This systematic literary works review aims to play a role in the literary works by wanting to enhance our knowledge of the Latina paradox by critically examining the present empirical evidence to explore exactly exactly exactly how paperwork status is calculated and can even be theorized to influence maternity results among this populace. We hypothesize that paperwork status shall influence maternity results so that appropriate status (among foreign-born Latinas) will likely to be protective for pregnancy results (being undocumented will increase danger for negative results). We specify this among foreign-born Latinas, because we all know that U.S.-born Latinas (despite having status that is legal are more inclined to have even worse maternity results. This assessment will further elucidate just exactly how Latinas’ vulnerability to outcomes that are adverse shaped and reified by paperwork 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, internet of Science, Academic Re Search Premier, and Bing Scholar for studies that analyzed the relationship between paperwork status and maternity results (Appendix Table A1). We used keywords (including word-form variations) methodically across all databases to recapture: (1) populace of great interest (Hispanic, Latina); (2) publicity 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 listed here terms: population of great interest (latin* OR hispanic* OR mexic*); publicity of interest (вЂњimmigration statusвЂќ OR вЂњlegal statusвЂќ OR вЂњnaturalized citizenвЂќ OR вЂњillegal statusвЂќ OR вЂњillegalsвЂќ OR вЂњalien*вЂќ OR вЂњundocumentedвЂќ OR вЂњdocumentation statusвЂќ OR documented immigra* OR undocumented immigra* OR legal immigra* OR illegal immigra*); and results of great interest (вЂњpregnancy weight gainвЂќ OR вЂњpregnancy-induced hypertensionвЂќ OR вЂњpregnancy induced hypertensionвЂќ OR birth outcome* OR вЂњpregnancy outcome*вЂќ OR вЂњeclampsiaвЂќ OR вЂњpre-eclampsiaвЂќ OR вЂњpregnancy weightвЂќ OR вЂњpostpartumвЂќ OR вЂњlow birth weightвЂќ OR вЂњlow birth-weightвЂќ OR вЂњlow birthweightвЂќ OR вЂњsmall for gestational ageвЂќ OR вЂњpreterm birthвЂќ OR вЂњpre-term birthвЂќ OR вЂњdiabetesвЂќ OR вЂњglucoseвЂќ OR вЂњgestationвЂќ). 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 documents, reports, dissertations, as well as other literature detailing initial research that is observational in america. Studies had been included when they: (1) included and/or limited their study sample to Latina ladies; (2) quantitatively examined associations between paperwork pregnancy and status results; and (3) dedicated to Latina ladies from non-U.S. regions (as a result of our interest that is specific in dimension and effect of paperwork status).
Research selection and information removal
As shown in Figure 1, the search procedure yielded a short pair of 1924 unique essays. With this article that is initial, 1444 had been excluded predicated on title 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 articles that are additional bringing the full total for addition to nine.
FIG. 1. information removal chart.
Each paper identified inside our search ended up being separately analyzed by two writers. Paper games had been evaluated and excluded when they had been obviously outside of the review topic. The abstract and subsequently the full text were reviewed if the title did not provide sufficient information to determine inclusion status. When it comes to discrepant reviews, a 3rd writer examined the paper to find out inclusion/exclusion. Finally, this same process ended up being placed on our breakdown of the guide listings associated with included documents.
Each author individually removed information with respect to the study design and analysis. To steer our review, we utilized the PRISMA reporting checklist, adjusted as a Qualtrics abstraction form to facilitate taking faculties from each article, including: documents status dimension; maternity results meaning and ascertainment; race/ethnicity and nation of beginning of research test; covariates; and analytical approach, including handling of lacking information. To assess each study that is included resiliency from bias, we used 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 would be to report the grade of research in this region and also make tips for future research, we consist of all studies in this reviewвЂ”irrespective of resiliency from biasвЂ”as is in line with the nature that is emerging of research subject.
This study was exempted by the Portland State University review board that is institutional.