A Binational Overview of Reproductive Health Outcomes Among US Hispanic and Mexican Women in the Border Region

Abstract

IntroductionThe US–Mexico border region has 15 million residents and 300,000 births annually. Reproductive health concerns have been identified on both sides of the border, but comparable information about reproductive health is not available. The objective of this study was to compare reproductive health indicators among populations in this region.MethodsWe used 2009 US Hispanic and Mexican birth certificate data to compare births inside the border region, elsewhere within the border states, and in the United States and Mexico overall. We examined trends in total fertility and birth rates using birth data from 2000 through 2009 and intercensal population estimates.ResultsAmong women in the border region, US women had more lifetime births than Mexican women in 2009 (2.69 births vs 2.15 births) and throughout the decade. Birth rates in the group aged 15 to 19 years were high in both the US (73.8/1,000) and Mexican (86.7/1,000) border regions. Late or no prenatal care was nearly twice as prevalent in the border regions as in the nonborder regions of border states. Low birth weight and preterm and early-term birth were more prevalent in the US border than in the Mexican border region; US border rates were higher and Mexican rates were lower than their corresponding nonborder and national rates. We found some variations within border states.ConclusionThese findings constitute the first population-based information on the reproductive health of the entire Hispanic US–Mexico border population. Evidence of disparities warrants exploration at state and local levels. Teen pregnancy and inadequate prenatal care are shared problems in US–Mexico border communities and suggest an area for binational cooperation.

Preterm delivery among first-time Mexico-born mothers: a binational population-based comparison of deliveries in California and Mexico

“…The higher PTD rates among immigrants in California compared with those in Mexico are consistent with 2010 country rates (12% in the US vs 7.3% in Mexico)29 and with 2009 PTD rates in US border states (11.6%) versus Mexican border states (6.7%) 30. Nonetheless, the findings are surprising given that immigrant women in California, regardless of legal status, are largely insured for pregnancy-related services while about one in three WIMX (and about 22% in sending states) are uninsured.…”

“…In California, 99% of births occur in hospital,34 37 and 94.4% of births in Mexico are delivered in hospitals or clinics and presumably are registered 30 38. Maternal complications that are known risk factors for PTD, such as pre-pregnancy obesity, antenatal haemorrhage and preeclampsia, were not included because this information is lacking in Mexican birth certificates.…”

Challenges in Managing Pregnancy in Underserved Women with Chronic Kidney Disease

“…A high percentage of the CKD patients delivered preterm (40 vs. 12.8%, p = 0.002) and the prevalence increased among those needing dialysis in comparison to the control group (Table 4), an 11-fold increase compared to the 6.6% of prematurity reported in Mexico, but lower than the rates reported in Brazil and India (82-85%) [8,10,34]. As a consequence of prematurity, a higher percentage of newborns had a LBW compared to control pregnancies (56 vs. 12.6%, p = 0.000), with a 6-fold increase in the overall prevalence reported in our country (8.5%) [34].…”

“…As a consequence of prematurity, a higher percentage of newborns had a LBW compared to control pregnancies (56 vs. 12.6%, p = 0.000), with a 6-fold increase in the overall prevalence reported in our country (8.5%) [34].…”

microRNA expression in the cervix during pregnancy is associated with length of gestation

“…While rates of preterm birth are lower in Mexico than the US (7.3% vs. 12%), 1 preterm birth rates are markedly higher (12.8%) among Hispanic women living in the US near the US-Mexico border region compared to the national Mexican rate. 28 The measure of smoke exposure used in this study was ascertained using a questionnaire rather than direct measurement of cotinine biomarkers, and thus could potentially result in exposure misclassification. We sampled the cervix just once mid-pregnancy and thus cannot identify from this study the best time window to predict preterm delivery with miRNA biomarkers.…”