Search

Background The naturally occurring male-to-female (M/F) ratio at birth is 1.05. Higher ratios found primarily in countries across Asia have been attributed to prenatal sex selection due to son preference. There is growing evidence that sex-selective practices continue following migration; however, little is known about these practices following migration to Australia. Methods In this population-based study we assessed M/F ratios at birth per mother’s country of birth for all registered births 1999–2015 in Victoria, Australia (n = 1 191 250). We also compared the M/F ratio among births to mothers born elsewhere to that of mothers born in Australia, stratified by time period and parity. Results Compared with the naturally occurring M/F ratio as well as to the M/F ratio among births to mothers born in Australia, there was an increased ratio of male births to mothers born in India, China and South-East Asia, particularly at higher parities and in more recent time periods (elevated M/F ratios ranged from 1·079 to 1·248, relative risks of male birth ranged from 1·012 to 1·084 with confidence intervals between 1·001 and 1·160 and P-values between 0·005 and 0·039). The most male-biased sex ratios were found among multiple births to Indian-born mothers, and parity of two or more births to Indian and Chinese-born mothers in 2011–15. Conclusions The male-biased sex ratios observed in this study indicate that prenatal sex selection may be continuing following migration to Australia from countries where these practices have been documented. The excess of males among multiple births raises the question as to what role assisted reproduction plays. Findings also suggest that systematic discrimination against females starts in the womb.

Background Sub-Saharan African women are often treated as a single group in epidemiological studies of immigrant birth outcomes, potentially masking variations across countries. Methods Cross-sectional population-based study of 432,567 singleton births in Victoria, Australia comparing mothers born in one of four East African countries (453 Eritreans, 1094 Ethiopians, 1,861 Somali and 1,404 Sudanese) relative to 427,755 Australian-born women was conducted using the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection. Pearson’s chi-square test and logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate disparities and estimate risks of perinatal mortality and other adverse perinatal outcomes after adjustment for confounders selected a priori. Results Compared with mothers born in Australia, East African immigrants as a group had elevated odds of perinatal mortality (ORadj1.83, 95 % CI 1.47, 2.28), small for gestational age births (SGA) (ORadj1.59 95 % CI 1.46, 1.74), very low birthweight (ORadj1.33, 95 % CI 1.11, 1.58) and very preterm birth (ORadj1.55, 95 % CI 1.27, 1.90). However, they had lower odds of preterm birth (ORadj0.86 95 % CI 0.76, 0.98) and macrosomia (ORadj0.65 95 % CI 0.51, 0.83). Individual country of birth analyses indicated significant variations, with Eritrean women having higher odds of very low birthweight (ORadj1.80, 95 % CI 1.09, 2.98), very preterm birth (ORadj 1.96, 95 % CI 1.08, 3.58), small for gestational age births (ORadj 1.52, 95 % CI 1.14, 2.03) and perinatal mortality (ORadj 2.69, 95 % CI 1.47, 4.91). Sudanese women had higher odds of low birthweight (ORadj 1.36, 95 % CI 1.10, 1.68), very low birthweight (ORadj 1.53, 95 % CI 1.13, 2.07), very preterm birth (ORadj 1.78, 95 % CI 1.26, 2.53), small for gestational age births (ORadj 2.13, 95 % CI 1.84, 2.47) and perinatal mortality (ORadj 2.10, 95 % CI 1.44, 3.07)]. Ethiopian women differed from Australian-born women only in relation to higher odds of very preterm birth, (ORadj1.70 95 % CI 1.16, 2.50), and only Somali-women had significantly lower odds of preterm birth (ORadj0.70 95 % CI 0.56, 0.88). Conclusions Overall, East African countries of birth were associated with increased perinatal death and some adverse perinatal outcomes; suggesting the need for strategies to enhance surveillance and health care delivery for these women. Analysis by individual country of birth groups has shown women from Eritrea and Sudan are particularly at increased risk of adverse outcomes, demonstrating the importance of antenatal identification of maternal country of birth. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0886-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

© 2020 Selvaratnam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Objectives: Timely delivery of fetal growth restriction (FGR) is important in reducing stillbirth. However, targeted earlier delivery of FGR preferentially removes smaller babies from later gestations, thereby right-shifting the distribution of birthweights at term. This artificially increases the birthweight cutoffs defining the lower centiles and redefines normally grown babies as small by population-based birthweight centiles. Our objective was to compare updated Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts over time with the prescriptive INTERGROWTH-21st standard. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study of all singleton births ≥34 weeks' gestation in Victoria, Australia in five two-year epochs: 1983-84, 1993-94, 2003-04, 2013-14, and 2016-17. The birthweight cutoffs defining the 3rd and 10th centile from three Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts, for births in 1991-1994, in 1998-2007, and 2004-2013 respectively, were applied to each epoch to calculate the proportion of babies with birthweight

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. INTRODUCTION: Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural.Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women's confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting.Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units. OUTCOMES: Primary: CS.Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being.Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components. STUDY DESIGN: An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants in the individual trials will consent to participation, with respective trials receiving ethical approval by their local Human Research Ethics Committees. Individual datasets remain the property of trialists, and can be published prior to the publication of final PMA results. The overall data for meta-analysis will be held, analysed and published by the collaborative group, led by the Cochrane PMA group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020103857.