4.7 Article

Explaining racial disparities in adverse birth outcomes: Unique sources of stress for Black American women

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 72, 期 6, 页码 977-983

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.013

关键词

African Americans; Birth outcomes; Black women; Pregnancy; Discrimination; Health disparities; Stress; Racism; USA

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [HRD-0733918]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The infant mortality rate for Black Americans in the US is more than twice the rate for White Americans, with similar racial disparities existing in rates of low birthweight and preterm delivery. Survivors of these adverse birth outcomes have poorer development and health in infancy, childhood, and adulthood. Increasingly, evidence suggests that maternal stress is an important risk factor for adverse birth outcomes. We offer a novel perspective on racial disparities in birth outcomes suggesting that Black American women are subject to unique sources of stress throughout their lives and particularly during pregnancy based on their multiple identities as women, Black, and pregnant. We draw on interdisciplinary work to examine three unique sources of stress for Black American women that elevate their risk for adverse birth outcomes: 1) abuses of Black American women by the medical system and issues of power in obstetrics that disadvantage Black American women; 2) contradictory societal pressures exerted on Black American women about whether they should have children; and 3) historical and contemporary stereotypes about Black American women related to sexuality and motherhood. We discuss implications of this analysis, including applications to research and intervention. Developing a better understanding of the experience of Black American women during pregnancy and throughout their lives offers insight into ways to reduce racial disparities in adverse birth outcomes and their lifelong consequences. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据