Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 307–314 | Cite as

Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Comparison of Risk Factors and Prevalence in Native and Migrant Mothers of Portuguese Generation XXI Birth Cohort

  • Musa Abubakar KanaEmail author
  • Sofia Correia
  • Henrique Barros
Original Paper


Epidemiological studies report conflicting findings regarding association between maternal immigration status and pregnancy outcomes. In this study we compared risk factors and prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in native Portuguese and migrants. Cross-sectional analysis was conducted using information collected at delivery from the participants of Generation XXI birth cohort. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess the association between migrant status and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prevalence of risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes varied between native Portuguese and migrants: teenage mothers (5.6 and 2.0%), primiparae (57.1 and 63.9%), smoking during pregnancy (23.0 and 19.1%), twins (3.2 and 8.0%), and caesarean section (35.2 and 45.7%). Among singleton births, prevalence of low birthweight, preterm birth and small for gestational age were 7.3 and 3.9%, 7.5 and 6.2%, and 15.1 and 7.6%, respectively for native Portuguese and migrants. The native Portuguese had an adjusted significantly higher risk of low birthweight (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.30, 5.48) and small for gestational age (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26, 3.21), but a similar risk for preterm birth (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81, 2, 34). Migrant mothers presented a lower risk of low birthweight and small for gestation and data suggest a healthy immigrant effect.


Migrants Portuguese Risk factors Adverse pregnancy outcomes 



The authors also wish to express their gratitude to the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology for supporting their institution, the Epidemiology Research Unit of Institute of Public Health University of Porto (UID/DTP/04750/2013), and specific Grant awards (SFRH/BPD/75918/2011, PTDC/DTPSAP/ 6384/2014 and SFRH/BSAB/113778/2015).

Author Contributions

HB was responsible for the design and assembling of Generation XXI birth cohort. MK and HB conceived and designed the study and analysis. MK, SC and HB prepared the datasets and analysed the data. MK drafted the manuscript. HB reviewed, edited and revised the manuscript as well as supervised all the processes. All authors interpreted data and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. Finally, all the authors read and approved the final version.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10903_2018_761_MOESM1_ESM.doc (84 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 84 KB)
10903_2018_761_MOESM2_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 44 KB)
10903_2018_761_MOESM3_ESM.doc (60 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 59 KB)


  1. 1.
    Gissler M, Alexander S, MacFarlane A, Small R, Stray-Pedersen B, Zeitlin J, Zimbeck M, Gagnon A. Stillbirths and infant deaths among migrants in industrialized countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(2):134–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim D, Saada A. The social determinants of infant mortality and birth outcomes in Western developed nations: a cross-country systematic review. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2013;10(6):2296–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pedersen GS, Mortensen LH, Gerster M, Rich-Edwards J, Andersen AM. Preterm birth and birthweight-for-gestational age among immigrant women in Denmark 1978–2007: a nationwide registry study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(6):534–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Auger N, Luo ZC, Platt RW, Daniel M. Do mother’s education and foreign born status interact to influence birth outcomes? Clarifying the epidemiological paradox and the healthy migrant effect. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(5):402–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castello A, Rio I, Martinez E, Rebagliato M, Barona C, Llacer A, Bolumar F. Differences in preterm and low birth weight deliveries between spanish and immigrant women: influence of the prenatal care received. Ann Epidemiol. 2012;22(3):175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keygnaert I, Ivanova O, Guieu A, Van Parys AS, Leye E, Roelens K. What is the evidence on the reduction of inequalities in accessibility and quality of maternal health care delivery for migrants? A review of the existing evidence in the WHO European Region. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gagnon AJ, Zimbeck M, Zeitlin J, Alexander S, Blondel B, Buitendijk S, Desmeules M, Di Lallo D, Gagnon A, Gissler M, et al. Migration to western industrialised countries and perinatal health: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2009, 69(6):934–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merry L, Small R, Blondel B, Gagnon AJ. International migration and caesarean birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puthussery S. Perinatal outcomes among migrant mothers in the United Kingdom: Is it a matter of biology, behaviour, policy, social determinants or access to health care? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;32:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Almeida LM, Caldas J, Ayres-de-Campos D, Salcedo-Barrientos D, Dias S. Maternal healthcare in migrants: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(8):1346–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blumenshine P, Egerter S, Barclay CJ, Cubbin C, Braveman PA. Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39(3):263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Urquia ML, O’Campo PJ, Heaman MI. Revisiting the immigrant paradox in reproductive health: the roles of duration of residence and ethnicity. Soc Sci Med (1982) 2012, 74(10):1610–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollini P, Pampallona S, Wanner P, Kupelnick B. Pregnancy outcome of migrant women and integration policy: a systematic review of the international literature. Soc Sci Med (1982) 2009;68(3):452–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Bell R, Pearce MS, Parker L. Temporal changes in the distribution of population risk factors attenuate the reduction in perinatal mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(12):1299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varea C, Teran JM, Bernis C, Bogin B, Gonzalez-Gonzalez A. Is the economic crisis affecting birth outcome in Spain? Evaluation of temporal trend in underweight at birth (2003–2012). Ann Hum Biol. 2016;43(2):169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt L, Sobotka T, Bentzen JG, Nyboe Andersen A. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(1):29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gotsens M, Malmusi D, Villarroel N, Vives-Cases C, Garcia-Subirats I, Hernando C, Borrell C. Health inequality between immigrants and natives in Spain: the loss of the healthy immigrant effect in times of economic crisis. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):923–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gunnlaugsson G. Child health in Iceland before and after the economic collapse in 2008. Arch Dis Childhood. 2015;101:489–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zilko CE. Economic contraction and birth outcomes: an integrative review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(4):445–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawson AL, Razzaghi H, Arth A, Canfield MA, Parker SE, Reefhuis J. Maternal exposures in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study: time trends of selected exposures. Birth Defects Res A. 2015;103(8):703–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao G, Ford ES, Tsai J, Li C, Ahluwalia IB, Pearson WS, Balluz LS, Croft JB. Trends in health-related behavioral risk factors among pregnant women in the United States: 2001–2009. J Women’s Health. 2002;21(3):255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beck LF, Morrow B, Lipscomb LE, Johnson CH, Gaffield ME, Rogers M, Gilbert BC. Prevalence of selected maternal behaviors and experiences, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries (Washington, DC: 2002). 2002;51(2):1–27.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Racape J, Schoenborn C, Sow M, Alexander S, De Spiegelaere M. Are all immigrant mothers really at risk of low birth weight and perinatal mortality? The crucial role of socio-economic status. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verropoulou G, Tsimbos C. Modelling the effects of maternal socio-demographic characteristics on the preterm and term birth weight distributions in Greece using quantile regression. J Biosoc Sci. 2013;45(3):375–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Schull MJ, Singh G, Shah R, Redelmeier DA. Results of the recent immigrant pregnancy and perinatal long-term evaluation study (RIPPLES). CMAJ. 2007, 176(10):1419–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baron R, Mannien J, te Velde SJ, Klomp T, Hutton EK, Brug J. Socio-demographic inequalities across a range of health status indicators and health behaviours among pregnant women in prenatal primary care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zeitlin J, Wildman K, Breart G, Alexander S, Barros H, Blondel B, Buitendijk S, Gissler M, Macfarlane A. PERISTAT: indicators for monitoring and evaluating perinatal health in Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2003;13(3 Suppl):29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larsen PS, Kamper-Jorgensen M, Adamson A, Barros H, Bonde JP, Brescianini S, Brophy S, Casas M, Charles MA, Devereux G, et al. Pregnancy and birth cohort resources in europe: a large opportunity for aetiological child health research. Paediatric Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27(4):393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alves E, Correia S, Barros H, Azevedo A. Prevalence of self-reported cardiovascular risk factors in Portuguese women: a survey after delivery. Int J Public Health. 2012;57(5):837–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Teixeira C, Correia S, Victora CsG, Barros H. The Brazilian preference: cesarean delivery among immigrants in Portugal. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3):e60168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph KS, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, Blondel B, Breart G. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001;108(2):E35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Correia S, Rodrigues T, Montenegro N, Barros H. Critical evaluation of national vital statistics: the case of preterm birth trends in Portugal. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(11):1215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kramer MS. Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. (0042-9686 (Print)).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sobotka T, Zemen K, Lesthaeghe R, Frejka T, Neels K. Postponement and recuperation in cohort fertility: Austria, Germany and Switzerland in a European Context. Comp Popul Studies. 2011;36(2–3):417–52.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kramer MS. Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65(5):663–737.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Restrepo-Mendez MC, Lawlor DA, Horta BL, Matijasevich A, Santos IS, Menezes AM, Barros FC, Victora CG. The association of maternal age with birthweight and gestational age: a cross-cohort comparison. Paediatric Perinat Epidemiol. 2015;29(1):31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nair M, Kurinczuk JJ, Knight M. Establishing a national maternal morbidity outcome indicator in England: a population-based study using routine hospital data. (1932–6203 (Electronic)).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bandyopadhyay M, Small R, Watson LF, Brown S. Life with a new baby: how do immigrant and Australian-born women’s experiences compare? Australian New Zealand J Public Health. 2010;34(4):412–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Braveman PA. Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: a conceptual framework. J Health Popul Nutr. 2003;21(3):181–92.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Higginbottom GM, Vallianatos H, Forgeron J, Gibbons D, Mamede F, Barolia R. Food choices and practices during pregnancy of immigrant women with high-risk pregnancies in Canada: a pilot study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lindsay AC, Wallington SF, Greaney ML, Hasselman MH, Tavares Machado MM, Mezzavilla RS. Brazilian immigrant mothers’ beliefs and practices related to infant feeding: a qualitative study. J Human Lact. 2016;33(3):595–605.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kramer MS. The epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes: an overview. J Nutr. 2003;133(5 Suppl 2):1592s–6s.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Musa Abubakar Kana
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sofia Correia
    • 1
  • Henrique Barros
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.EPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (ISPUP)PortoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Community Medicine, College of MedicineKaduna State UniversityKadunaNigeria
  3. 3.Faculdade de Medicina, Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação MédicaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations