Advertisement

Maternal unemployment: an indicator of spontaneous preterm delivery risk

  • Teresa Rodrigues
  • Henrique Barros
PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the association between maternal employment and preterm delivery. A nationwide case–control study was conducted in 25 Portuguese public maternities. During a 4-month period, 769 consecutive single spontaneous preterm (<37 gestation weeks) live births and 1,053 term singleton babies born immediately after each preterm, were evaluated. Information was obtained by attending physicians using a questionnaire, with special emphasis on maternal work characterization. Logistic regression odds ratios (OR) were adjusted for maternal age, marital status, education and obstetrical characteristics. Women entering pregnancy while unemployed presented a significantly increased risk of spontaneous preterm delivery (OR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18–1.88). Weekly duration of work (<40 versus ≥40 h) had no significant effect on the occurrence of spontaneous preterm (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.88–1.54). Unemployed women presented a significant increase in the risk of preterm delivery.

Keywords

Maternal occupation Preterm Risk factors Unemployment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Authors gratefully acknowledge a grant from Comissão de Fomento da Investigação em Cuidados de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde P·I. 167/97.

References

  1. 1.
    Demissie K, Rhoads GG, Ananth CV, et al. Trends in preterm birth and neonatal mortality among blacks and whites in the United States from 1989 to 1997. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:307–15. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.4.307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buehler JW, Kleinman JC, Hogue CJ, et al. Birth weight-specific infant mortality, United States, 1960 and 1980. Public Health Rep. 1987;102:151–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mozurkewich EL, Luke B, Avni M, Wolf FM. Working conditions and adverse pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:623–35. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00598-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mercer BM, Goldenberg RL, Das A, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, et al. The preterm prediction study: a clinical risk assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1885–95. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70225-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, et al. Risk factors associated with preterm (<37 + 0 weeks) and early preterm birth (<32 + 0 weeks): univariate and multivariate analysis of 106 345 singleton births from the 1994 state wide perinatal survey of Bavaria. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;80:183–9. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(98)00130-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanke W, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Sobala W, Kalinka J. Employment status of pregnant women in central Poland and the risk of preterm delivery and small-for-gestational-age infants. Eur J Public Health. 2001;11:23–8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/11.1.23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Zeitlin J, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Di Renzo GC, Bréart G, et al. Employment, working conditions, and preterm birth: results from the Europop case–control survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:395–401. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.008029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen N, Savitz DA, Thorp JM. Risk factors for preterm birth in Vietnam. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;86:70–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.04.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Céron-Mireles P, Harlow SD, Sánchez-Carrillo CI. The risk of prematurity and small-for-gestational-age birth in Mexico City: the effects of working conditions and antenatal leave. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:825–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mamelle N, Laumon B, Lazar P. Prematurity and occupational activity during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119:309–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Kaminski M, Llado-Arkhipoff J, et al. Pregnancy and its outcome among hospital personnel according to occupation and working conditions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985;39:129–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schramm WF, Stockbauer JW, Hoffman HJ. Exercise, employment, other daily activities, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143:211–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Savitz DA, Olshan AF, Gallagher K. Maternal occupation and pregnancy outcome. Epidemiology. 1996;7:269–74. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199605000-00009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murphy JF, Dauncey M, Newcombe R, et al. Employment in pregnancy: prevalence, maternal characteristics, perinatal outcome. Lancet. 1984;1:1163–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(84)91404-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Estatísticas demográficas. Lisboa.1970–2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Artazcoz L, Borrell C, Benach J, Cortes I, Rohlfs I. Women, family demands and health: the importance of employment status and socio-economic position. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:263–74. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Estatísticas do Emprego 1995 e 2004. Instituto Nacional de Estatística.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ministério do Emprego e da Segurança Social. Decreto-Lei no154/88 de 29 de Abril e nº 77/2005 de 13 de Abril.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hygiene and EpidemiologyUniversity of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal Al. Prof. Hernani MonteiroPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations