Adverse perinatal outcomes associated with homelessness and substance use in pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women who are homeless during pregnancy may be exposed to poor nutrition, violence and substance use, yet the health status of their newborn infants has not been systematically evaluated. We undertook a study to provide preliminary estimates of the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes among Canadian women who are homeless or marginally housed during pregnancy, and the effect of concomitant substance use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single downtown hospital from October 2002 to December 2004, involving women who, during pregnancy, were homeless or underhoused (n = 80), substance users (n = 59) or neither (n = 3756). We noted neonatal measures such as birth weight and gestational age; the main study outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation, birth weight less than 2000 g and small for gestational age at birth. RESULTS: Homelessness or inadequate housing was associated with an odds ratio (adjusted for maternal age, gravidity and being a current smoker of tobacco) of 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-6.1) for preterm delivery, 6.9 (95% CI 2.4- 20.0) for infant birth weight under 2000 g and 3.3 (95% CI 1.1- 10.3) for delivery of a newborn small for gestational age. Adjusted odds ratios for substance use during pregnancy were similar. In the combined presence of an underhoused or homeless state and maternal substance use, the adjusted risk estimates were 5.9 (95% CI 1.9-18.5), 16.6 (95% CI 3.5-79.3) and 5.6 (95% CI 1.1-28.7), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Homelessness and maternal substance use may reduce neonatal well-being through prematurity and low birth weight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".