PCI Health & Movement Sciences

116

Title *

Structural vulnerability factors and gestational weight gain: A scoping review on the extent, range, and nature of the literatureuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Jocelyne M. Labonté, Alex Dumas, Emily Clark, Claudia Savard, Karine Fournier, Sarah O'Connor, Anne-Sophie Morisset, Bénédicte Fontaine-BissonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture *

Abstract *

Background: Inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) are rising epidemiological health concerns, affecting a substantial proportion of pregnant women in high-income countries and contributing to a multitude of adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key structural vulnerability factors (SVFs) related to GWG, and to examine the extent, range, and nature of the existing literature to inform future research.  Methods: Electronic searches were performed in October 2018 (updated in August 2019) in MEDLINE(R) ALL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts databases.  Eligible studies had an observational design, had to be conducted before COVID-19, in a high-income country, have pregnant participants, and perform inferential statistics between an SVF and GWG.  Results: Of the 157 included articles, the eight SVFs most commonly studied in association with GWG were race/ethnicity (n=91 articles), age (n=87), parity (n=48), education (n=44), income (n=39), marital status (n=28), immigration (n=19), and abuse (n=12). Substantial heterogeneity across study contexts, methodologies, populations, and findings was identified.  Studies spanned 22 high-income countries, were predominantly conducted in the USA (77%), and most studies (60%) had a retrospective design. Race/ethnicity was the most extensively studied factor, covering the longest time period (since 1976) and having the largest sample size, and the second-highest proportion of studies reporting a significant relationship with GWG (79%), following immigration status (95%). Conclusions: Given the heterogeneity in findings across studies, adopting an intersectional approach may enhance our understanding of the complex interplay between SVFs and the social context in relation to GWG.  This nuanced perspective is critical for informing future research and developing effective strategies to address the pervasive perinatal health challenges associated with inadequate and excessive GWG.

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@healthmovsci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@healthmovsci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@healthmovsci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Gestational weight gain structural vulnerability pregnancy social determinants of health health inequities

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Health & Disease

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Health & Mov Sci. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2024-05-03 23:40:07

Recommender

Paquito Bernard

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint

FOLLOW US

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY