Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Research

Socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in a setting with universal access to essential health care services

K.S. Joseph, Robert M. Liston, Linda Dodds, Leanne Dahlgren and Alexander C. Allen
CMAJ September 11, 2007 177 (6) 583-590; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.061198
K.S. Joseph MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert M. Liston MB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Dodds PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leanne Dahlgren MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander C. Allen MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2007 Canadian Medical Association

Abstract

Background: The health care system in Canada provides essential health services to all women irrespective of socioeconomic status. Our objective was to determine whether perinatal and infant outcomes varied by family income and other socioeconomic factors in this setting.

Methods: We included all 92 914 women who delivered in Nova Scotia between 1988 and 1995 following a singleton pregnancy. Family income was obtained for 76 440 of these women through a confidential link to income tax records and was divided into 5 groups. Outcomes studied included pregnancy complications, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age live birth, perinatal death, serious neonatal morbidity, postneonatal death and infant death. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders.

Results: Compared with women in the highest family income group, those in the lowest income group had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes (crude rate ratio [RR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–1.73), preterm birth (crude RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06–1.35), small-for-gestational-age live birth (crude RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.66–1.97) and postneonatal death (crude RR 5.54, 95% CI 2.21–13.9). The opposite was true for rates of perinatal death (crude RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.96), and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (crude RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82–1.24). Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors accentuated or attenuated socioeconomic differences.

Interpretation: Lower family income is associated with increased rates of gestational diabetes, small-for-gestational-age live birth and postneonatal death despite health care services being widely available at no out-of-pocket expense.

Socioeconomic factors can have profound effects on the health of individuals and populations, and the perinatal domain is particularly susceptible to such influences. The principal pathways by which socioeconomic status affects perinatal health include those that operate through lifestyle and behavioural factors: a large fraction of socioeconomic differences in adverse perinatal outcomes can be explained on the basis of factors such as maternal age,1,2 smoking,3,4 marital status,5,6 alcohol consumption,7 obesity,8,9 residence (rural v. urban),10 education,7,11 weight gain,12 early prenatal care,13 prenatal class attendance, parity and breast-feeding.7

Differential access to good-quality obstetric services and neonatal care is another main reason for socioeconomic disparities in perinatal health. We have previously shown that the system of health care prevalent in Canada provides obstetric, neonatal and related health care services to women regardless of their socioeconomic status.14 In fact, we found that rates of labour induction and cesarean delivery were higher among women from lower income families than among those from higher income families, after controlling for lifestyle and behavioural factors.14 More generally, it has been shown that the introduction of universal access to essential health services in Canada in 196815 led to a decline in regional disparities in infant mortality, whereas such disparities have tended to increase globally.16

We carried out a population-based study to quantify the effects of socioeconomic factors (e.g., family income) on perinatal and infant outcomes in a setting where obstetric, neonatal and related health care services are widely available and provided with no out-of-pocket payments. Whereas other studies have examined this question previously using ecologic measures such as neighbourhood income,17–19 we used highly reliable individual-level information on family income and related measures of socioeconomic status.

Methods

Study design

We included all women residing in Nova Scotia who delivered between 1988 and 1995 following a singleton pregnancy. Information on pregnancy, labour and delivery was obtained from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database, a population-based database containing detailed information extracted from antenatal and medical charts by trained personnel using standardized forms. An ongoing data quality-assurance program, which carries out periodic abstraction studies, as well as validation studies20 have shown that the information in the database is reliable. We excluded deliveries involving births at a gestational age of less than 20 weeks or a birth weight of less than 500 g to avoid potential bias due to variations in birth registration.21

Information on family income of the women in the study population and other details regarding their socioeconomic status were obtained through a confidential linkage between the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database and the federal income tax (T1 Family File) records maintained by the Small Area and Administrative Data Division of Statistics Canada. The T1 Family Files are created from several administrative data sources, the primary source being annual T1 income tax returns.22 The linkage was carried out using a combination of deterministic and probabilistic methods. Linkage was successful for 76 440 (82.3%) of the 92 914 women who had singleton births between 1988 and 1995 in Nova Scotia. All linkages and analyses involving income-related information were carried out by personnel in the Small Area and Administrative Data Division in their highly secure offices, and all identifying information was removed. Tabular analyses involving income or related information that resulted in cells with counts of fewer than 15 were suppressed, and all tabulated counts were rounded to the nearest 10. Regression analyses were carried out without any such restrictions.

Income information regarding each woman's family was obtained for the year in which the delivery occurred. Family income was adjusted for family size (using standard methods23) and inflation, with all income being expressed in 1988 Canadian dollars. Size-and inflation-adjusted family income was categorized into 5 groups (< $7500; $7500–$13 399; $13 400–20 299; $20 300–$29 299 and ≥ $29 300) based on the quintile cut-offs created in a pilot study of linkage feasibility.

Tax-deductible investments to a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) made in the year of delivery were also examined as an additional measure of socioeconomic status. This measure reflects a dimension not captured by family income (similar to house and car ownership24).

The study was approved by the Dalhousie University Research Ethics Board.

Outcome measures

The outcomes of interest included pregnancy complications such as hypertensive disorders (yes/no for chronic hypertensive disease, severe pregnancy-induced hypertension, HELLP [hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelet count] syndrome or eclampsia), gestational diabetes (yes/no), pre-existing diabetes mellitus (yes/no), other chronic medical disease (yes/no), placenta previa (yes/no) and placental abruption (yes/no). Fetal and infant outcomes studied included preterm birth (< 37 weeks and < 32 weeks), small-for-gestational-age live birth (< 10th percentile and < 3rd percentile25), perinatal death, composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (5-minute Apgar score ≤ 3, severe respiratory distress syndrome requiring assisted ventilation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, severe retinopathy of prematurity or necrotizing enterocolitis), postneonatal death and infant death.

Maternal behavioural and lifestyle factors assessed included maternal age (< 20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39 and ≥ 40 years), parity (0, 1, 2, ≥ 3), marital status (married, common law, single, other), smoking status at delivery (nonsmoker, 1–9 cigarettes per day, ≥ 10 cigarettes per day), prepregnancy weight (< 55, 55–59, 60–69, 70–74 and ≥ 75 kg) and residence in rural area (yes/no based on postal code). Relevant obstetric history, including previous cesarean delivery (yes/no), previous low-birth-weight infant (yes/no) and previous perinatal death (yes/no), were also studied among multiparous women.

Statistical analysis

The relation between socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes was modelled using logistic regression, with adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors and period of delivery (1988–1990, 1991–1992, 1993–1995). Variance estimates were adjusted to account for the potential nonindependence of observations,26 since some women had more than 1 delivery during the study period.

Results

Women in the higher family income groups were more likely than those in the lower income groups to be older (35 years of age or more) at delivery (Figure 1). Differences across family income groups were also evident for behavioural, lifestyle and other factors: women in the lower family income groups were more likely than those in the higher income groups of being smokers (Figure 2) and of having a prepregnancy weight of 75 kg or more (Figure 3). Women with a lower family income were also more likely to be single, reside in a rural area and have an unfavourable obstetric history (Appendix 1, available online at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/6/583/DC2). Such differences were also noted when women were categorized according to their RRSP investment status (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and online Appendix 1).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 1: Relation between socioeconomic status (family income and contribution to registered retirement savings plan [RRSP]) and maternal age among women with singleton deliveries in Nova Scotia, 1988–1995. Women in the lower family income groups were less likely than those in the highest income group to be older (35 years of age or more); this observation was true for all women in the study population (left panel) and for those who were nulliparous (right panel).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 2: Relation between socioeconomic status (family income and contribution to registered retirement savings plan [RRSP]) and smoking status among women with singleton deliveries in Nova Scotia, 1988–1995. Women in the lower family income groups were less likely than those in the highest income group to be nonsmokers.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 3: Relation between socioeconomic status (family income and contribution to registered retirement savings plan [RRSP]) and maternal weight before pregnancy among women with singleton deliveries in Nova Scotia, 1988–1995. Women in the lower family income groups were more likely than those in the highest income group to have a prepregnancy weight of 75 kg or more.

Women whose perinatal records did not link to income tax information had perinatal and infant outcomes similar to those of women whose records did link: preterm birth, 4.9% and 4.9%; small-for-gestational-age live birth, 11.6% and 10.7%; perinatal death, 7.5 and 7.6 per 1000 total births; and composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, 14.9 and 14.1 per 1000 total births, respectively.

Rates of gestational diabetes were substantially and significantly higher among women in the lowest family income group than among those in the highest family income group (crude rate ratio [RR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–1.73; RR adjusted for maternal age, parity, prepregnancy weight, smoking status, marital status, residence and period of delivery 2.48, 95% CI 1.93–3.20). Rates of gestational diabetes were higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP than among those who did (crude RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24), although adjusted rates did not differ significantly.

There were no significant differences in the crude or adjusted rates of pre-existing diabetes mellitus, placenta previa or chronic medical disease by family income. Crude rates of hypertensive disorders did not differ by family income (RR for lowest v. highest income group 0.89, 95% CI 0.76–1.05), although adjusted rates were significantly higher in the lowest family income group than in the highest income group (adjusted RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05–1.69). In terms of investment status, women who did not contribute to an RRSP were more likely than those who did to have higher crude rates of diabetes mellitus (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.99–1.80) and placental abruption (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13–1.58). Adjusted rates of chronic medical disease, placenta previa and placental abruption did not differ by investment status, although rates of hypertensive disorders (crude RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96–1.19; adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04–1.39) and diabetes mellitus (adjusted RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.00–2.11) were significantly higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP.

The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks was slightly higher in the lowest family income group than in the highest income group, but differences were not evident after adjustment for potential confounders (Table 1). Additional adjustment for previous low-birth-weight infant and previous cesarean delivery did not alter the results.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1.

Small differences in crude rates of preterm birth among women who did not contribute to an RRSP were also abolished after adjustment (Table 1). Similar findings were obtained for preterm birth before 32 weeks (data not shown). The rates of small-for-gestational-age live birth (< 10th percentile) were substantially and significantly different by family income (Table 2). The rate of small-for-gestational-age live birth was 81% higher in the lowest income group than in the highest income group. Adjustment for potential confounders attenuated but did not abolish these differences. The rate of small-for-gestational-age live birth was 49% higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP than among those who did, but adjustment for potential confounders abolished this difference (Table 2). Similar results were obtained with small-for- gestational-age live births below the third percentile.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 2.

The crude rate of perinatal death was significantly lower among women in 2 of the lower family income groups than among those in the highest income group. Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors accentuated these differences: adjusted rates of perinatal death decreased proportionately with decreasing income levels (Table 3). Analysis that excluded perinatal deaths due to congenital anomalies yielded similar results. Perinatal death rates were higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP than among those who did, and adjustment for confounders strengthened this relation (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 3.

There was no statistically significant difference between the lowest and highest family income groups in the rate of the composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (Table 4). Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors resulted in significantly lower composite rates in the lowest 3 family income groups than in the highest income group. Women who did not contribute to an RRSP had higher composite rates than those who did, and adjustment for potential confounders did not alter this relation (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 4.

Crude rates of stillbirth were significantly lower among women in the lowest 3 family income groups than among those in the highest income group (lowest v. highest RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49–0.96). Crude rates of neonatal death did not differ between family income groups (lowest v. highest RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53–1.27). Adjusted rates of stillbirth and of neonatal death were significantly lower among women in the lower family income groups than among those in the highest income group.

The crude rate of postneonatal death was more than 5 times higher among women in the lowest 2 family income groups than among those in the highest income group (Table 5). Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors abolished these differences. Small numbers precluded a comparison of the rate of sudden infant death syndrome by family income group. Crude rates of postneonatal death were 3 times higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP (Table 5) and crude rates of sudden infant death syndrome were 5 times higher (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.84–14.2) than among women who did contribute to an RRSP. The crude rate of infant death was higher among women in the lowest 2 family income groups than among those in the highest income group, and adjusted rates were either significantly lower or no different among women in lower family income groups. Similarly, infant death rates were higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP than among those who did.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 5.

Supplementary analyses showed that the effect of using alternative indices for quantifying socioeconomic status (e.g., after-tax v. before-tax income) yielded essentially the same results.

Interpretation

Our study shows that family income and RRSP investment status were weakly associated with preterm birth and more strongly associated with some pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes and small-for-gestational-age live birth. Rates of perinatal death favoured the lower family income groups, although crude rates of the composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity did not. Rates of postneonatal death and of infant death were substantially higher in the lower family income groups than in the highest income group. Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors abolished, accentuated, attenuated or unmasked the crude relations between socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes. These results reveal some of the mechanisms underpinning socioeconomic effects. Thus, the lack of effect of family income on the crude rate of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and the significant positive effect evident after controlling for smoking and other factors confirms the known protective effect that smoking has on rates of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.27 On the other hand, higher maternal smoking rates explain a substantial component of the excess in small-for-gestational-age live births seen among women in the lower family income groups. Residual confounding due to smoking or other unmeasured health behaviours may be responsible for the differences that persisted after adjustment.

The magnitude and direction of the socioeconomic differences in perinatal mortality are both intriguing and puzzling. Given the patterns of stillbirth, neonatal death and serious neonatal morbidity, we speculate that the observed differences in perinatal mortality are related to higher rates of obstetric intervention in the lower family income groups than in the highest income groups. We have previously shown that adjusted rates of labour induction and cesarean delivery were higher among women in the lower family income groups than among those in the higher income groups in this study population.14 Higher rates of medically indicated early delivery appear to be responsible for reducing stillbirth rates in the lower family income groups. Such obstetric intervention may also have been responsible for the higher rates of preterm birth and serious neonatal morbidity observed in the lowest family income group. Some of the excess in postneonatal deaths observed in the lower family income groups may also have been because of these differences in serious neonatal morbidity.

We observed some unexpected differences in the direction of socioeconomic effects based on family income versus contribution to an RRSP. Women in the lowest family income group had lower rates of perinatal death and no difference in the crude composite rate of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity compared with women in the highest income group. However, rates of these 2 outcomes were significantly higher among women who did not contribute to an RRSP than among those who did. The reason for these contrasting patterns is not immediately obvious, although it is recognized that saving behaviour is associated with health effects that are distinct from those associated with family income.28

The differences in socioeconomic effects with regard to perinatal death and serious neonatal morbidity suggest that reductions in fetal and infant mortality may have occurred at the expense of serious neonatal morbidity. Studies from the United States29 have shown that, although death rates among infants with a birth weight of 500–999 g decreased several fold between 1982–1989 and 1990–1998, the rates of survival with impairment increased, as did the rate of survival without impairment. Recognition of this shift from death to serious neonatal morbidity and the expected increase in prevalence rates of handicap and disability30 suggest the need for increased investment in clinical and community infrastructure and other support.

Our results identify 2 potential gaps related to perinatal health. The substantial differences in postneonatal mortality by socioeconomic status suggests a relative lack of social and other support for socioeconomically vulnerable mothers and families in the first year after birth. The second issue pertains to information about healthy lifestyle choices, especially smoking, increased prepregnancy weight and older maternal age. The last risk factor was highly prevalent among women in the higher family income groups (Figure 1).

The limitations of our study include an inability to link all records. Our supplementary analyses suggest, however, that unlinked records were a random subset of all records with regard to adverse perinatal outcomes. The exclusion of records with missing values in the regression analysis is another limitation of our study. Most of the missing values related to information on prepregnancy weight and smoking. Although it is difficult to assess the impact of these missing values, we do not believe such exclusions had a major effect on the results of regression. We did not have information on educational status, a factor associated with perinatal outcomes,7,11 although we did adjust for various correlates of education. Nevertheless, our indices of socioeconomic status focus more on economic and less on social aspects. Although our study was based on relatively old data, the observed relation between socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes is probably sufficiently robust to inform current public policy. Also, our study provides a benchmark for socioeconomic differentials: future studies will determine whether socioeconomic disparities in perinatal outcomes increased in the mid to late 1990s, when the Canadian health care system was subjected to severe fiscal duress.31

In summary, our study shows that, despite the availability of essential health care services at no out-of-pocket expense, family income and other socioeconomic factors are strongly associated with some adverse perinatal outcomes, including gestational diabetes, small-for-gestational-age live births and infant death. These findings highlight potential gaps in health information and in social support for socioeconomically vulnerable mothers and families in the year after birth.

Methodological pearl

To assume a middle-income status for a particular household because it happens to be in a neighbourhood with an average middle-income status may be misleading. In reality, the neighbourhood may consist of low-income and high-income households and no middle-income ones. The assumption in this case does not account for the 2 distinct groups and is a simple example of an ecological fallacy that can occur when aggregate data for a group are used for an individual. Joseph and associates avoid this potential pitfall in their determination of socioeconomic status by performing a confidential linkage with individual family income data. This linkage was made possible by the cooperation of the Small Area and Administrative Data Division of Statistics Canada. It is an example of how confidential national data can be successfully linked with data from a provincial database, in this case the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database, to avoid a subtle but potentially misleading bias. — CMAJ

Footnotes

  • Une version française de ce résumé est disponible à l'adresse www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/6/583/DC1

    This article has been peer reviewed.

    Contributors: K.S. Joseph, Robert Liston, Linda Dodds and Alexander Allen proposed the study. K.S. Joseph carried out the analyses with help from the Small Area and Administrative Data Division of Statistics Canada, and all of the authors reviewed the preliminary and final analyses. K.S. Joseph drafted the manuscript and revised it based on comments from the other authors. All of the authors approved the final manuscript for publication.

    Acknowledgements: We thank the Small Area and Administrative Data Division of Statistics Canada, especially Pat Grainger, Eric Olson, Jeffrey Smith, Linda Standish, Bill Steele, Tom Swoger and Kathleen Trudeau, for data linkage and analysis. We also thank the Reproductive Care Program of Nova Scotia for access to the data.

    K.S. Joseph is supported by a Peter Lougheed New Investigator award. Linda Dodds is supported by a New Investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Clinical Scholar award from the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine. This study was funded by grant no. MOP-43992 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:727-33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Joseph KS, Allen AC, Dodds L, et al. The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:1410-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Martens PJ, Derksen S, Mayer T, et al. Being born in Manitoba: a look at perinatal health issues. Can J Public Health 2002;93(Suppl 2):233-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Phares TM, Morrow B, Lansky A, et al. Surveillance for disparities in maternal health-related behaviors — selected states, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2000–2001. MMWR Surveill Summ 2004;53:1-13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Zeitlin JA, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Ancel PY; EUROPOP Group. Marital status, cohabitation, and risk of preterm birth in Europe: where births outside marriage are common and uncommon. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002;16:124-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Luo ZC, Wilkins R, Kramer MS; Fetal and Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Disparities in pregnancy outcomes according to marital and cohabitation status. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1300-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Health Canada. Canadian perinatal health report 2003. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2003. Cat no H49-142/2003E.
  8. 8.↵
    Cnattingius S, Lambe M. Trends in smoking and overweight during pregnancy: prevalence, risks of pregnancy complications, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Semin Perinatol 2002;26:286-95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Rosenberg TJ, Garbers S, Lipkind H, et al. Maternal obesity and diabetes as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences among 4 racial/ethnic groups. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1545-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Luo ZC, Kierans WJ, Wilkins R, et al; British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency. Disparities in birth outcomes by neighborhood income: temporal trends in rural and urban areas, British Columbia. Epidemiology 2004;15:679-86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Chen J, Fair M, Wilkins R, et al. Maternal education and fetal and infant mortality in Quebec. Health Rep 1998;10:53-64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Carmichael SL, Abrams B. A critical review of the relationship between gestational weight gain and preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:865-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Kogan MD, Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M, et al. Trends in twin birth outcomes and prenatal care utilization in the United States, 1981–1997. JAMA 2000;284:335-41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Joseph KS, Dodds L, Allen AC, et al. Socioeconomic status and the receipt of obstetric services in Canada. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:641-50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Canada Medical Care Act, 4 Eliz 2, c64 (1966).
  16. 16.↵
    Dzakpasu S, Joseph KS, Kramer MS, et al. The Matthew effect: infant mortality in Canada and internationally. Pediatrics 2000;106:e5.
  17. 17.↵
    Wilkins R, Houle C, Berthelot JM, et al. The changing health status of Canada's children. Isuma: Can J Policy Res 2000;1:57-63.
  18. 18.
    Wilkins R, Berthelot JM, Ng E. Trends in mortality by neighbourhood income in urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Health Rep 2002;13(Suppl):1-27.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Luo ZC, Wilkins R, Kramer MS; Fetal and Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Effect of neighbourhood income and maternal education on birth outcomes: a population-based study. CMAJ 2006;174:1415-20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Fair M, Cyr M, Allen AC, et al. Validation study for a record linkage of births and infant deaths in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1999. Cat no 84F0013XIE.
  21. 21.↵
    Joseph KS, Kramer MS. Recent trends in Canadian infant mortality rates: effect of changes in the registration of liveborns weighing less than 500 g. CMAJ 1996;155: 1047-52.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  22. 22.↵
    Annual estimates for census families and individuals (T1 Family File). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Available: www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=4105&lang=en&db=IMDB&dbg=f&adm=8&dis=2 (accessed 2007 July 12).
  23. 23.↵
    Low income cut-offs from 1991 to 2000 and low income measures from 1990 to 1999. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2001. Cat no 75F0002MIE-01007.
  24. 24.↵
    Smith GD, Shipley MJ, Rose G. Magnitude and causes of socioeconomic differentials in mortality: further evidence from the Whitehall Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:265-70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, et al; Fetal/Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics 2001;108:e35.
  26. 26.↵
    Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986;42:121-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Hammoud AO, Bujold E, Sorokin Y, et al. Smoking in pregnancy revisited: findings from a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1856-62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Weich S, Lewis G. Material standard of living, social class, and the prevalence of the common mental disorders in Great Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:8-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  29. 29.↵
    Wilson-Costello D, Friedman H, Minich N, et al. Improved survival rates with increased neurodevelopmental disability for extremely low birth weight infants in the 1990s. Pediatrics 2005;115:997-1003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, et al. Chronic conditions, functional limitations, and special health care needs of school-aged children born with extremely low-birth-weight in the 1990s. JAMA 2005;294:318-25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Naylor CD. Health care in Canada: incrementalism under fiscal duress. Health Aff (Millwood) 1999;18:9-26.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 177 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 177, Issue 6
11 Sep 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in a setting with universal access to essential health care services
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in a setting with universal access to essential health care services
K.S. Joseph, Robert M. Liston, Linda Dodds, Leanne Dahlgren, Alexander C. Allen
CMAJ Sep 2007, 177 (6) 583-590; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061198

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in a setting with universal access to essential health care services
K.S. Joseph, Robert M. Liston, Linda Dodds, Leanne Dahlgren, Alexander C. Allen
CMAJ Sep 2007, 177 (6) 583-590; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061198
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Infant born with Robert's syndrome without prenatal care in a developing nation
  • Psychosocial deprivation in women with gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with poor fetomaternal prognoses: an observational study
  • Increasing educational inequality in preterm birth in Quebec, Canada, 1981-2006
  • The effect of neighbourhood income and deprivation on pregnancy outcomes in Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Approaches to diversity in family medicine: "I have always tried to be colour blind"
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Self-harm among youth during the first 28 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study
  • Emergency department visits and hospital admissions for suicidal ideation, self-poisoning and self-harm among adolescents in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Trends in hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease over 16 years in Canada
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Neonatal medicine
    • Public health
    • Reproductive health, infertility & pregnancy

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire