4.1 Article

Anaemia in pregnancy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women of Far North Queensland: A retrospective cohort study

期刊

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 457-467

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12481

关键词

Aboriginal; anaemia; mother; pregnancy; Torres Strait Islander

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1092732]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Anaemia during pregnancy is common worldwide. In Australia between 7.1% and 11% of mothers have been reported to have anaemia in pregnancy. Higher rates are reported for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (Townsville: 34.2%, remote Northern Territory: 50%). The present study describes anaemia in pregnancy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women of Far North Queensland. Methods: Health service information was analysed for 2076 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who gave birth between 2006 and 2010. The prevalence of anaemia in pregnancy, characteristics of the mothers and pregnancy outcomes were described. Logistic regression for bivariate analyses and multivariable linear modelling with and without imputed data were used to compare those mothers who had anaemia in pregnancy with those who did not. Results: More than half of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (54.5% (95% CI: 52.4%, 56.7%)) had anaemia in pregnancy. For mothers who gave birth in 2009 and 2010 (n = 1796) with more complete data, those who were iron deficient during pregnancy were more likely to be anaemic (RR: 1.40, P = <0.001). Mothers (29.0%) from localities of relative socioeconomic advantage had lower risk of anaemia in pregnancy (RR: 0.86, P = 0.003), as did mothers (31.9%) who were obese (RR: 0.87, P = 0.013). Conclusions: The prevalence of anaemia in pregnancy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women of Far North Queensland is high. Prevention and treatment of anaemia will improve the health of these mothers, and possibly the health and early development of their children.

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

4.1
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