Cargando…

Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between area and individual measures of social disadvantage and infant health in the UK. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 26 databases and websites, reference lists, experts in the field and hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: 36 prospe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weightman, Alison L, Morgan, Helen E, Shepherd, Michael A, Kitcher, Hilary, Roberts, Chris, Dunstan, Frank D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3378945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000964
_version_ 1782236108004786176
author Weightman, Alison L
Morgan, Helen E
Shepherd, Michael A
Kitcher, Hilary
Roberts, Chris
Dunstan, Frank D
author_facet Weightman, Alison L
Morgan, Helen E
Shepherd, Michael A
Kitcher, Hilary
Roberts, Chris
Dunstan, Frank D
author_sort Weightman, Alison L
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between area and individual measures of social disadvantage and infant health in the UK. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 26 databases and websites, reference lists, experts in the field and hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: 36 prospective and retrospective observational studies with socioeconomic data and health outcomes for infants in the UK, published from 1994 to May 2011. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 2 independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies and abstracted data. Where possible, study outcomes were reported as ORs for the highest versus the lowest deprivation quintile. RESULTS: In relation to the highest versus lowest area deprivation quintiles, the odds of adverse birth outcomes were 1.81 (95% CI 1.71 to 1.92) for low birth weight, 1.67 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.96) for premature birth and 1.54 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.72) for stillbirth. For infant mortality rates, the ORs were 1.72 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.15) overall, 1.61 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.39) for neonatal and 2.31 (95% CI 2.03 to 2.64) for post-neonatal mortality. For lowest versus highest social class, the odds were 1.79 (95% CI 1.43 to 2.24) for low birth weight, 1.52 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.61) for overall infant mortality, 1.42 (95% CI 1.33 to1.51) for neonatal and 1.69 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.87) for post-neonatal mortality. There are similar patterns for other infant health outcomes with the possible exception of failure to thrive, where there is no clear association. CONCLUSIONS: This review quantifies the influence of social disadvantage on infant outcomes in the UK. The magnitude of effect is similar across a range of area and individual deprivation measures and birth and mortality outcomes. Further research should explore the factors that are more proximal to mothers and infants, to help throw light on the most appropriate times to provide support and the form(s) that this support should take.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3378945
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33789452012-06-21 Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses Weightman, Alison L Morgan, Helen E Shepherd, Michael A Kitcher, Hilary Roberts, Chris Dunstan, Frank D BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between area and individual measures of social disadvantage and infant health in the UK. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 26 databases and websites, reference lists, experts in the field and hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: 36 prospective and retrospective observational studies with socioeconomic data and health outcomes for infants in the UK, published from 1994 to May 2011. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 2 independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies and abstracted data. Where possible, study outcomes were reported as ORs for the highest versus the lowest deprivation quintile. RESULTS: In relation to the highest versus lowest area deprivation quintiles, the odds of adverse birth outcomes were 1.81 (95% CI 1.71 to 1.92) for low birth weight, 1.67 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.96) for premature birth and 1.54 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.72) for stillbirth. For infant mortality rates, the ORs were 1.72 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.15) overall, 1.61 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.39) for neonatal and 2.31 (95% CI 2.03 to 2.64) for post-neonatal mortality. For lowest versus highest social class, the odds were 1.79 (95% CI 1.43 to 2.24) for low birth weight, 1.52 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.61) for overall infant mortality, 1.42 (95% CI 1.33 to1.51) for neonatal and 1.69 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.87) for post-neonatal mortality. There are similar patterns for other infant health outcomes with the possible exception of failure to thrive, where there is no clear association. CONCLUSIONS: This review quantifies the influence of social disadvantage on infant outcomes in the UK. The magnitude of effect is similar across a range of area and individual deprivation measures and birth and mortality outcomes. Further research should explore the factors that are more proximal to mothers and infants, to help throw light on the most appropriate times to provide support and the form(s) that this support should take. BMJ Group 2012-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3378945/ /pubmed/22700833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000964 Text en © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Public Health
Weightman, Alison L
Morgan, Helen E
Shepherd, Michael A
Kitcher, Hilary
Roberts, Chris
Dunstan, Frank D
Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_fullStr Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_short Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_sort social inequality and infant health in the uk: systematic review and meta-analyses
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3378945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000964
work_keys_str_mv AT weightmanalisonl socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT morganhelene socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT shepherdmichaela socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT kitcherhilary socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT robertschris socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT dunstanfrankd socialinequalityandinfanthealthintheuksystematicreviewandmetaanalyses