In is notable that paperwork status stays fairly unexplored within the extensive research on maternal youngster wellness inequities.

This systematic literary works review aims to play a role in the literary works by wanting to enhance our comprehension of the Latina paradox by critically examining the existing empirical evidence to explore just how paperwork status is calculated that will be theorized to influence maternity results among this populace. We hypothesize that paperwork status shall influence maternity results in a way that appropriate status (among foreign-born Latinas) is going to be protective for maternity outcomes (being undocumented will increase danger for unfavorable results). We specify this among foreign-born Latinas, because we realize that U.S.-born Latinas (despite having status that is legal are more inclined to have even even worse maternity results. This assessment will further elucidate exactly just just how Latinas’ vulnerability to outcomes that are adverse shaped and reified by documentation status. This review has three objectives: to (1) synthesize the empirical evidence on the relationship between documentation status and pregnancy outcomes among Latina women in the United States; (2) examine how these studies define and operationalize documentation status in this context; and (3) make recommendations of how a more comprehensive methodological approach can guide public health research on the impact of documentation status on Latina immigrants to the United States to achieve our aim


We carried out literature queries within PubMed, online of Science, Academic Search Premier, and Bing Scholar for studies that examined the relationship between documents status and maternity results (Appendix Table A1). We used keyphrases (including word-form variations) methodically across all databases to recapture: (1) populace of great interest (Hispanic, Latina); (2) visibility of great interest (paperwork or appropriate status); and (3) outcomes of great interest ( ag e.g., preterm birth PTB, LBW, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, GWG). We searched the next terms: populace of great interest (latin* OR hispanic* OR mexic*); visibility of great interest (“immigration status” OR “legal status” OR “naturalized citizen” OR “illegal status” OR “illegals” OR “alien*” OR “undocumented” OR “documentation status” OR documented immigra* OR undocumented immigra* OR legal immigra* OR illegal immigra*); and results of interest (“pregnancy weight gain” OR “pregnancy-induced hypertension” OR “pregnancy induced hypertension” OR birth outcome* OR “pregnancy outcome*” OR “eclampsia” OR “pre-eclampsia” OR “pregnancy weight” OR “postpartum” OR “low birth weight” OR “low birth-weight” OR “low birthweight” OR “small for gestational age” OR “preterm birth” OR “pre-term birth” OR “diabetes” OR “glucose” OR “gestation”). Our search ended up being carried out in August 2017 having a subsequent review that is manual of listings.

We included English language posted studies, white papers, reports, dissertations, along with other literary works detailing initial research that is observational in the us. Studies had been included should they: (1) included and/or limited their study test to Latina females; (2) quantitatively examined associations between documents status and maternity outcomes; and (3) dedicated to Latina females from non-U.S. regions (because of our interest that is specific in dimension and impact of documents status).

Learn selection and information extraction

As shown in Figure 1, the search procedure yielded a short group of 1924 unique essays. For this initial article set, 1444 had been excluded according to name and abstract review, making 480 articles for complete text review. Of the, six articles came across our addition requirements. Overview of these articles’ guide listings yielded three extra articles, bringing the full total for addition to nine.

FIG. 1. Information removal chart.

Each paper identified inside our search ended up being individually analyzed by two writers. Paper games had been excluded and reviewed should they had been plainly beyond your review topic. The abstract and subsequently the full text were reviewed if the title did not provide sufficient information to determine inclusion status. A third author examined the paper to determine inclusion/exclusion in the case of discrepant reviews. Finally, this exact same procedure ended up being put on our post on the guide listings associated with the included documents.

Each writer individually removed information related to the research design and analysis. To steer our review, we utilized the PRISMA reporting checklist, adjusted as a Qualtrics abstraction form to facilitate catching traits from each article, including: documents status dimension; maternity outcomes meaning and ascertainment; race/ethnicity and nation of origin of research test; covariates; and analytical approach, including handling of lacking information. To assess each study that is included resiliency from bias, we utilized a modified form of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies (Appendix A1), with two writers independently appraising each research. Considering that one intent behind this review is always to report the caliber of research in this region while making strategies for future research, we consist of all studies in this review—irrespective of resiliency from bias—as is in line with the nature that is emerging of research subject.

This research had been exempted because of the Portland State University review board that is institutional.