Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23702785›Full record

ArticleJournal of immigrant and minority health2014

Differences in timely antenatal care between first and second-generation migrants in the Netherlands.

Anushka A Choté, Gerrit T Koopmans, Christianne J M de Groot, Renske J Hoefman, Vincent W V Jaddoe, Albert Hofman, Eric A P Steegers, Johan P Mackenbach, Margo Trappenburg, Marleen Foets

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anushka A ChotéDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, chote@bmg.eur.nl.
Gerrit T Koopmans
Christianne J M de Groot
Renske J Hoefman
Vincent W V Jaddoe
Albert Hofman
Eric A P Steegers
Johan P Mackenbach
Margo Trappenburg
Marleen Foets

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess whether there are differences in the timing of first antenatal care visit between 1st and 2nd-generation migrants, and if so, how such differences could be explained. The study has been conducted in the framework of Generation R Study, a multi-ethnic population-based study conducted in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study population consists of 845 women of the six largest ethnic groups. Data were derived from the electronic antenatal charts of the participating midwives and from written questionnaires. Logistic regression analyses have been carried out to investigate whether difference could be explained by need, predisposing and enabling factors. More first than second generation women enter antenatal care after 14 weeks of pregnancy (28.1 vs. 18.7 %). Women who were not likely to adopt healthy behaviour regarding pregnancy--such as timely taking folic acid--equally were not inclined to enter antenatal care early in pregnancy. The role of Dutch language mastery was limited. Given our results, first generation women are less likely to receive timely health educational advice or to benefit from screening opportunities than second generation women. Future studies should pay more attention to adequate assessment of proficiency of the host language.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityTransients and MigrantsAdultFemaleHumansNetherlandsPregnancyPrenatal CareProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.