Maternal unemployment: an indicator of spontaneous preterm delivery risk

  • Teresa RodriguesEmail author
  • Henrique Barros


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.


Maternal occupation Preterm Risk factors Unemployment 



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


  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