PREGNANCY DISCOMFORT AND ITS RELATION TO SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

Şeymanur Yıldırım

Central Hospital Ataşehir, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, İstanbul, Türkiye

Yıldırım Ş. Pregnancy Discomfort and Its Relation to Socioeconomic Status. Çetin A, ed. A Guide to Healthy Pregnancy: Managing Ailments And Finding Solutions. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2025. p.123-130.

ABSTRACT

Socioeconomic level (SES) is a concept that determines the place of an individual or group in society according to its economic and social status. A person’s educational status, employment status, occupation and income status are among the determining factors for SES. SES variables are among the risk factors or etiology of many medical conditions. Low SES has been associated with conditions that negatively affect living conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus and cancer. SES factors can also be effective in pregnancy and childbirth processes. Although there are conflicting associations between SES and pregnancy outcomes in the literature, in general, low SES has been shown to have an association with adverse outcomes for mothers and children such as preterm birth, stillbirth, low birth weight, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), gestational hypertension and congenital anomalies. Higher rates of pregnancy complications and poorer birth outcomes associated with low educational attainment. Low-educated women are less likely to receive adequate antenatal care and their children are at increased risk of poor health. Low-income women have a higher risk of pre-eclampsia and GDM, while high-income women have an increased risk of caesarean section or perineal laceration. Occupation type is another critical factor; jobs that require physical strain and long hours of work increase the risk of pregnancy complications such as preterm delivery. Employment status and income level also have an impact on the health of mothers and children. Moreover, mediating factors such as SES differences, prenatal care, mental and physical comorbidities, access to health services, cultural and social variables also affect pregnancy outcomes. For example, adolescent pregnancies account for approximately 11% of all births worldwide. Adolescent pregnancies, in which factors associated with low SES such as poverty, inadequate prenatal care and lack of education are more common, are more likely to have adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, low birth weight and maternal mortality. SES varies across countries, cultures and health systems. The heterogeneity of SES, influenced by factors such as education, income and cultural background, makes it a critical area for further research, particularly on interventions to reduce health inequalities and improve maternal and fetal health outcomes

Keywords: Socioeconomic status; Health status disparities; Education; Prenatal care; Pregnancy

Referanslar

  1. Nicholls-Dempsey L, Badeghiesh A, Baghlaf H, Dahan MH. How does high socioeconomic status affect maternal and neonatal pregnancy outcomes? A population-based study among American women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2023;20:100248. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  2. Kim MK, Lee SM, Bae SH, et al. Socioeconomic status can affect pregnancy outcomes and complications, even with a universal healthcare system. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):2. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  3. Maher GM, Ward LJ, Hernandez L, et al. Association between socioeconomic status with pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: An international multicenter cohort. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023;102(11):1459-1468. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  4. Kara M, Çağlayan E, Karaçavuş S, Erdoğan Y. Yozgat ilinde yaşayan gebelerin sosyoekonomik ve demografik faktörler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Medical Journal. 2012;34(2):158-163. [Crossref]
  5. Thomson K, Moffat M, Arisa O, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e042753. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  6. Morgen CS, Bjork C, Andersen PK, Mortensen LH, Nybo Andersen AM. Socioeconomic position and the risk of preterm birth-a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1109-20. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  7. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ, Park MM. Births: final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2000;48(3):1-100. [PubMed]
  8. Stephansson O, Dickman PW, Johansson AL, Cnattingius S. The influence of socioeconomic status on stillbirth risk in Sweden. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(6):1296-301. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  9. Campbell EE, Gilliland J, Dworatzek PDN, De Vrijer B, Penava D, Seabrook JA. Socioeconomic Status and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Population-Based Canadian Sample. J Biosoc Sci. 2018;50(1):102-113. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  10. Rocheleau CM, Bertke SJ, Lawson CC, et al. Factors associated with employment status before and during pregnancy: Implications for studies of pregnancy outcomes. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60(4):329-341. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  11. Kim CB, Choe SA, Kim T, et al. Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes by maternal occupational status: A national population-based study in South Korea. J Occup Health. Jan2023;65(1):e12380. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  12. Casas M, Cordier S, Martinez D, et al. Maternal occupation during pregnancy, birth weight, and length of gestation: combined analysis of 13 European birth cohorts. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015;41(4):384-396. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  13. Wood S, McNeil D, Yee W, Siever J, Rose S. Neighbourhood socio-economic status and spontaneous premature birth in Alberta. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(5):e383-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  14. Feig DS, Zinman B, Wang X, Hux JE. Risk of development of diabetes mellitus after diagnosis of gestational diabetes. CMAJ. 2008;179(3):229-34. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  15. Luke B, Mamelle N, Keith L, et al. The association between occupational factors and preterm birth: a United States nurses' study. Research Committee of the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(3 Pt 1):849-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  16. Launer LJ, Villar J, Kestler E, de Onis M. The effect of maternal work on fetal growth and duration of pregnancy: a prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(1):62-70. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  17. Teitelman AM, Welch LS, Hellenbrand KG, Bracken MB. Effect of maternal work activity on preterm birth and low birth weight. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;131(1):104-13. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  18. Homer CJ, Beresford SA, James SA, Siegel E, Wilcox S. Work-related physical exertion and risk of preterm, low birthweight delivery. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1990;4(2):161-74. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  19. Ahlborg G, Jr., Bodin L, Hogstedt C. Heavy lifting during pregnancy--a hazard to the fetus? A prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. Mar 1990;19(1):90-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  20. McDonald AD, McDonald JC, Armstrong B, Cherry NM, Nolin AD, Robert D. Prematurity and work in pregnancy. Br J Ind Med. 1988;45(1):56-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  21. Mamelle N, Laumon B, Lazar P. Prematurity and occupational activity during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119(3):309-22. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  22. Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Kaminski M, Rumeau-Rouquette C. Activité professionnelle des femmes enceintes, surveillance prénatale et issue de la grossesse [Occupational activities of pregnant women, prenatal care and pregnancy outcome]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1982;11(8):959-967. [Link]
  23. Matsumura K, Hamazaki K, Tsuchida A, et al. Education level and risk of postpartum depression: results from the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS). BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):419. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  24. Liu J, Liu E, Leng J, et al. Indicators of socio-economic status and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women in urban Tianjin, China. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;144:192-199. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  25. Song L, Shen L, Li H, et al. Socio-economic status and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus among Chinese women. Diabet Med. 2017;34(10):1421-1427. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  26. Genowska A, Fryc J, Szpak A, Tyszko P. Is socio-economic status associated with adverse birth outcomes in Poland? Ann Agric Environ Med. 2019;26(2):369-374. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  27. Odd D, Lewis G, Gunnell D, Rasmussen F. Risk of low Apgar scores and socioeconomic status over a 30-year period. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(6):603-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  28. Harkonen J, Lindberg M, Karlsson L, Karlsson H, Scheinin NM. Education is the strongest socio-economic predictor of smoking in pregnancy. Addiction. 2018;113(6):1117-1126. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  29. Ergin I, Hassoy H, Tanik FA, Aslan G. Maternal age, education level and migration: socioeconomic determinants for smoking during pregnancy in a field study from Turkey. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:325. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  30. Lee SH, Lee SM, Lim NG, et al. Differences in pregnancy outcomes, prenatal care utilization, and maternal complications between teenagers and adult women in Korea: A nationwide epidemiological study. Medicine (Baltimore).2016;95(34):e4630. [PubMed]  [PMC]
  31. Leppalahti S, Gissler M, Mentula M, Heikinheimo O. Is teenage pregnancy an obstetric risk in a welfare society? A population-based study in Finland, from 2006 to 2011. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003225. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  32. Markovitz BP, Cook R, Flick LH, Leet TL. Socioeconomic factors and adolescent pregnancy outcomes: distinctions between neonatal and post-neonatal deaths? BMC Public Health. 2005;5:79. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  33. Fraser AM, Brockert JE, Ward RH. Association of young maternal age with adverse reproductive outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(17):1113-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  34. Stevens-Simon C, Beach RK, McGregor JA. Does incomplete growth and development predispose teenagers to preterm delivery? A template for research. J Perinatol. 2002;22(4):315-23. [Crossref]  [PubMed]