Use of maternal health services: comparing refugee, immigrant and US-born populations

被引:0
作者
Katherine Kentoffio
Seth A. Berkowitz
Steven J. Atlas
Sarah A. Oo
Sanja Percac-Lima
机构
[1] Massachusetts General Hospital,Department of Medicine
[2] Massachusetts General Hospital,Division of General Internal Medicine
[3] Massachusetts General Hospital,Diabetes Center
[4] Massachusetts General Hospital,Center for Community Health Improvement
[5] Massachusetts General Hospital Chelsea HealthCare Center,undefined
来源
Maternal and Child Health Journal | 2016年 / 20卷
关键词
Refugees; Immigrants; Maternal health; Health services access;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives To determine use of recommended maternal healthcare services among refugee and immigrant women in a setting of near-universal insurance coverage. Methods Refugee women age ≥18 years, who arrived in the US from 2001 to 2013 and received care at the same Massachusetts community health center, were matched by age, gender, and date of care initiation to Spanish-speaking immigrants and US-born controls. The primary outcome was initiation of obstetrical care within the first trimester (12 weeks gestation). Secondary outcomes were number of obstetrical visits and attending a postpartum visit. Results We included 375 women with 763 pregnancies (women/pregnancies: 53/116 refugee, 186/368 immigrant, 136/279 control). More refugees (20.6 %) and immigrants (15.0 %) had their first obstetric visit after 12 weeks gestation than controls (6.0 %, p < 0.001). In logistic regression models adjusted for age, education, insurance, BMI, and median census tract household income, both refugee (odds ratio [OR] 4.58, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.73–12.13) and immigrant (OR 2.21, 95 % CI 1.00–4.84) women had delayed prenatal care initiation. Refugees had fewer prenatal visits than controls (median 12 vs. 14, p < 0.001). Refugees (73.3 %) and immigrant (78.3 %) women were more likely to have postpartum care (controls 54.8 %, p < 0.001) with differences persisting after adjustment (refugee [OR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.04–3.83] and immigrant [OR 2.79, 95 % CI 1.72–4.53]). Conclusions for Practice Refugee and immigrant women had increased risk for delayed initiation of prenatal care, but greater use of postpartum visits. Targeted outreach may be needed to improve use of beneficial care.
引用
收藏
页码:2494 / 2501
页数:7
相关论文
共 102 条
[1]  
Acevedo-Garcia D(2007)Low birthweight among US Hispanic/Latino subgroups: The effect of maternal foreign-born status and education Social Science and Medicine 65 2503-2516
[2]  
Soobader M(2015)Evaluating area-based socioeconomic status indicators for monitoring disparities within health care systems: Results from a primary care network Health Services Research 64 1-19
[3]  
Berkman L(2015)Patterns of health insurance coverage around the time of pregnancy among women with live-born infants—Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, 29 states, 2009 MMWR Surveillance Summaries 83 429-436
[4]  
Berkowitz S(2015)The impact of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program’s Unborn Child Ruling expansions on foreign-born Latina prenatal care and birth outcomes, 2000–2007 Maternal and Child Health Journal 11 e676-e682
[5]  
Traore C(2011)Primary care for refugees American Family Physician 52 10-19
[6]  
Singer D(2012)The “Latina epidemiologic paradox”: Contrasting patters of adverse birth outcomes in U.S.-born and foreign-born Latinas Womens Health Issues 193 475-482
[7]  
Atlas S(2014)Maternal health and pregnancy outcomes among women of refugee background from African countries: A retrospective, observational study in Australia BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 36 296-302
[8]  
D’Angelo DV(2003)Perinatal outcomes in two dissimilar populations in the United States: A dual epidemiologic paradox Pediatrics 102 25-30
[9]  
Le B(2013)“I have to do what I believe”: Sudanese women’s beliefs and resistance to hegemonic practices at home and during experiences of maternity care in Canada BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 72 1695-1703
[10]  
O’Neil ME(2014)Insurance coverage and prenatal care among low-income pregnant women: An assessment of states’ adoption of the “Unborn Child” option in Medicaid and CHIP Medical Care 94 79-80