ArticleJournal of migration and health2024
Preconception health among migrant women in England: A cross-sectional analysis of maternity services data 2018-2019.
Article in Journal of migration and health, 2024. 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.
- Organisation, Financing, and Implementation of Preconception Care in Primary Care: Implications for Women's Health and Well-Being.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pre-pregnancy primary care and accident and emergency interactions among interpreter-users versus non-interpreter-users in England: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Perinatal outcomes are poor among migrant women in vulnerable situations, but little is known about their health preconception. We investigated preconception health inequalities between migrant women in vulnerable situations and non-migrant women. Methods: This national cross-sectional study used data from the NHS Maternity Services Data Set (MSDS) version 1.5, incorporating NHS maternity services in England. All 652,880 women with an antenatal booking appointment between 1/4/2018 and 31/3/2019 were included. Migration category data were available for 66.2 % ( Findings: We identified 3.8 % (25,070 women) of the study population as probable migrants in vulnerable situations, 10.2 % (66,783 women) as probable migrants not in vulnerable situations, 5.6 % (36,433 women) as probable non-migrants in vulnerable situations, 46.5 % (303,737 women) as probable non-migrants not in vulnerable situations, and 33.8 % as having missing migration category data. Probable migrants in vulnerable situations ( Interpretation: Inequalities exist across many preconception indicators, highlighting opportunities to improve preconception health in this population to reduce health inequalities and improve perinatal and neonatal outcomes. Funding: Medical Research Council.
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.