Observational studyBMJ open2023
Differences in birth weight between immigrants' and natives' children in Europe and Australia: a LifeCycle comparative observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low birth weight infants and parental nativity in Singapore: epidemiological paradox in Asia - a nationally representative population-based cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Disparities in Obstetric and Anaesthetic Care Between Migrant and Native Populations in High-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.Acta medica academica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 16 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveResearch on adults has identified an immigrant health advantage, known as the 'immigrant health paradox', by which migrants exhibit better health outcomes than natives. Is this health advantage transferred from parents to children in the form of higher birth weight relative to children of natives?
settingWestern Europe and Australia.
participantsWe use data from nine birth cohorts participating in the LifeCycle Project, including five studies with large samples of immigrants' children: Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance-France (N=12 494), the Raine Study-Australia (N=2283), Born in Bradford-UK (N=4132), Amsterdam Born Children and their Development study-Netherlands (N=4030) and the Generation R study-Netherlands (N=4877). We include male and female babies born to immigrant and native parents. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is birth weight measured in grams. Different specifications were tested: birth weight as a continuous variable including all births (DV1), the same variable but excluding babies born with over 4500 g (DV2), low birth weight as a 0-1 binary variable (1=birth weight below 2500 g) (DV3). Results using these three measures were similar, only results using DV1 are presented. Parental migration status is measured in four categories: both parents natives, both born abroad, only mother born abroad and only father born abroad.
resultsTwo patterns in children's birth weight by parental migration status emerged: higher birth weight among children of immigrants in France (+12 g, p<0.10) and Australia (+40 g, p<0.10) and lower birth weight among children of immigrants in the UK (-82 g, p<0.05) and the Netherlands (-80 g and -73 g, p<0.001) compared with natives' children. Smoking during pregnancy emerged as a mechanism explaining some of the birth weight gaps between children of immigrants and natives.
conclusionThe immigrant health advantage is not universally transferred to children in the form of higher birth weight in all host countries. Further research should investigate whether this cross-national variation is due to differences in immigrant communities, social and healthcare contexts across host countries.
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.