements earlier pregnancy: the CARDIA study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:177.e1–9. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.031.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  47. Acevedo-Garcia D, Soobader MJ, Berkman LF. The differential result of strange-built-in condition on low nascency weight by race/ethnicity and teaching. Pediatrics 2005;115:e20–e30. doi: 10.1542.peds.2004-1306.

  48. Alexander GR, Korenbrot CC. The part of prenatal care in preventing low birth weight. Futur Kid. 1995;5:103–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  49. Shah PS, Cognition Synthesis Group on Determinants of LBW/PT births. Parity and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:862–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  50. Hinkle SN, Albert PS, Mendola P, Sjaarda LA, Yeung E, Boghossian NS, et al. The association between parity and birthweight in a longitudinal consecutive pregnancy cohort. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28:106–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  51. Katz J, et al. Mortality run a risk in preterm and small-for-gestational-age infants in low-income and middle-income countries: a pooled state analysis. Lancet. 2013;382:417–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their friends and colleagues for their critical contributions.

Availability of data and materials

Data are bachelor from the California Department of Public Health Institutional Data.

Access / Ethics Committee for researchers who come across the criteria for access to.

confidential data:

The post-obit website provides the details necessary to access Vital Records Data and Statistics: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/Pages/Vital%20Statistics%20Data%20Requests%20-%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.aspx

Access Appointment: 01/24/2018.

Confirmation

All authors have approved the manuscript for submission.

Non published elsewhere

The manuscript has not been published, or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Writer information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Care Services, Benefits Partitioning, 1501 Capitol Ave, Suite 71.4104, MS 4600, P.O. Box 997417, Sacramento, CA, 95899-7417, U.s.

    Anura W. G. Ratnasiri, Steven Due south. Parry & Ralph J. DiLibero

  2. Department of Health Intendance Services, Clinical Assurance and Administrative Back up Division, 1501 Capitol Ave, Sacramento, CA, 95899-7417, USA

    Laura A. Halliday

  3. Schoolhouse of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Faculty of Science, The Academy of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, 4072, Australia

    Anura Due west. Grand. Ratnasiri, Vivi N. Arief, Ian H. DeLacy & Kaye E. Basford

  4. Schoolhouse of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The Academy of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, 4072, Australia

    Kaye E. Basford

Contributions

AWGR, KEB, VNA, IHD, and SSP designed the study. Information curation and analysis and review of the literature was performed by AWGR. The report was conducted by AWGR, KEB, VNA, IHD, SSP, LAH, and RJD. Determining and validating the methodology was performed past AWGR, KEB, VNA, and IHD. The first version of the manuscript was written by AWGR, KEB, and SSP. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Respective author

Correspondence to Anura W. G. Ratnasiri.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the California Committee for the Protection of Human.

Subjects (Protocol ID: 16–10-2759) and the California Section of Public Health Vital Statistics Advisory Committee. Patient consent was waived past the Human Subjects committee.

Consent for publication

Permission for publication was included when requesting blessing from both California Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (Protocol ID: 16–10-2759) and the California Department of Public Wellness Vital Statistics Informational Commission. We are to provide published materials to both institutes.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Recorded births and percentage of births according to maternal characteristics and perinatal wellness behaviors in California for the menstruum 2005–2014. Tabular array S2. Likelihood of low birth weight listed as adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for maternal historic period for each maternal race and ethnic group, afterwards accounting for confounding effects in California for the flow 2005–2014. Table S3. Likelihood of depression birth weight listed as adapted odds ratios (95% conviction intervals) for maternal education for each maternal race and ethnic group, after accounting for confounding furnishings in California for the catamenia 2005–2014. (DOCX 52 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open up Admission This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/iv.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided you give advisable credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

Nigh this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this commodity

Ratnasiri, A.West.G., Parry, Southward.S., Arief, V.N. et al. Recent trends, risk factors, and disparities in low nascency weight in California, 2005–2014: a retrospective study. matern health, neonatol and perinatol 4, fifteen (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-018-0084-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-018-0084-two

Keywords

  • Low birth weight
  • Preterm nascency
  • Prenatal intendance
  • Advance maternal age
  • Maternal health
  • Health behavior
  • Small-scale for gestational age

hawkingthe.blogspot.com

Source: https://mhnpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40748-018-0084-2

0 Response to "These Babies Are Twice as Likely as Caucasian or Hispanic Babies to Suffer From Low Birth Weight."

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel