IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/demogr/v57y2020i1d10.1007_s13524-019-00843-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Worth the Weight? Recent Trends in Obstetric Practices, Gestational Age, and Birth Weight in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea M. Tilstra

    (University of Colorado Boulder
    University of Colorado
    University of Colorado Boulder)

  • Ryan K. Masters

    (University of Colorado Boulder
    University of Colorado
    University of Colorado Boulder
    University of Colorado Boulder)

Abstract

Birth weight in the United States declined substantially during the 1990s and 2000s. We suggest that the declines were likely due to shifts in gestational age resulting from changes in obstetric practices. Using restricted National Vital Statistics System data linked birth/infant death data for 1990–2013, we analyze trends in obstetric practices, gestational age distributions, and birth weights among first-birth singletons born to U.S. non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Latina women. We use life table techniques to analyze the joint probabilities of gestational age-specific birth and gestational age-specific obstetric intervention (i.e., induced cesarean delivery, induced vaginal delivery, not-induced cesarean delivery, and not-induced vaginal delivery) to fully document trends in obstetric practices by gestational age. We use simulation techniques to estimate counterfactual changes in birth weight distributions if obstetric practices did not change between 1990 and 2013. Results show that between 1990 and 2013, the likelihood of induced labors and cesarean deliveries increased at all gestational ages, and the gestational age distribution of U.S. births significantly shifted. Births became much less likely to occur beyond gestational week 40 and much more likely to occur during weeks 37–39. Overall, nearly 18% of births from not-induced labor and vaginal delivery at later gestational ages were replaced with births occurring at earlier gestational ages from obstetric interventions. Results suggest that if rates of obstetric practices had not changed between 1990 and 2013, then the average U.S. birth weight would have increased over this time. Findings strongly indicate that recent declines in U.S. birth weight were due to increases in induced labor and cesarean delivery at select gestational ages.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea M. Tilstra & Ryan K. Masters, 2020. "Worth the Weight? Recent Trends in Obstetric Practices, Gestational Age, and Birth Weight in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(1), pages 99-121, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:demogr:v:57:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13524-019-00843-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s13524-019-00843-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13524-019-00843-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13524-019-00843-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. VanderWeele, Tyler J. & Lantos, John D. & Lauderdale, Diane S., 2012. "Rising preterm birth rates, 1989–2004: Changing demographics or changing obstetric practice?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 196-201.
    2. Blondel, B. & Kogan, M.D. & Alexander, G.R. & Dattani, N. & Kramer, M.S. & Macfarlane, A. & Wen, S.W., 2002. "The impact of the increasing number of multiple births on the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight: An international study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(8), pages 1323-1330.
    3. Declercq, E. & Menacker, F. & MacDorman, M., 2006. "Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(5), pages 867-872.
    4. MacDorman, M.F. & Declercq, E. & Zhang, J., 2010. "Obstetrical intervention and the singleton preterm birth rate in the United States from 1991-2006," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(11), pages 2241-2247.
    5. Arima, Yuzo & Guthrie, Brandon L. & Rhew, Isaac C. & De Roos, Anneclaire J., 2009. "The impact of the First Steps prenatal care program on birth outcomes among women receiving Medicaid in Washington State," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 49-54, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark, Nicholas D.E. & Torrats-Espinosa, Gerard, 2022. "Declining violence and improving birth outcomes in the US: Evidence from birth certificate data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    2. Alexander, Monica & Root, Leslie, 2023. "Racial disparities in fetal and infant outcomes: a multiple-decrement life table approach," SocArXiv k5qp7, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. VanderWeele, Tyler J. & Lantos, John D. & Lauderdale, Diane S., 2012. "Rising preterm birth rates, 1989–2004: Changing demographics or changing obstetric practice?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 196-201.
    2. Teresa Castro Martín, 2010. "Single motherhood and low birthweight in Spain," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(27), pages 863-890.
    3. Xiaoying Liu & Jere R Behrman & Aryeh D Stein & Linda S Adair & Santosh K Bhargava & Judith B Borja & Mariangela Freitas da Silveira & Bernardo L Horta & Reynaldo Martorell & Shane A Norris & Linda M , 2017. "Prenatal care and child growth and schooling in four low- and medium-income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Grant, Darren, 2022. "The “Quiet Revolution” and the cesarean section in the United States," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Yanxia Xie & Yi Mu & Peiran Chen & Zheng Liu & Yanping Wang & Qi Li & Mingrong Li & Juan Liang & Jun Zhu, 2022. "Interrupted-time-series analysis of the immediate impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on preterm birth in China," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Tonei, Valentina, 2019. "Mother’s mental health after childbirth: Does the delivery method matter?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 182-196.
    7. Sofia Amaral‐Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1050-1064, September.
    8. Daniel Powers & Seung-Eun Song, 2009. "Absolute Change in Cause-Specific Infant Mortality for Blacks and Whites in the US: 1983–2002," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 28(6), pages 817-851, December.
    9. Jensen, Vibeke Myrup & Wüst, Miriam, 2015. "Can Caesarean section improve child and maternal health? The case of breech babies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 289-302.
    10. Le, Kien & Nguyen, My, 2020. "Armed conflict and birth weight," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence From Geographical Discontinuities in Italy," CEIS Research Paper 342, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 08 May 2015.
    12. Hideko Matsuo, 2006. "The Postponement of Motherhood and its Child Health Consequences: Birth Weight and Weight Gain during the First Year of Life," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 4(1), pages 91-114.
    13. O'Neill June E & O'Neill Dave M, 2008. "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-45, April.
    14. Martina Štípková, 2013. "Declining health disadvantage of non-marital children," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(25), pages 663-706.
    15. Hector Cebolla-Boado & Leire Salazar, 2016. "Differences in perinatal health between immigrant and native-origin children: Evidence from differentials in birth weight in Spain," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(7), pages 167-200.
    16. Grytten, Jostein & Skau, Irene & Sørensen, Rune, 2011. "Do expert patients get better treatment than others? Agency discrimination and statistical discrimination in obstetrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 163-180, January.
    17. Valentina Tonei, 2017. "Mother’s health after childbirth: does delivery method matter?," Discussion Papers 17/11, Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. R. Todd Jewell, 2007. "Prenatal care and birthweight production: evidence from South America," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 415-426.
    19. Reader, Mary Patricia, 2021. "The birthweight effects of universal child benefits in pregnancy: quasi-experimental evidence from England and Wales," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121528, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. DeCicca, Philip & Malak, Natalie, 2020. "When good fences aren’t enough: The impact of neighboring air pollution on infant health," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:demogr:v:57:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13524-019-00843-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.