高收入国家的难民和寻求庇护者在怀孕和分娩期间的临床干预率是否有所不同?范围综述。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1186/s12884-024-06893-2
Alix Bukkfalvi-Cadotte, Gargi Naha, Ashra Khanom, Amy Brown, Helen Snooks
{"title":"高收入国家的难民和寻求庇护者在怀孕和分娩期间的临床干预率是否有所不同?范围综述。","authors":"Alix Bukkfalvi-Cadotte, Gargi Naha, Ashra Khanom, Amy Brown, Helen Snooks","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06893-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequate maternity care and appropriate clinical interventions during labour and delivery can reduce adverse perinatal outcomes, but unnecessary interventions may cause harm. While studies have shown that refugees and asylum seekers face important barriers when accessing maternity care, there is a lack of high-quality quantitative data on perinatal health interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean sections, among refugees and asylum seekers and the findings reported in the literature tend to be inconsistent. Our goal was to examine and synthesise the evidence regarding the rates of intrapartum clinical interventions in women who are refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to other population groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies published in English since 2011 that report original quantitative findings regarding intrapartum clinical interventions among refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to those in non refugee, non asylum seeker populations. We examined reported rates of clinical pain relief, labour induction and augmentation, episiotomies, instrumental deliveries, and caesarean sections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five papers were included in the review. Findings indicate that refugees and asylum seekers were less likely to receive pain relief, with 16 out of 20 data points showing unadjusted ORs ranging from 0.20 (CI: 0.10-0.60) to 0.96 (CI: 0.70-1.32). Similarly, findings indicate lower odds of instrumental delivery among refugees and asylum seekers with 14 of 21 data points showing unadjusted ORs between 0.25 (CI: 0.15-0.39) and 0.78 (CI: 0.47-1.30); the remaining papers report no statistically significant difference between groups. There was no discernable trend in rates of labour induction and episiotomies across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The studies included in this review suggest that asylum seekers and refugees are less likely to receive clinical pain relief and experience instrumental delivery than non-refugee groups in high-income countries. This review strengthens our understanding of the links between immigration status and maternity care, ultimately informing policy and practice to improve perinatal health and the provision of care for all.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":"24 1","pages":"742"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11558906/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are rates of clinical interventions during pregnancy and childbirth different for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries? A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Alix Bukkfalvi-Cadotte, Gargi Naha, Ashra Khanom, Amy Brown, Helen Snooks\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12884-024-06893-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequate maternity care and appropriate clinical interventions during labour and delivery can reduce adverse perinatal outcomes, but unnecessary interventions may cause harm. While studies have shown that refugees and asylum seekers face important barriers when accessing maternity care, there is a lack of high-quality quantitative data on perinatal health interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean sections, among refugees and asylum seekers and the findings reported in the literature tend to be inconsistent. Our goal was to examine and synthesise the evidence regarding the rates of intrapartum clinical interventions in women who are refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to other population groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies published in English since 2011 that report original quantitative findings regarding intrapartum clinical interventions among refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to those in non refugee, non asylum seeker populations. We examined reported rates of clinical pain relief, labour induction and augmentation, episiotomies, instrumental deliveries, and caesarean sections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five papers were included in the review. Findings indicate that refugees and asylum seekers were less likely to receive pain relief, with 16 out of 20 data points showing unadjusted ORs ranging from 0.20 (CI: 0.10-0.60) to 0.96 (CI: 0.70-1.32). Similarly, findings indicate lower odds of instrumental delivery among refugees and asylum seekers with 14 of 21 data points showing unadjusted ORs between 0.25 (CI: 0.15-0.39) and 0.78 (CI: 0.47-1.30); the remaining papers report no statistically significant difference between groups. There was no discernable trend in rates of labour induction and episiotomies across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The studies included in this review suggest that asylum seekers and refugees are less likely to receive clinical pain relief and experience instrumental delivery than non-refugee groups in high-income countries. This review strengthens our understanding of the links between immigration status and maternity care, ultimately informing policy and practice to improve perinatal health and the provision of care for all.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"742\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11558906/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06893-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06893-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在分娩过程中,充分的产科护理和适当的临床干预可以减少围产期的不良后果,但不必要的干预可能会造成伤害。研究表明,难民和寻求庇护者在获得产科护理时面临着重大障碍,但目前缺乏有关难民和寻求庇护者围产期保健干预措施(如引产或剖腹产)的高质量定量数据,文献中报道的结果也往往不一致。我们的目标是对高收入国家的难民和寻求庇护者与其他人群相比的产前临床干预率的相关证据进行研究和综合:我们对 2011 年以来发表的同行评审英文研究进行了范围界定,这些研究报告了与非难民、非寻求庇护者人群相比,高收入国家难民和寻求庇护者产前临床干预的原始定量研究结果。我们研究了临床镇痛、引产和扩产、外阴切开术、器械助产和剖腹产的报告率:共有 25 篇论文被纳入审查范围。研究结果表明,难民和寻求庇护者接受镇痛的几率较低,20个数据点中有16个未调整OR值介于0.20(CI:0.10-0.60)至0.96(CI:0.70-1.32)之间。同样,研究结果表明,难民和寻求庇护者使用器械分娩的几率较低,21 个数据点中有 14 个数据点显示未经调整的 OR 值介于 0.25(CI:0.15-0.39)和 0.78(CI:0.47-1.30)之间;其余论文报告的组间差异无统计学意义。不同研究的引产率和外阴切开术率没有明显趋势:本综述中的研究表明,与高收入国家的非难民群体相比,寻求庇护者和难民接受临床镇痛和工具性分娩的可能性较低。本综述加强了我们对移民身份与孕产妇护理之间联系的理解,最终为改善围产期健康和为所有人提供护理的政策和实践提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are rates of clinical interventions during pregnancy and childbirth different for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries? A scoping review.

Background: Adequate maternity care and appropriate clinical interventions during labour and delivery can reduce adverse perinatal outcomes, but unnecessary interventions may cause harm. While studies have shown that refugees and asylum seekers face important barriers when accessing maternity care, there is a lack of high-quality quantitative data on perinatal health interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean sections, among refugees and asylum seekers and the findings reported in the literature tend to be inconsistent. Our goal was to examine and synthesise the evidence regarding the rates of intrapartum clinical interventions in women who are refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to other population groups.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies published in English since 2011 that report original quantitative findings regarding intrapartum clinical interventions among refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries compared to those in non refugee, non asylum seeker populations. We examined reported rates of clinical pain relief, labour induction and augmentation, episiotomies, instrumental deliveries, and caesarean sections.

Results: Twenty-five papers were included in the review. Findings indicate that refugees and asylum seekers were less likely to receive pain relief, with 16 out of 20 data points showing unadjusted ORs ranging from 0.20 (CI: 0.10-0.60) to 0.96 (CI: 0.70-1.32). Similarly, findings indicate lower odds of instrumental delivery among refugees and asylum seekers with 14 of 21 data points showing unadjusted ORs between 0.25 (CI: 0.15-0.39) and 0.78 (CI: 0.47-1.30); the remaining papers report no statistically significant difference between groups. There was no discernable trend in rates of labour induction and episiotomies across studies.

Conclusions: The studies included in this review suggest that asylum seekers and refugees are less likely to receive clinical pain relief and experience instrumental delivery than non-refugee groups in high-income countries. This review strengthens our understanding of the links between immigration status and maternity care, ultimately informing policy and practice to improve perinatal health and the provision of care for all.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
期刊最新文献
Effect of day 3 embryo cell number on the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of day 4 single embryo transfer from fresh cycles. Glycated albumin levels in the third trimester of women with gestational diabetes mellitus are associated with adverse pregnancy-related outcomes. Impact of healthy pregnancy and lifestyle in mothers on developmental delay in their offspring: a strength-based analysis of a longitudinal study among indigenous children in Australia. Complicated grief following the perinatal loss: a systematic review. Correction: What tools are available to assess climate and environmental health impacts on perinatal families with an equity lens? A rapid review of the Canadian context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1