Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many refugees from Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma and Iraq have resettled in Australia, however little is known about pregnancy outcomes in these populations. This study aimed to describe maternal health, pregnancy care attendance and pregnancy outcomes among women of refugee background from these countries, compared to nonrefugee migrant women. Method: Retrospective, observational study of singleton births, at the largest maternity service in Victoria, Australia 2002–2011, to women born in humanitarian source countries (HSCs) and non-HSCs from South Asia (n = 9342), South-East Asia (n = 5681) and West Asia (n = 1277). Results: Compared to the non-HSC groups, overweight (43–67%), age < 20 years (0.3–6.5%), anaemia (3.5–9.4%) and vitamin-D deficiency/ insufficiency (26–37%) were generally more common in the HSC groups. Gestational diabetes was common across all groups (7.5–11%). After adjusting for maternal age, BMI, parity and socio-economic disadvantage, among women from South Asia, HSC-birth was independently associated with poor/no pregnancy care attendance (OR = 4.2 95%CI:2.5–7.3), late booking visit (OR = 1.3 95%CI:1.1–1.5) and birth > 41 weeks (OR = 3.0 95%CI:2.0–4.5) Among women from South-East Asia, HSC-birth was independently associated with labour induction (OR = 2.0 95%CI:1.1–3.5). There were no independent associations between HSC-birth and adverse pregnancy outcomes among West Asian women. Conclusions: Compared to women of non-refugee background, women of refugee background had poorer general health that may be improved by early pregnancy care. While adverse pregnancy outcomes were generally not more common among women of refugee background, they may have a high risk of long-term metabolic diseases. In women from Afghanistan and Bhutan, targeted strategies to improve pregnancy care engagement may also reduce post-term birth incidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".