ArticleJournal of immigrant and minority health2014
Differences in timely antenatal care between first and second-generation migrants in the Netherlands.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes of second-generation mothers in Europe: a systematic review.Globalization and health · 2025Pooled it
- The role of education and migration background in explaining differences in folic acid supplementation intake in pregnancy: results from a German birth cohort study.Public health nutrition · 2021Article
- Challenges and barriers to optimal maternity care for recently migrated women - a mixed-method study in Norway.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Geographical, Ethnic and Socio-Economic Differences in Utilization of Obstetric Care in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2016Observational
- Explanatory factors for first and second-generation non-western women's inadequate prenatal care utilisation: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
23702785What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.