Advertisement

Patterns of Childbearing and Mortality in Norwegian Women A 20-Year Follow-Up of Women Aged 40–96 in the 1970 Norwegian Census

  • M. Kumle
  • E. Lund
Conference paper
Part of the Research and Perspectives in Longevity book series (RPL)

Summary

In order to study the relationship between different patterns of childbearing and longevity, we have followed married women in the 1970 Norwegian census for 20 years. The analysis was restricted to women aged 40–96, married before the age of 40, and with known information about parity, covering a total of 9 116 783 person-years with 149 044 deaths from all causes. Nulliparous women had higher mortality than parous women did in all age groups. Compared with uniparous women, adjusted for age at start of follow-up, years of education, and age at first and last birth, parous women with three children had the lowest relative risk, 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.90–0.94). Age at first birth had no impact on mortality. Compared to women with a last birth before the age of 25 years, the mortality was lowest in women with a last birth at age 35 years or more, with a relative risk = 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.87–0.92).

We conclude that women with few children born late in the fertile period have the lowest mortality rate for the rest of their lives.

Keywords

Married Woman Total Mortality Nulliparous Woman Parous Woman Fertility Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beral V (1985) Long term effects of childbearing on health. J Epidemiol Community Health 39(4):343–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breslow NE and Day NE, (1980) Statistical methods in cancer research. Lyon: International Agency for Research on CancerGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunborg H (1988) Cohort and period fertility in Norway 1845–1985. 88/4Google Scholar
  4. Dyrvik S (1976) Marriages and number of children-analyses of fertility trends in Norway 1920–1970. Central Bureau of Statistics. Article 89Google Scholar
  5. Green A, Beral V, Moser K (1988) Mortality in women in relation to their childbearing history. Brit Med J 297(6645):391–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kirkwood TB (1977) Evolution of ageing. Nature 270(5635):301–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kirkwood TB, Rose MR (1991) Evolution of senescence: late survival sacrificed for reproduction. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 332(1262):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kravdal O (1995) Is the relationship between childbearing and cancer incidence due to biology or lifestyle? Examples of the importance of using data on men. Int J Epidemiol 24(3):477–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Le-Bourg E (1998) Evolutionary theories of aging: handle with care. Gerontology 44:345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Le-Bourg E, Thon B, Legare J, Desjardins B, Charbonneau H(1993)Reproductive life of French- Canadians in the 17–18th centuries: a search for a trade-off between early fecundity and longevity.Exp Gerontol 28(3):217–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lund E, Arnesen E, Borgan JK, (1990) Pattern of childbearing and mortality in married women – a national prospective study from Norway. J. Epidemiol. Community. Health 44 (3) 237–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perls TT, Alpert L, Fretts RC (1997) Middle-aged mothers live longer. Nature 389:133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Promislow DEL (1998) Longevity and the barren aristocrat. Nature 396:719–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Statistics Norway (1985) Statistical yearbook 1985Google Scholar
  15. Statistics Norway (1999) Aktuelle befolkningstall 8/99Google Scholar
  16. Vassenden K (1987) Folke og boligtellingene 1960, 1970 og 1980 (The census 1960, 1970 and 1980 ). Central Bureau of Statistics. Repport 87/2Google Scholar
  17. Westendorp RGJ, Kirkwood TBL (1998) Human longevity at the cost of reproductive success. Nature 396:743– 746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Williams GC (1957) Pleiotrophy; natural selection and the evolution of science. Evolution 11:398– 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kumle
  • E. Lund

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations