Stillbirths And Infant Deaths Related To Smoking During Pregnancy And Socioeconomic Inequalities
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: Pregnancy / Obstetrics
Also Included In: Smoking / Quit Smoking
Article Date: 02 Oct 2009 - 0:00 PDT
New research published on bmj.com today reports that addressing the problem of smoking during pregnancy may help to reduce the socioeconomic inequalities in stillbirths and infant deaths by as much as 30 to 40 percent.
Without a doubt smoking during pregnancy has been associated with stillbirth. In addition, infant deaths and smoking rates during pregnancy vary strikingly with socioeconomic position. In order to find out more, a team of researchers began the task of measuring the effects of smoking during pregnancy and on the social inequalities gap in stillbirths and infant deaths.
They assessed the records of 529,317 live singleton births and 2,699 stillbirths delivered at 24 to 44 weeks' gestation in Scotland from 1994 to 2003.
Information on smoking during the pregnancy was gathered. A deprivation score was designated using postcode data from the 2001 population census.
Findings showed that the most underprivileged mothers tended to be younger. They were more likely to smoke and to give birth to preterm or low birth weight babies. In the same way, the least deprived mothers were more likely to be older, non-smokers, and less likely to give birth to preterm or low birth weight babies.
The stillbirth rate increased from 3.8 per 1,000 in the least deprived group to 5.9 per 1,000 in the most deprived group. The rate of infant deaths increased from 3.2 per 1,000 in the least deprived group to 5.4 per 1,000 in the most deprived group.
In the most deprived category, stillbirths were 56 percent more likely and infant deaths were 72 percent more likely, compared with the least deprived category.
Smoking during pregnancy accounted for 38 percent of the inequality in stillbirths and 31 percent of the inequality in infant deaths. Women in the most deprived group were three times more likely to smoke during pregnancy than were those in the least deprived group.
In closing, the authors propose tackling smoking during pregnancy and also reducing infants' exposure to tobacco smoke in the postnatal environment. This will help reduce stillbirths and infant deaths in general, as well as to reduce the socioeconomic inequalities in stillbirths and infant deaths possibly by as much as 30 to 40 percent.
Nevertheless, they underline that taking action on smoking on its own is doubtfully sufficient. There is a need for other measures to improve the social circumstances, social support, and health of mothers and infants.
"Contribution of smoking during pregnancy to inequalities in stillbirth and infant death in Scotland 1994-2003: retrospective population based study using hospital maternity records"
Ron Gray, clinical epidemiologist, Sandra R Bonellie, lecturer in statistics, James Chalmers, consultant in public health medicine,Ian Greer, dean, Stephen Jarvis, emeritus professor, Jennifer J Kurinczuk, reader in perinatal epidemiology, Claire Williams, statistician
BMJ 2009; 339:b3754
doi:10.1136/bmj.b3754
bmj.com
Written by Stephanie Brunner (B.A.)
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165808.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165808.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
More Tedious Anti Smoking Propaganda
posted by Dave Atherton on 5 Oct 2009 at 2:08 pmCan I ask the authors are they saying smoking in pregnancy is causal of still births or there is a numerical correlation?
The most deprived areas of Scotland are truly dreadful. High class A drug consumption especially heroin, HIV hypodermic syringes strewn around council estates, high consumption of alcohol, rat infested rubbish bins are typical examples of the environment many Scottish people endure. The rate of still births appears to be 0.51% or 1/200, surely the other factors are more likely explanations for the RRs of 1.56 and
1.69.
Scientists always pointed the finger at smoking for cervical cancer with an RR of 1.2-1.25. But now we know the real reason is the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). A form of stomach cancer who's name escapes me also came with a smoking RR of 1.2 and since has too been tracked to a virus. HPV has also been found in 38% of non smoking lung cancer patients. Also the latest research into lung cancer suggests that the Transprotein gene 53 on chromosome 11 which fights lung cancer works perfectly well in non smoking lung cancer deaths but is decayed in smokers, hence their 86% incidence rate. Again suggesting it is not cigarette smoke.
The latest epidemiological study on passive smoking the 2006 Neuberger study of lung cancer in Utah, found an RR of people exposed to second hand smoke (SHS) to be 0.37. (CI 95%, 0.26-0.54). For the point of clarity that is statistically significantly PROTECTIVE.
Should any health professionals wish to contact me for the papers I have copies for your review and Medical News are welcome to pass on my contact details.
Smoker bashing is the new worldwide sport and if science is not going to viewed by a sceptical minority as a branch of alchemy, can I suggest a return to objectivity.
Conflicts of interest: Director http://www.freedom2choose.info a smokers rights organisation. I do not receive any funding from pharmacuetical or tobacco companies.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




