Somali women and their pregnancy outcomes postmigration: data from six receiving countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate pregnancy outcomes in Somali-born women compared with those women born in each of the six receiving countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden. DESIGN: Meta-analyses of routinely collected data on confinements and births. SETTING: National or regional perinatal datasets spanning 3-6 years between 1997 and 2004 from six countries. SAMPLE: A total of 10 431 Somali-born women and 2 168 891 receiving country-born women. METHODS: Meta-analyses to compare outcomes for Somali-born and receiving country-born women across the six countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Events of labour (induction, epidural use and proportion of women using no analgesia), mode of birth (spontaneous vaginal birth, operative vaginal birth and caesarean section) and infant outcomes (preterm birth, birthweight, Apgar at 5 minutes, stillbirths and neonatal deaths). RESULTS: Compared with receiving country-born women, Somali-born women were less likely to give birth preterm (pooled OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.81) or to have infants of low birthweight (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), but there was an excess of caesarean sections, particularly in first births (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59) and an excess of stillbirths (pooled OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.38-2.51). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has identified a number of disparities in outcomes between Somali-born women and their receiving country counterparts. The disparities are not readily explained and they raise concerns about the provision of maternity care for Somali women postmigration. Review of maternity care practices followed by implementation and careful evaluation of strategies to improve both care and outcomes for Somali women is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".