2017
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22700
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors associated with employment status before and during pregnancy: Implications for studies of pregnancy outcomes

Abstract: Employment status was significantly associated with many common risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy outcome studies should consider adjustment or stratification by employment status. In studies of occupational exposures, these differences may cause uncontrollable confounding if non-employed women are treated as unexposed instead of excluded from analysis. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:329-341, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is important because employment status is related to sociodemographic and (reproductive) health characteristics that are generally recognised risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. By restricting our analyses to employed women, we controlled for confounding by employment status and related factors 26 29. The inter-rater reliability of exposure assessment used in this study was fair-to-good and was generally comparable to or slightly higher than reliability estimates from similar studies, therefore it might be less likely that exposure misclassification impacted our results 24…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is important because employment status is related to sociodemographic and (reproductive) health characteristics that are generally recognised risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. By restricting our analyses to employed women, we controlled for confounding by employment status and related factors 26 29. The inter-rater reliability of exposure assessment used in this study was fair-to-good and was generally comparable to or slightly higher than reliability estimates from similar studies, therefore it might be less likely that exposure misclassification impacted our results 24…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The estimated cumulative exposure (ppm-hours or µg/m 3 ) was summed across all jobs. Mothers who reported not being employed during the periconceptional period were excluded from this analysis to reduce the potential for bias due to work status or employment-related factors 26…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, the NBDPS used a random sample of live-born controls without major birth defects from the same catchment areas as cases; control participants were found to be similar to all live births in the catchment areas on several maternal characteristics [202]. Another strength of the NBDPS was that occupational information collected allowed for the exclusion of non-working mothers from analysis, which may reduce potential for confounding through factors related to employment status [151].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the job information in the NBDPS allowed for the exclusion of nonworking mothers, helping to reduce the potential for confounding through factors related to employment status [151].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation