This literature that is systematic is designed to play a role in the literature by trying to enhance our knowledge of the Latina paradox by critically examining the existing empirical proof to explore just exactly just how paperwork status is calculated and will be theorized to influence pregnancy results among this populace. We hypothesize that documents status shall affect maternity results so that appropriate status (among foreign-born Latinas) will likely be protective for maternity results (being undocumented will increase danger for undesirable results). We specify this among foreign-born Latinas, because we all know that U.S.-born Latinas (despite having appropriate status) are more inclined to have even even worse maternity results. This assessment will further elucidate just just 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 Re Search Premier, and Bing Scholar for studies that analyzed the relationship between documents status and maternity outcomes (Appendix Table A1). We applied search phrases (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 ( e.g., preterm birth PTB, LBW, pregnancy-induced hypertension, GWG). We searched listed here terms: populace of great interest (latin* OR hispanic* OR mexic*); publicity of great 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 conducted in August 2017 by having a subsequent review that is manual of lists.
We included English language published studies, white papers, reports, dissertations, along with other literary works detailing initial research that is observational in the us. Studies had been included when they: (1) included and/or limited their study test to Latina females; (2) quantitatively examined associations between documents pregnancy and status outcomes; and (3) centered on Latina ladies from non-U.S. regions (as a result of our interest that is specific in measurement and effect of documents status).
Learn selection and information removal
As shown in Figure 1, the search process yielded a preliminary pair of 1924 unique essays. Of the initial article set, 1444 had been excluded centered on title and abstract review, making 480 articles for complete text review. Of these, six articles met our addition requirements. Overview of these articles’ guide lists yielded three extra articles, bringing the sum total for addition to nine.
FIG. 1. Information removal chart.
Each paper identified within our search had been individually examined by two writers. Paper games had been evaluated and excluded should they had been plainly away from review subject. In the event that name failed to provide adequate information to ascertain inclusion status, the abstract and later the entire text had been evaluated. A third author examined the paper to determine inclusion/exclusion in the case of discrepant reviews. Finally, this process that is same placed on our report on the guide listings regarding the included documents.
Each writer separately removed information related to the scholarly research design and analysis. To steer our review, we utilized the PRISMA reporting checklist, adjusted as a Qualtrics abstraction form to facilitate catching faculties from each article, including: documents status dimension; maternity outcomes meaning and ascertainment; race/ethnicity and nation of beginning of study test; covariates; and approach that is statistical including handling of lacking information. To assess each included study’s resiliency from bias, we utilized a modified version of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies (Appendix A1), with two authors individually appraising each research. Considering that one intent behind this review would be to report the caliber of research in this region and then 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 had been exempted because of the Portland State University institutional review board.