2000
DOI: 10.1590/s0034-89102000000600006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: LBW among vaginal deliveries increased mainly due to a rise in the proportion of preterm births and non-cohabiting mothers. The association between cesarean section and LBW tended to cover up socioeconomic differences in the likelihood of LBW. When vaginal deliveries were analyzed independently, these socioeconomic differences come up again.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
26
0
27

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
26
0
27
Order By: Relevance
“…This fact might have interfered with the frequency of low birth weight children registered at the investigated UBSs because the Municipality data for this same period were 9.9% and 9.0% greater in 2005 and 2006, respectively (7) . Stagnation and even increase in the rate of low birth weight in areas with a satisfactory socioeconomic level (15)(16) are attributed to countless factors, particularly: better prenatal control and diagnosis of risk situations, with a consequent increase in the rate of premature births; better technological support in neonatology services, with increased survival of premature infants; older average age of mothers, especially among population segments with higher incomes and better schooling, and a consequent increase in complications during pregnancy. In Brazil and other developing countries (16) , the use of technology may partially explain such increased rates; in fact, low birth weight is rated a complex indicator comprising a heterogeneous group of newborn infants that exhibits no linear associations with income and/or access to and quality of healthcare services.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This fact might have interfered with the frequency of low birth weight children registered at the investigated UBSs because the Municipality data for this same period were 9.9% and 9.0% greater in 2005 and 2006, respectively (7) . Stagnation and even increase in the rate of low birth weight in areas with a satisfactory socioeconomic level (15)(16) are attributed to countless factors, particularly: better prenatal control and diagnosis of risk situations, with a consequent increase in the rate of premature births; better technological support in neonatology services, with increased survival of premature infants; older average age of mothers, especially among population segments with higher incomes and better schooling, and a consequent increase in complications during pregnancy. In Brazil and other developing countries (16) , the use of technology may partially explain such increased rates; in fact, low birth weight is rated a complex indicator comprising a heterogeneous group of newborn infants that exhibits no linear associations with income and/or access to and quality of healthcare services.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, our selection of explanatory variables is motivated by several theories for determinants of health and racial disparities and by results from previous studies that have highlighted an important role for these variables. We appeal to general microeconomic and psychosocial theories that highlight the importance of education, prenatal care, geographic location/residential segregation, and other factors for child health and racial disparities (16,22,48,49,(51)(52)(53)(54)(55) and to previous studies (22,37,38,41,(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62) when possible for selecting conceptually relevant explanatory variables. We choose the following model: (1) where for child i, H is health measured by either LBW (y=1) or PTB (y=2) and is a function of child ancestry (Ancestry), prenatal care (PNC), demographic characteristics (Dem), maternal health (Health), maternal fertility (Fertility), socioeconomic status (SES) and geographic effects (Area); u is the error term.…”
Section: Study Measures and Empirical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(12, 66) Since we do not have a direct measure of marital status, which is relevant for LBW and PTB, (67) we include length of parents' cohabitation before child's birth as a proxy similar to previous studies. (68) A number of studies have found that cohabitation status (60,62) and cohabitation length (61) are associated with a decrease in LBW and fetal death in Brazil. Maternal health and fertility history are relevant for LBW and PTB and affect maternal health behaviors as shown in several previous studies.…”
Section: Study Measures and Empirical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neste estudo, verificou-se que a maioria das crianças, tanto em 2001 como em 2005, nasceram com peso adequado. Sua distribuição pouco se modificou desde 1995 (29) , o mesmo sendo observado em outras localidades brasileiras: em São Paulo em 1998 (3157g), em Ribeirão Preto (SP) em 1994 (3115g) e em São Luís (MA) em 1997 e 1998 (3142g) (30)(31)(32) . Esse resultado não é ideal, pois, segundo a recomendação da OMS, a proporção de nascidos com peso adequado deve ser de pelo menos 85%, e o peso médio ao nascimento deve estar entre 3400 e 3500g (21,31) .…”
Section: Tabela 4 -unclassified
“…Com relação à situação conjugal, a inclusão da opção "união consensual" seria necessária para que este dado pudesse refletir a real situação. O conhecimento sobre a presença do companheiro é importante, pois alguns trabalhos mostram que a ausência do pai no domicílio relaciona-se à falta de adesão ao pré-natal de gestantes adolescentes e adultas, mães de crianças com baixo peso ao nascer (21,30) .…”
Section: Tabela 4 -unclassified