Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 918–927 | Cite as

Labor Management and Mode of Delivery Among Migrant and Spanish Women: Does the Variability Reflect Differences in Obstetric Decisions According to Ethnic Origin?

  • Cristina Bernis
  • Carlos Varea
  • Barry Bogin
  • Antonio González-González


Based on previous findings showing both better birth outcomes in migrant than in Spanish women and different rates of medical intervention according to mother’s origin, we hypothesize that mode of delivery decisions to solve similar problems differ according to ethnic origin. Ethnic differences for maternal characteristics, medical intervention, and mode of delivery were evaluated in 16,589 births from a Maternity Hospital in Madrid (Spain). Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of mother’s ethnic origin on the mode of delivery, adjusting for mother’s age, parity, gestational age, birth weight, and epidural anesthesia. Compared with the Spanish mothers, the risk of having a Caesarean section is significantly higher in Latin Americans and significantly lower for the Chinese. Both low birth weight and macrosomic deliveries are at higher risk for Caesarean section. The interventionist system characterizing Spain is being extended to all ethnic groups and, at the same time, different medical interventions are applied to similar problems depending on women’s ethnic origin. Obstetric interventions might be contributing to the increasing trend of low birth weight and late preterm/early full term deliveries (37–38 weeks) observed in Spain. Behavioral and cultural values of the women and of the health care providers may contribute to systematic differences in labor management and mode of delivery.


Epidural analgesia Obstetric intervention Delivery Ethnicity 


  1. 1.
    WHO. (1985). Appropriate technology for birth. The Lancet, 2, 436–437.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO. (1999). Care in normal birth: A practical guide. Report of a technical working group. WHO/FRH/MSM/96.24. Genèva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHO. (2006). Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum and newborn care: A guide for essential practice (2nd ed.). Genéva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. (2007). Estrategia de atención al parto normal en el sistema nacional de Salud. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social. (2010). Guía de práctica clínica sobre la atención al parto normal. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SEGO. (2008). Recomendaciones sobre la asistencia al parto. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Obstetricia y Ginecología.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Festin, M. R., Lumbiganon, P., Tolosa, J. E., Finney, K. A., Ba-Thike, K., Chipato, T., et al. (2003). International survey on variations in practice of the management of the third stage of labour. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 286–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaillet, N., Dubé, E., Dugas, M., Francoeur, D., Dubé, J., Gagnon, S., et al. (2007). Identifying barriers and facilitators towards implementing guidelines to reduce caesarean section rates in Quebec. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85, 791–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EURO-PERISTAT. (2008). European perinatal health report. EURO-PERISTAT project, with SCPE, EUROCAT, EURONEOSTAT. EURO-PERISTAT. Available from
  10. 10.
    Wilkinson, C., McIlwaine, G., Boulton-Jones, C., & Cole, S. (1998). Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 105, 45–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Astolfi, P., Ulizzi, L., & Zonta, L. A. (1999). Selective cost of delayed childbearing. Human Reproduction, 14, 572–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joseph, K. S., Young, D. C., Dodds, L., O’Connell, C. M., Allen, V. M., et al. (2003). Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 102, 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Machado, C. J. (2006). Impact of maternal age on birth outcomes: A population study of primiparous Brazilian women in the city of San Paulo. Journal of Biosocial Science, 38, 523–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malin, M., & Gissler, M. (2009). Maternal care and birth outcomes among ethnic minority women in Finland. BMC Public Health, 9, 84–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luque, M. A., Bueno, A., & Mateo, S. (2010). Excess of maternal mortality in foreign nationalities in Spain, 1999–2006. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 149, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alderliesten, M. E., Vrijkotte, T. G. M., van der Wal, M. F., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Late start of antenatal care among ethnic minorities in a large cohort of pregnant women. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 114, 1232–1239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vangen, S., Stoltenberg, C., Skrondal, A., Magnis, P., & Stray-Pendersen, P. M. (2000). Cesarean section among immigrants in Norway. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 79, 553–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernis, C. (2009). Determinantes biológicos y sociales del embarazo y el parto: estado nutricional, género y origen. In C. Bernis, R. López, P. Montero (Eds.), Determinantes biológicos, psicológicos y sociales de la maternidad en el S XXI. Mitos y realidades (pp. 79–124). Madrid: Ediciones: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Río, I., Castelló, A., Jané, M., Prats, R., Barona, C., Más, R., et al. (2010). Indicadores de salud reproductiva y perinatal en mujeres inmigrantes y autóctonas residentes en Cataluña y en la Comunitat Valenciana (2005–2006). Gaceta Sanitaria, 24, 123–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernis, C., & Varea, C. (2012). Hour of birth and birth assistance: From a primate to a medicalized pattern? American Journal of Human Biology, 24, 14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Acevedo, P. (2005). Impacto sociosanitario de la migración en las mujeres magrebíes y latinoamericanas en Madrid. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 31, 192–201.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Varea, C., Bernis, C., González-González, A. (2012). Maternal characteristics and temporal trends in birth outcomes: comparison between Spanish and migrant mothers. International Journal of Population Research. Article ID 412680. doi:10.1155/2012/412680.
  23. 23.
    Bernis, C. (2010). Factores causales de la reducción del peso al nacer en España 1980–2007: cambios en la viabilidad fetal, en la distribución de la edad gestacional y en la dinámica del crecimiento intrauterino. Revista Española de Antropología Física, 31, 233–247.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Acevedo, P., Bernis, C., Varea, C., & Montero, P. (2009). Gestación y maternidad de las mujeres de Madrid: comparación entre madres inmigrantes y españolas. Revista Española de Antropología Física, 30, 23–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alonso V. (2008). Características de la reproducción y somatometría del recién nacido en población española y latinoamericana residente en Madrid. Ph. D. dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Medical Association. (2004). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available from:
  27. 27.
    Merten, S., Wyss, C., & Ackerman-Liebrich, U. (2007). Cesarean sections and breastfeeding initiation among migrants in Switzerland. International Journal of Public Health, 52, 210–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stanton, C. K., Dubourg, D., De Brouwere, V., Pujades, M., & Ronsmans, C. (2005). Reliability of data on cesarean sections in developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83, 1.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHO. (2011). World health statistics. Genève: World Health Organization. Available from:
  30. 30.
    Abbassi, H., Aboulfalah, A., Morsad, F., Matar, N., Himmi, A., & El Mansouri, A. (2000). Maternal complications of cesarean section: Retrospective analysis of 3,231 interventions at the Casablanca University Hospital (Morocco). Sante, 10, 419–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Belizan, J. M., Althabe, F., & Cafferata, M. L. (2007). Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology, 18, 485–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Belizán, J. M., Althabe, F., Barros, F. C., & Alexander, S. (1999). Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: Ecological study. British Medical Journal, 319, 1397–1400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Althabe, F., & Belizán, J. F. (2006). Caesarean section: the paradox. The Lancet, 368, 1516–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Villar, J., Valladares, F., Wodgdyla, D., Zavaleta, N., Carrolli, G., Velazco, A., et al. (2006). Cesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes. The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. The Lancet, 367, 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klein, M. C. (2006). Does epidural analgesia increase rate of cesarean section? Canadian Family Physician, 10, 419–421.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    INE. (2012). Vital statistics. Available from Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
  37. 37.
    Murta, E. F., Freire, G. C., Fabri, D. C., & Fabri, R. H. (2006). Could elective cesarean sections influence the birth weight of full-term infants? Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 124, 313–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    UNFPA. (2006). State of world population 2006: A passage to hope: Women and international migration. New York: United Nations Population Fund.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    INE. (2009). Encuesta Nacional de Inmigrantes 2007: una monografía. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Varea, C. (2009). El debate sobre un nuevo patrón reproductor en España y la contribución del colectivo de mujeres emigrantes In: C. Bernis, R. López, P. Montero (Eds.), Determinantes biológicos, psicológicos y sociales de la maternidad en el S XXI. Mitos y realidades (pp. 171–198). Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    García, A. (2009). Analgesia epidural: variación con paridad, origen materno y transcurso del parto. In: C. Bernis, R. López, P. Montero (Eds.), Determinantes biológicos, psicológicos y sociales de la maternidad en el S XXI. Mitos y realidades (pp. 27–341). Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bajo, J. (2009). Parto no medicalizado acorde a las directrices de la SEGO. In: C. Bernis, R. López, P. Montero (Eds.), Determinantes biológicos, psicológicos y sociales de la maternidad en el S XXI. Mitos y realidades (pp. 341–352). Madrid: Ediciones: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bofill, J. A., Vincent, R. D., Ross, E. L., Martin, R. W., Norman, P. F., Werhan, C. F., et al. (1997). Nulliparous active labour, epidural analgesia, and cesarean delivery for dystocia. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 177, 1465–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thompson, T. T., Thorp, J. M., Mayer, D., Kuller, J. A., & Bowes, W. A. (1998). Does epidural analgesia cause dystocia? Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 10, 58–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Romero, R., Espinoza, J., Kusanovic, J. P., Gotsch, F., Hassan, S., Erez, O., et al. (2006). The preterm parturition syndrome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 113(Supplement 3), 17–42. doi:10.111/j.1471-0528.2006.01120.x.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kramer, M. S. (2003). The epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes: An overview. The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 1592S–1596S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alexander, G. R., & Slay, M. (2002). Prematurity at birth: Trends, racial disparities, and epidemiology. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 8, 215–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Alexander, G. R., Himes, J. H., Kaufman, R. B., Mor, J., & Kogan, M. (1996). United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 87, 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ferré, C., Handler, A., Hsia, J., Barfield, W., & Collins, J. W. (2011). Changing trends of low birth weight rates among non-Hispanic black infants in the United States, 1991–2004. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15, 29–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Crump, C., Sundquist, K., Sundquist, J., & Winkleby, M. (2011). Gestational age at birth and mortality in young adulthood. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 306, 1233–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kościński, K., Krenz-Niedbała, M., & Kozłowska-Rajewicz, A. (2004). Month-of-birth effect on height and weight in Polish rural children. American Journal of Human Biology, 16, 31–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barker, D. J. P., Gluckman, P. D., Godfrey, K. M., Harding, J. E., Owen, J. A., & Robinson, J. S. (1993). Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in adult life. The Lancet, 341, 938–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hales, C. N., & Barker, D. J. (2001). The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. British Medical Bulletin, 60, 5–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    González-González, A. (2009). Riesgos del embarazo y del parto. In: C. Berni, R. López, P. Montero (Eds.), Determinantes biológicos, psicológicos y sociales de la maternidad en el S XXI. Mitos y realidades (pp. 297–317). Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rao, A. K., Cheng, Y. W., & Caughey, A. B. (2006). Perinatal complications among different Asian-American subgroups. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 194, e39–e41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Bernis
    • 1
  • Carlos Varea
    • 1
  • Barry Bogin
    • 2
  • Antonio González-González
    • 3
  1. 1.CD Antropología Física, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.School of Sport, Exercise and Health SciencesLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK
  3. 3.Hospital Universitario Materno-Infantil “La Paz”, Facultad de MedicinaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations