Search

The prevalence and intractability of preterm birth is known as is its association with reproductive history, but the relationship with sequence of pregnancies is not well studied. The data were from a population-based case-control study, conducted in Victoria, Australia. The study recruited women giving birth between April 2002 and April 2004 from 73 maternity hospitals. Detailed reproductive histories were collected by interview a few weeks after the birth. The cases were 603 women having a singleton birth between 20 and

In published studies of preterm birth, analyses have usually been centred on individual reproductive events and do not account for the joint distributions of these events. In particular, spontaneous and induced abortions have often been studied separately and have been variously reported as having no increased risk, increased risk or different risks for subsequent preterm birth. In order to address this inconsistency, we categorised women into mutually exclusive groups according to their reproductive history, and explored the range of risks associated with different reproductive histories and assessed similarities of risks between different pregnancy histories. The data were from a population-based case-control study, conducted in Victoria, Australia. The study recruited women giving birth between April 2002 and April 2004 from 73 maternity hospitals. Detailed reproductive histories were collected by interview a few weeks after the birth. The cases were 603 women who had had a singleton birth between 20 and less than 32 weeks gestation (very preterm births including terminations of pregnancy) and the controls were 796 randomly selected women from the population who had had a singleton birth of at least 37 completed weeks gestation. All birth outcomes were included. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the association of very preterm birth with type and number of prior abortions, prior preterm births and sociodemographic factors. Using the complex combinations of prior pregnancy experiences of women (including nulligravidity), we showed that a history of prior childbirth (at term) with no preterm births gave the lowest risk of very preterm birth. With this group as the reference category, odds ratios of more than two were associated with all other prior reproductive histories. There was no evidence of difference in risk between types of abortion (i.e. spontaneous or induced) although the risk increased if a prior preterm birth had also occurred. There was an increasing risk of very preterm birth associated with increasing numbers of abortions. This method of data analysis reveals consistent and similar risks for very preterm birth following spontaneous or induced abortions. The findings point to the need to explore commonalities rather than differences in regard to the impact of abortion on subsequent births.

In published studies of preterm birth, analyses have usually been centred on individual reproductive events and do not account for the joint distributions of these events. In particular, spontaneous and induced abortions have often been studied separately and have been variously reported as having no increased risk, increased risk or different risks for subsequent preterm birth. In order to address this inconsistency, we categorised women into mutually exclusive groups according to their reproductive history, and explored the range of risks associated with different reproductive histories and assessed similarities of risks between different pregnancy histories. The data were from a population-based case-control study, conducted in Victoria, Australia. The study recruited women giving birth between April 2002 and April 2004 from 73 maternity hospitals. Detailed reproductive histories were collected by interview a few weeks after the birth. The cases were 603 women who had had a singleton birth between 20 and less than 32 weeks gestation (very preterm births including terminations of pregnancy) and the controls were 796 randomly selected women from the population who had had a singleton birth of at least 37 completed weeks gestation. All birth outcomes were included. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the association of very preterm birth with type and number of prior abortions, prior preterm births and sociodemographic factors. Using the complex combinations of prior pregnancy experiences of women (including nulligravidity), we showed that a history of prior childbirth (at term) with no preterm births gave the lowest risk of very preterm birth. With this group as the reference category, odds ratios of more than two were associated with all other prior reproductive histories. There was no evidence of difference in risk between types of abortion (i.e. spontaneous or induced) although the risk increased if a prior preterm birth had also occurred. There was an increasing risk of very preterm birth associated with increasing numbers of abortions. This method of data analysis reveals consistent and similar risks for very preterm birth following spontaneous or induced abortions. The findings point to the need to explore commonalities rather than differences in regard to the impact of abortion on subsequent births.

The prevalence and intractability of preterm birth is known as is its association with reproductive history, but the relationship with sequence of pregnancies is not well studied. The data were from a population-based case-control study, conducted in Victoria, Australia. The study recruited women giving birth between April 2002 and April 2004 from 73 maternity hospitals. Detailed reproductive histories were collected by interview a few weeks after the birth. The cases were 603 women having a singleton birth between 20 and32 weeks gestation (very preterm births including terminations of pregnancy). The controls were 796 randomly selected women from the population having a singleton birth of at least 37 completed weeks gestation. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the association of very preterm birth with sequence of pregnancies defined by their outcome (prior abortion - spontaneous or induced, and prior preterm or term birth) with adjustment for sociodemographic factors. The outcomes of each prior pregnancy, stratified by pregnancy order, and starting with the pregnancy immediately before the index or control pregnancy, were categorised as one of abortion, preterm birth or term birth. We showed that each of these prior pregnancy events was an independent risk of very preterm birth. This finding does not support the hypothesis of a neutralising effect of a term birth after an abortion on the subsequent risk for very preterm birth and is further evidence for the cumulative or increasing risk associated with increasing numbers of prior abortions or preterm births.

Summary This paper describes an evaluation study that aimed to assess data collection processes in a population-based case–control study of very preterm birth. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the 10 research interviewers to determine their perceptions of the hypotheses, the differences between interviewing cases and controls and between modes of interview, their reactions to questions which they had to ask in interviews and their training. Time and cost of the collection of data were also considered. None of the research interviewers identified which of the questions in the interview constituted the primary hypothesis. All interviewers interviewed cases and controls (including mothers of twins and singletons), and collected data face-to-face and by telephone. Whilst half of the interviewers had no issue with asking sensitive questions, hearing of intimate partner violence, risk-taking behaviour and inappropriate medical care were confronting for others. Training was judged as adequate, as was the continuing support of the project co-ordinator. On average, interviewing took 40% of research interviewers’ time, and 25 interviews were completed per effective full-time month of interviewer time. Each interview cost approximately $170AU to complete. In relation to this case–control study, interviewer bias may be lessened since research interviewers had been unable to infer the hypothesis of the study. All interviewers had interviewed both cases and controls and any systematic differences can be adjusted for in the analysis.