ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2013
Changing trend? Sex ratios of children born to Indian immigrants in Norway revisited.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Sex ratios and 'missing women' among Asian minority and migrant populations in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a retrospective cohort analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues.Prenatal diagnosis · 2020Review
- Male-biased sex ratios in Australian migrant populations: a population-based study of 1 191 250 births 1999-2015.International journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Sex ratios at birth among second-generation mothers of South Asian ethnicity in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective population-based cohort study.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2018Article
- Article
- Is the mothers' country of birth associated with the sex of their offspring in England and Wales from 2007 to 2011?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn some Western countries, a disturbingly low share of girls has been observed among new-borns from Indian immigrants. Also in Norway, a previous study based on figures from 1969-2005 showed a high percentage of boys among children of Indian origin living in Norway, when the birth was of higher order (third birth or later). This was suggested to reflect a practice of sex-selective abortions in the Indian immigrant population. In this article we have seen whether extended time series for the period 2006-2012 give further support to this claim.
methodsBased on data from the Norwegian Central Population Register we used observations for the sex of all live births in Norway for the period 1969-2012 where the mother was born in India. The percentage of boys was calculated for each birth order, during four sub periods. Utilising a binomial probability model we tested whether the observed sex differences among Indian-born women were significantly different from sex differences among all births.
resultsContrary to findings from earlier periods and other Western countries, we found that Indian-born women in Norway gave birth to more girls than boys of higher order in the period 2006-2012. This is somewhat surprising, since sex selection is usually expected to be stronger if the mother already has two or more children.
conclusionsThe extended time series do not suggest a prevalence of sex selective abortions among Indian-born women in Norway. We discuss whether the change from a majority of boys to a majority of girls in higher order could be explained by new waves of immigrant women, by new preferences among long-residing immigrant women in Norway - or by mere coincidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.