
==== Front
BMC Med
BMC Med
BMC Medicine
1741-7015
BioMed Central London

39300558
3493
10.1186/s12916-024-03493-x
Research Article
Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in preterm births in an English maternity setting: a population-based study of 1.3 million births
Kayode G. 1
Howell A. 1
Burden C. 1
Margelyte R. 1
Cheng V. 1
Viner M. 2
Sandall J. 2
Carter J. 2
Brigante L. 3
Winter C. 4
Carroll F. 5
Thilaganathan B. 6
Anumba D. 7
Judge A. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0371-731X
Lenguerrand E. erik.lenguerrand@bristol.ac.uk

1
Tommy’s National Centre for Maternity Improvemen﻿t
1 Translational Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS105NB UK
2 https://ror.org/0220mzb33 grid.13097.3c 0000 0001 2322 6764 Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
3 https://ror.org/01swa5m73 grid.467531.2 0000 0004 0490 340X Royal College of Midwives, London, UK
4 https://ror.org/05d576879 grid.416201.0 0000 0004 0417 1173 Department of Women’s Health, The PROMPT Maternity Foundation, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
5 https://ror.org/01bzmq497 grid.464668.e 0000 0001 2167 7289 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
6 https://ror.org/01bzmq497 grid.464668.e 0000 0001 2167 7289 Tommy’s National Centre for Maternity Improvement, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ UK
7 https://ror.org/05krs5044 grid.11835.3e 0000 0004 1936 9262 Academic Unit of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
20 9 2024
20 9 2024
2024
22 3711 11 2023
17 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Preterm birth is a major cause of infant mortality and morbidity and accounts for 7–8% of births in the UK. It is more common in women from socially deprived areas and from minority ethnic groups, but the reasons for this disparity are poorly understood. To inform interventions to improve child survival and their quality of life, this study examined the socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in preterm births (< 37 weeks of gestation at birth) within Health Trusts in England.

Methods

This study investigated socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in preterm birth rates across the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The NHS in England can be split into different units known as Trusts. We visualised between-Trust differences in preterm birth rates. Health Trusts were classified into five groups based on their standard deviation (SD) variation from the average national preterm birth rate. We used modified Poisson regression to compute risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) with generalised estimating equations.

Results

The preterm birth rate ranged from 6.8/100 births for women living in the least deprived areas to 8.8/100 births for those living in the most deprived areas. Similarly, the preterm birth rate ranged from 7.8/100 births for white women, up to 8.6/100 births for black women. Some Health Trusts had lower than average preterm birth rates in white women whilst concurrently having higher than average preterm birth rates in black and Asian women. The risk of preterm birth was higher for women living in the most deprived areas and ethnicity (Asian).

Conclusions

There was evidence of variation in rates of preterm birth by ethnic group, with some Trusts reporting below average rates in white ethnic groups whilst concurrently reporting well above average rates for women from Asian or black ethnic groups. The risk of preterm birth varied substantially at the intersectionality of maternal ethnicity and the level of socioeconomic deprivation of their residency. In the absence of other explanations, these findings suggest that even within the same Health Trust, maternity care may vary depending on the women’s ethnicity and/or whether she lives in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation. Thus, social factors are likely key determinants of inequality in preterm birth rather than provision of maternity care alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-024-03493-x.

Keywords

Disparity
Preterm birth
Ethnicity
Health inequalities
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000306 Tommy's Baby Charity issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

The incidence of preterm birth continues to increase globally, including in most European countries [1, 2]. Besides being the highest contributor to neonatal deaths [1, 3], preterm babies are more vulnerable to multiple medical conditions, including respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, haematological, neurological and metabolic disorders [4]. Therefore, reducing the occurrence of preterm birth is an urgent global health priority, given its impact on childhood mortality and life-long morbidity [3, 5]. Though Europe only accounts for 4.7% of the global burden of preterm birth [1], 1 in every 14 births is a preterm birth, and over 50,000 cases occur annually in the United Kingdom (UK) [6–8].

Due to the persistent burden of preterm birth, the UK Secretary of State for Health pledged to reduce the preterm birth rate from 8 to 6% by 2025 within England [9]. In response, the Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle [10] was revised to include recommendations for Integrated Care Boards and national guidelines on providing best practice pathways that predict, prevent and prepare women at high risk of preterm birth [11]. Consequently, most studies in high-income countries (HICs), including the UK, have worked extensively on identifying the risk factors for preterm birth [4, 12–14], predicting preterm births [15, 16] and improving the survival of preterm babies [17, 18]. However, the persistent increase in preterm birth rates, despite existing preventive measures in women deemed to be at high risk, such as cervical cerclage, prophylactic progesterone, pessaries, aspirin intake and antibiotic administration, is concerning [19–22]. An approach to addressing this ongoing challenge is to focus on understanding and redressing the care variations and social inequities that may account for much of the preterm birth burden in the UK. As a high-income country, the higher incidence of preterm births has been linked to increased rates of late preterm births due to obstetric interventions such as caesarean sections and inductions of labour [23], with higher numbers of caesarean sections occurring in more affluent populations [24]. Strategies to avoid the use of non-medically indicated inductions and caesarean sections would help to reduce preterm birth rates.

As observed between countries [1, 25–27], the Office for National Statistics data indicates the possibility of regional variation in preterm births in the UK [8]. Significant socioeconomic disparities are reported within England, which are known to disproportionately affect women [28]. There is however a paucity of evidence regarding how the pattern and distribution of these disparities affect preterm birth rates. This study aimed to describe the variation in preterm birth rates by ethnic group and social deprivation within individual NHS Trusts and identify the risk factors of preterm birth, to inform targeted strategies to narrow these inequalities [29]. It also aimed to establish if high preterm rates reflected in some NHS Health Trusts was due to the issues around in utero transfer of women to Trusts with greater neonatal care facilities.

Methods

Study design and participants

This observational study utilised maternity care records from mothers and babies born in England between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2017. Care in NHS England is delivered by organisational units called NHS Trusts. Each Trust serves a specific geographical catchment area employing uniform clinical guidelines. All 1,174,047 live births, of at least 24 weeks of gestation, in 130 NHS Trusts were eligible for inclusion.

Data sources and linkage

We analysed the Maternity Information Systems (MIS) data, which collates routinely collected data from English NHS hospitals, by the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) (https://maternityaudit.org.uk/pages/home.) following approval from the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (DARS-NIC-430380-F7L4Z-v0.4 HQIP348). During the study period, 130 Health Trusts submitted specific maternity information to the NMPA registry in England. The MIS datasets cover about 97% of all total births in England, and the data are of high quality [30, 31].

In England, deprivation is measured in small geographical areas known as Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) [32]. LSOAs are defined as geographical areas of a similar population size, with an average of 1500 residents that preserves participant residential information confidentiality. As a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, we used the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score, a publicly available measure of deprivation available for each LSOA produced by the Office of National Statistics [32, 33]. The LSOA information, in the MIS dataset, was used to link the Office for National Statistics (ONS) IMD information to each maternal residential area. This is a combination several postcode areas and therefore preserves participant residential information confidentiality.

Variables of interest

Maternal ethnicity was reported as recorded by healthcare providers in the MIS dataset. IMD, an aggregated index of socioeconomic deprivation of the maternal residential area, was considered a proxy for maternal socioeconomic status [33].

Outcomes

Preterm birth was defined as a baby born before completing 37 weeks of gestation. Preterm births before 34 and then before 28 weeks of gestation were also investigated and reported in the supplementary.

Covariates

We classified ethnic groups as Asian, black, mixed ethnicity, white and any other ethnic group. We categorised IMD into five groups (quintiles), with 1 being the most deprived socioeconomic area and 5 denoting the least deprived socioeconomic group. The seven domains of deprivation used to generate deprivation scores include income, employment, education, health, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment. Maternal characteristics of interest included maternal body mass index, maternal age, maternal smoking status at booking, maternal alcohol consumption at booking, maternal substance abuse at booking, maternal mental health problems at booking, maternal domestic abuse at booking, previous total number of births, the number of complications diagnosed at booking, previous caesarean section, previous stillbirth, previous preterm birth, previous low weight infant and previous stillbirth.

Statistical analysis

First, disparities in preterm birth rates were calculated for Health Trusts. The mean rate of preterm birth and the standard deviation (SD) was determined across all Trusts included in the analysis. Using the national mean rate of preterm birth and corresponding SD, Trusts were classified into five categories based on their preterm birth rates. They were categorised as “well below average” if the rate of preterm was more than 2 SDs below the national mean preterm rate (mean preterm rate minus 2*SD) ([< − 2SD], shown in green within all figures), “below average” (− 2SD to − 1SD below the national average, dark blue), “average” (− 1SD to + 1SD around the national average, sky blue), “above average” (+ 1SD to + 2SD above the national average, orange) and “well above average” (> + 2SD above the national average, red). Average preterm birth rates estimated by maternal ethnicity and IMD were compared to the national average.

Second, we calculated the absolute risk of preterm birth. We performed a one-sample t-test to compare the average absolute risk of preterm birth for each group compared to the national average.

These analyses were repeated in sensitivity analyses where we redefined the outcome of interest as preterm birth defined by a baby born before completing 34 weeks of gestation and 28 weeks of gestation.

Lastly, we used Zou’s modified Poisson regression to establish the effect of ethnicity and IMD on preterm birth [34]. We accounted for clustering in the data by Health Trust by applying the sandwich variance estimator for clustered data [35]. Variables were entered into the multivariable model if they had known clinical relevance [36, 37]. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations under the missing at random assumption [38]. We created 25 complete data sets, pooling results using Rubin’s rules [39]. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Association strength was interpreted as per [40].

All statistical analyses were performed in RStudio statistical software package version 4.0.2.

Results

The maternal characteristics for the 1,174,047 live births and 91,056 preterm births (7.8 preterm births per 100 live births) captured during the study period are shown in Table 1 and Figure S1. The highest proportions of preterm births occurred in nulliparous women (42.8%, n = 35,024), aged 30 to 34 years (30%, n = 27,202) and in those with a BMI between 18.5 and 25 kg/cm2 (45.9%, n = 31,625). Similarly, the highest percentage of preterm births occurred in white women (70%, n = 63,636) and in those living in the most deprived areas (30%, n = 25,888). However, the highest rates of preterm birth (9.0/100 births and 8.8/100 births) were observed at the extremes of maternal age (< 20 years and ≥ 35 years), respectively, in women with five or more births (12.7/100 births) and those with a BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (9.9/100 births). The preterm birth rate in Health Trusts with well above average rates (> + 2SDs) was 10.5/100 births. Table 1 Sample description between April 2015 and March 2017

Characteristics	All participants (n = 1,203,749)	Birth outcome (n = 1,174,047)	
Term (n = 1,082,991, 92%)	Preterma (n = 91,056, 8%)	Preterm birth rate (per 100 live births = 7.8)	
Maternal age (years)	
 < 20	38,092	33,719 (91.0%)	3323 (9.0%)	9.0	
 20–24	177,900	159,928 (92.2%)	13,520 (7.8%)	7.8	
 25–29	337,655	305,457 (92.8%)	23,799 (7.2%)	7.2	
 30–34	378,184	341,617 (92.6%)	27,202 (7.4%)	7.4	
 ≥ 35	265,858	236,665 (91.2%)	22,831 (8.8%)	8.8	
 Missing datab	6060 (0.5%b)	5602 (93.6%)	381 (6.4%)	6.4	
Parity	
 0 (nulliparous)	444,254	400,072 (92.0%)	35,024 (8.1%)	8.1	
 1	385,066	351,728 (93.6%)	24,180 (6.4%)	6.4	
 2	158,912	143,068 (92.3%)	11,961 (7.7%)	7.7	
 3	61,905	54,364 (90.2%)	5880 (9.8%)	9.8	
 4	23,766	20,553 (89.0%)	2537 (11.0%)	11.0	
 ≥ 5 (grand multiparous)	18,332	15,528 (87.3%)	2267 (12.7%)	12.7	
 Missing datab	111,514 (9.3%b)	97,678 (91.4%)	9207 (8.6%)	8.6	
Body mass index (kg/m2)	
 < 18.5	27,822	24,455 (90.1%)	2680 (9.9%)	9.9	
 18.5 to < 25	457,833	414,259 (92.9%)	31,625 (7.1%)	7.1	
 25 to < 30	264,094	238,081 (92.6%)	18,955 (7.4%)	7.4	
 30 to < 35	122,288	109,518 (92.1%)	9396 (7.9%)	7.9	
 ≥ 35	75,954	67,639 (91.5%)	6304 (8.5%)	8.5	
 Missing datab	255,758 (21.2%b)	229,039 (91.2%)	22,096 (8.8%)	8.8	
Ethnicity	
 Asian	130,326	115,287 (92.1%)	9939 (7.9%)	7.9	
 Black	54,819	48,665 (91.4%)	4592 (8.6%)	8.6	
 Mixed	20,457	18,301 (92.2%)	1550 (7.8%)	7.8	
 Others	46,218	41,703 (93.1%)	3107 (6.9%)	6.9	
 White	839,761	757,468 (92.2%)	63,636 (7.8%)	7.8	
 Missing datab	112,168 (9.3%b)	101,567 (92.5%)	8232 (7.5%)	7.5	
Index of Multiple Deprivation	
 1 (most deprived)	303,006	269,796 (91.2%)	25,888 (8.8%)	8.8	
 2	255,351	228,901 (92.1%)	19,543 (7.9%)	7.9	
 3	212,959	191,637 (92.6%)	15,268 (7.4%)	7.4	
 4	188,683	171,461 (92.9%)	13,083 (7.1%)	7.1	
 5 (least deprived)	169,833	155,391 (93.2%)	11,362 (6.8%)	6.8	
 Missing datab	73,917 (6.1%b)	65,805 (91.8%)	5912 (8.2%)	8.2	
Maternity unit	
 Well below average (< − 2SD)	70,283	53,967 (97.0%)	1659 (3.0%)	3.0	
 Below average (− 2SD to − 1SD)	45,379	30,474 (94.5%)	1782 (5.5%)	5.5	
 Average (− 1SD to + 1SD)	978,242	864,897 (92.3%)	72,407 (7.7%)	7.7	
 Above average (+ 1SD to + 2SD)	145,109	119,559 (90.0%)	13,271 (10.0%)	10.0	
 Well above average (> + 2SD)	20,719	14,094 (87.9%)	1937 (12.1%)	12.1	
Health Trust	
 Well below average (< − 2SD)	30,564	28,549 (95.2%)	1443 (4.8%)	4.8	
 Below average (− 2SD to − 1SD)	132,679	117,925 (93.8%)	7786 (6.2%)	6.2	
 Average (− 1SD to + 1SD)	918,550	805,103 (92.2%)	67,673 (7.8%)	7.8	
 Above average (+ 1SD to + 2SD)	116,166	90,702 (90.6%)	9398 (9.4%)	9.4	
 Well above average (> + 2SD)	51,317	40,712 (89.5%)	4756 (10.5%)	10.5	
Well below average: NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at more than 2 SD below (< − 2SD) from the national rate of preterm birth in England; below average: NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at − 2SD to − 1SD from the national rate; average: NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at − 1SD to + 1SD from the national rate; above average: NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at + 1SD to + 2SD from the national rate; well above average: NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at > + 2SD from the national rate

kg/m2, kilogramme per square metre; SD, standard deviation

aPreterm birth was defined as baby born before completing 37 weeks of gestation

bPercentage of overall sample with missing information for the considered characteristic. Occurrence of missing data were observed to be similar in both arms of the outcome and < 10% in most cases

Maternal characteristics

The variation in preterm birth rate across NHS Health Trusts in England is shown in Fig. 1. The proportion of Health Trusts categorised as well below the average rate for preterm births was 4.5% (green, n = 6), whereas the proportion of Health Trusts classified as well above the average rate was 3.8% (red, n = 5).Fig. 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) rates across the 130 Health Trusts between April 2015 and March 2017

The maternal characteristics for the 1,174,047 live births and 25,604 preterm births at < 34 weeks of gestation (2.18 preterm births per 100 live births) and the 5346 preterm births at < 28 weeks of gestation (0.046 preterm births per 100 live births) are shown in Tables S1 and S2. The variation in preterm birth rate across Health Trusts in NHS England is consistent with the main analysis (Figures S2 and S3).

Preterm birth rate by Health Trust of birth

The average preterm birth rates in Asian, black and white women in average Health Trusts (blue) were similar, 7.74/100 births, 7.60/100 births and 7.74/100 births, respectively (Table 2). Similarly, the average preterm birth rates across all ethnicities were comparable in below average Health Trusts (navy) and above average Health Trusts (orange). The corresponding figures within Health Trusts well above average (red) were 10.49/100 births, 11.62/100 births and 14.30/100 births, respectively. The average preterm birth rates for white, Asian and black women in the well below average (green) Health Trusts were 4.89/100 births, 3.46/100 births and 2.57/100 births, respectively (Table 2). Table 2 Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in absolute risk of preterm births across Health Trustsa

Ethnicity	
Trusts	Asian	Black	Mixed race	Other races	White	
Green	3.46 (3.46; 3.47) (37, 3.2%)	2.57 (2.56; 2.58) (15, 1.3%)	3.25 (3.24; 3.26) (11, 0.9%)	3.97 (3.96; 3.97) (18, 1.5%)	4.89 (4.88; 4.90) (1081, 93%)	
Navy	6.17 (6.17; 6.17) (981, 11.1%)	6.11 (6.11; 6.11) (400, 4.5%)	6.19 (6.19; 6.19) (138, 1.6%)	5.95 (5.95; 5.95) (225, 2.5%)	6.14 (6.14; 6.14) (7120, 80.3%)	
Blue	7.60 (7.59; 7.60) (7138, 12.5%)	7.74 (7.73; 7.74) (3376, 5.9%)	7.86 (7.85; 7.86) (1139, 2.0%)	7.57 (7.57; 7.57) (2310, 4.0%)	7.74 (7.73; 7.74) (43,221, 75.6%)	
Orange	9.49 (9.49; 9.60) (1203, 11.1%)	9.55 (9.55; 9.55) (678, 6.3%)	9.61 (9.61; 9.62) (177, 1.6%)	9.55 (9.55; 9.55) (428, 3.9%)	9.38 (9.38; 9.38) (8353, 77.0%)	
Red	11.62 (11.61; 11.63) (580, 12.1%)	14.30 (14.28; 14.32) (123, 2.6%)	12.88 (12.86; 12.89) (85, 1.8%)	11.75 (11.74; 11.76) (126, 2.6%)	10.49 (10.48; 10.49) (3861, 80.1%)	
Socioeconomic Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)	
Trusts	IMD1 (most deprived)	IMD2	IMD3	IMD4	IMD5 (least deprived)	
Green	4.21 (4.20; 4.22) (331, 21.7%)	4.44 (4.43; 4.45) (339, 22.2%)	4.74 (4.73; 4.74) (331, 21.7%)	4.69 (4.69; 4.70) (281, 18.4%)	4.56 (4.56; 4.57) (200, 13.1%)	
Navy	6.03 (6.03; 6.03) (1187, 12.6%)	6.13 (6.13; 6.13) (2003, 21.2%)	6.26 (6.26; 6.26) (1888, 20.0%)	6.04 (6.04; 6.04) (1970, 20.8%)	6.04 (6.04; 6.04) (1946, 20.6%)	
Blue	8.13 (8.13; 8.12) (17,943, 28.5%)	7.82 (7.82; 7.82) (13,997, 22.2%)	7.78 (7.78; 7.78) (10,653, 16.9%)	7.56 (7.56; 7.56) (8857, 14.1%)	7.42 (7.42; 7.42) (7555, 12.0%)	
Orange	9.39 (9.39; 9.39) (4013, 33.8%)	9.37 (9.37; 9.32) (2412, 20.3%)	9.36 (9.36; 9.36) (1745, 14.7%)	9.37 (9.37; 9.37) (1409, 11.9%)	9.39 (9.39; 9.40) (1104, 9.3%)	
Red	12.63 (12.61; 12.65) (2414, 45.6%)	10.91 (10.91; 10.92) (792, 15.0%)	11.23 (11.22; 11.23) (651, 12.3%)	12.40 (12.38; 12.42) (566, 10.7%)	11.91 (11.89; 11.93) (557, 10.5%)	
Preterm birth was defined as baby born before completing 37 weeks of gestation

All the estimated P values were < 0.00001

Green (well below average): NHS Trusts with preterm birth rate at < − 2 standard deviation (SD) from the national rate of preterm birth in England; navy (below average): NHS Trusts with preterm birth rate at − 2SD to − 1SD from the national rate; blue (average): NHS Trusts with preterm birth rates at − 1SD to + 1SD from the national rate; orange (above average): NHS Trusts with preterm birth rate at + 1SD to + 2SD from the national rate; red (well above average): Trusts with preterm birth rate at > + 2SD from the national rate

aMean of NHS Trust preterm birth rates within a particular Trust preterm birth level, 95% confidence Interval, number and proportion of NHS Trusts

The proportion of Health Trusts with well above average (red) preterm birth rates in the general population was 3.2% (n = 5), with the equivalent proportion for white, Asian and black women being 4.6%, 11.5% and 27.9%, respectively (Fig. 2). When Health Trusts were ranked according to overall preterm birth rate, there were notable variations in rates of preterm birth rate within the same Trust for white, Asian and black women (Fig. 3). Some Health Trusts had below average preterm birth rates for white women whilst reporting average or well above average preterm rates for black and Asian women. The average rate of preterm birth was similar for all areas regardless of socioeconomic deprivation quintile when analysed by the average preterm birth rate of the trusts (Table 2), ranging from 7.42/100 births for women in the least deprived areas to 8.13/100 births for women living in the most deprived areas. For women living in the least deprived areas, the proportion of preterm births that occurred in Health Trusts with well above average preterm birth rates was 9.2%, whilst the corresponding figure was 2.3% for women living in the average deprived areas and 17.7% for those in the most deprived areas, respectively (Fig. 4a and b).Fig. 2 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rates between April 2015 and March 2017

Fig. 3 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the overall national preterm birth rate between April 2015 and March 2017

Fig. 4 a Preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the most deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 1) between April 2015 and March 2017. b Preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the least deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 5) between April 2015 and March 2017

Ethnic inequalities within Health Trusts for women living in areas with the same level of socioeconomic deprivation were consistent with the main analysis when < 34 and < 28 weeks of gestation were considered to define preterm birth (Figures S4a, S4b, S5a and S5b). When Health Trusts were ranked according to overall preterm birth rate, there were notable variations in rates of preterm birth rate within the same Trust for white, Asian and black women (Figures S6 and S7).

Preterm birth variation by ethnicity and/or IMD

The preterm birth rate ranged from a rate of 8.6/100 births in black women compared with a preterm birth rate of 6.9/100 births in women from other ethnic (non-black and non-Asian) groups (Table 1). Ethnic inequalities in preterm birth rates are displayed in Fig. 2. Similarly, the preterm birth rate ranged from a rate of 6.8/100 births for women living in the least deprived areas, up to a rate of 8.8/100 births for those living in the most deprived areas (Table 1). The average rate of preterm birth for women of different ethnic origins in various socioeconomic groups is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 4a and b. The preterm birth rates in Asian, black and white women from the most deprived areas were 8.5/100 births, 7.2/100 births and 7.7/100 births, respectively. The corresponding figures for white, Asian and black women from the least deprived areas were 6.3/100 births, 6.9/100 births and 6.6/100 births, respectively.

When preterm birth was redefined using 34 and 28 weeks of gestation rather than 37 weeks of gestation, the preterm birth variation by ethnicity (Figures S8 and S9 and Tables S3 and S4) and/or IMD (Figures S4a, S4b, S5a and S5b) were consistent with the main analysis. For example, black women had higher rates of preterm birth compared white women.

The associations between ethnicity and IMD with preterm birth are displayed in Table 3. Women of Asian ethnicity were more likely to experience preterm birth, compared to White women. No evidence of a difference could be identified for the other ethnic groups. Women residing in the most deprived areas were at an increased risk of preterm birth compared to those residing in the least deprived areas: As deprivation increased from IMD3 to IMD1, the risk of preterm increases in a dose–response manner. Table 3 Adjusted relative risks of preterm birth by maternal ethnicity and IMD statusa

	Relative risk (95% CI)b	
Ethnicity	
 White	Reference	
 Asian	1.05 (1.03–1.07)	
 Black	1.01 (0.98–1.04)	
 Mixed	0.96 (0.92–1.00)	
 Other	0.91 (0.88–0.95)	
Index of Multiple Deprivation	
 1—most deprived	1.26 (1.22–1.30)	
 2	1.15 (1.12–1.19)	
 3	1.09 (1.06–1.12)	
 4	1.05 (0.99–1.10)	
 5—least deprived	Reference	
Preterm birth was defined as baby born before completing 37 weeks of gestation and classified as preterm vs term birth

aModified Poisson regression adjusted for maternal body mass index, age, smoking status at booking, alcohol consumption at booking, substance abuse at booking, mental health problems at booking, domestic abuse at booking, previous total number of births, number of complications diagnosed at booking, previous caesarean section, previous stillbirth, previous preterm birth, previous low weight infant and previous stillbirth

bAnalysis combining the estimations of the 25 imputed datasets using the Rubin’s rules; 95% CI=95% confidence Interval

Discussion

Main findings

This study investigated preterm birth across 130 NHS Health Trusts in England and found evidence of inequity in care provision within Health Trusts. Several Health Trusts report below average preterm birth rates for white women but concurrently report above average or well above average preterm birth rates for black women. In Health Trusts with preterm birth rates well above the average, black women had a greater average rate of preterm birth (14.30/100 births) compared with white women (10.49/100 births). Our study responded to one of the critical recommendations of previous studies that examined inter-country variation in preterm birth [1, 2, 25, 26]. The authors highlighted the importance of exploring within-country variation in preterm birth and identifying the underlying mechanisms driving it. Our observations are in accordance with prior studies in the UK showing that ethnic minorities and high levels of socioeconomic deprivation are directly related to rates of preterm birth [41, 42]. Socioeconomic disparities were independent risk factors for preterm birth in our adjusted regression, with women residing in IMD1 to IMD3 more likely to experience preterm birth compared to women residing in the least deprived areas (IMD5). Women of low socioeconomic status are more likely to face obstacles such as being disadvantaged and vulnerable [43]; therefore, poverty could be the leading factor preventing equal access to maternity care. To address inequalities in maternity care, enhancement in living standards for disadvantaged women is required to provide access to education and increase employment opportunities [44]. Addressing the complex association between preterm birth and socioeconomic deprivation will depend upon understanding these underlying patient-level factors influencing preterm birth [45]. Inequity in access to quality perinatal care due to mistrust of health services, language/communication difficulties, racial discrimination, poor nutrition, tobacco use, alcohol consumption and substance use could be central to these inequalities [46–50].

Given the substantial variation observed in preterm birth across Health Trusts, coupled with multiple studies that reported variation in perinatal care across trusts, it would be illogical to assume that the observed disparity could be attributed to patient-level factors alone [51, 52]. Both preterm birth clinics and neonatal units have well-developed tertiary level provision with a National Network to enable referral of women from secondary to tertiary level care [53]. There are well-established regional and national referral networks that coordinate the in utero transfer of pregnant mothers likely to deliver prematurely to the appropriate maternity facility with available neonatal cots and services and at the appropriate level of neonatal care for the anticipated severity of premature birth. It is to be expected that NHS Trusts with level 3 neonatal facilities will receive a greater number of in utero transfers of women at high risk of preterm birth. However, we established that 3 of the 5 Health Trusts with preterm birth rates greater than 2 SD above the national average did not have level 3 neonatal facilities. This highlights the importance for “targeted Health Trust” interventions where the high preterm birth rates could not be explained by the transfer of high-risk pregnancies in utero.

Research and health policy implications

The observed ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth across Health Trusts have highlighted the importance of understanding the underlying patient-level and context-level (Health Trust) factors influencing preterm birth. Despite the highest observed preterm birth rates nested in particular maternal ethnic groups (Tables 1 and 2), some of these differences were no more evident in the analysis (Table 3) adjusting, among other factors, for deprivation (IMD). These “indirect” differences are likely to be due to factors nested in ethnic groups such as deprivation. The generic maternity care delivered in NHS Trusts could also play an important role and would require further tailoring to meet the clinical needs and underlying social issues nested among mothers of particular ethnic groups. This research describes the indirect clinical and public health inequalities that pregnant ethnic women are likely to experience in NHS maternity care services. Our findings identified populations where care should be closely monitored and reviewed to ensure everyone has access to the same interventions. This work demonstrates the need for local community engagement to reduce barriers for women with social risk factors, to address equity issues in maternity care in the UK.

Unlike most high-resource settings, in the UK, two tools have been developed [16, 54] to determine the likelihood of preterm birth in women with symptoms of threatened preterm labour so that care can be targeted appropriately (e.g. steroids and hospital admission/in utero transfer). In addition, these tools provide reassurance to women when the likelihood of preterm is low, therefore saving resources as well as reducing antenatal bed and neonatal cot blocking. The care offered reduces chance of neonatal mortality and morbidity but does not prevent preterm birth itself. Impact assessment on pregnancy outcome has been conducted [55] and QUiPP (QUantitative Innovation in Predicting Preterm Birth v.2 App), which accurately discriminates women who are at short-term risk of preterm birth, is recommended by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

Strengths and limitations

The NMPA population-based data on birth outcomes in England used in this study is the most comprehensive official maternity service data set currently available. Whilst contextual inequalities in preterm births have been explored spatially/geographically previously in the UK [56, 57], this study went further, by exploring the differences in preterm birth rates across care providers. The study also considered markers of health inequality to uncover between-Trust and within-Trust differences. Furthermore, the estimation of the gestational age of the baby at booking, as employed in this data set, is a reliable assessment of gestational age (foetal crown-rump length) and is associated with an accuracy of ± 1 week, if conducted during the first trimester [58, 59].

However, there are also limitations as follows. This analysis includes preterm birth, which encompasses both spontaneous and medically induced occurrences (e.g. due to pre-eclampsia or foetal growth restriction). Differentiating between the two with the available data proves challenging. Interventions to tackle preterm birth differ depending on whether spontaneous or not, and it may be that these ethnic/social deprivation variations are different in these two groups. However, it is expected that the impact of this omission would have been largely limited using IMD metrics. This is a descriptive study which cannot establish a causal relationship. Also, based on available data, some markers of inequality such as migration status or education were not considered. Therefore, these factors could influence the inequalities observed. Additionally, we used IMD metrics to represent social deprivation, which is a broad measure and cannot provide information at the individual level. Furthermore, we were unable to sub-divide the broad ethnic groups and therefore could not examine internal variation within each ethnic group, thus potentially masking inequalities. It is possible that Trust “performance” is because of differing thresholds for curtailing pregnancy duration iatrogenically because of clinical indications. However, as we considered the presence of level 3 neonatal facilities within the 5 Health Trusts ranked as “red” for the general population, it is unlikely that high preterm birth rates were driven by a high rate of transfer to these Trusts. Despite the limitations of a retrospective design, our study highlights the data gaps that could be addressed through enhanced data capture and management strategies, at regional and national levels. Such enhancements will thus inform monitoring and evaluation of the impact of future interventions at health systems and organisational levels to reduce preterm birth rates and consequences.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that beyond ethnicity and/or socioeconomic deprivation, the location and services provided at the Health Trust of birth could play a major role in the inequity in health care delivered. This is a descriptive study which highlights inequalities that currently exist. Thus, disparities in preterm birth could be reduced by targeting populations that have higher than average rates of preterm birth as early as possible in the antenatal care pathway, as well as Health Trusts with demonstrable inequalities in care delivery.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Additional file 1 Data flow diagram. Figure S2. Preterm birth (<34 weeks of gestation) rates across the 130 Health Trusts between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S3. Preterm birth (<28 weeks of gestation) rates across the 130 Health Trusts between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S4a. Preterm birth (<34 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the most deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 1) between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S4b. Preterm birth (<28 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the least deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 5) between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S5a. Preterm birth (<34 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the most deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 1) between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S5b. Preterm birth (<28 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate within mums living in the least deprived areas (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 5) between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S6. Preterm birth (<34 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the overall national preterm birth rate between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S7. Preterm birth (<28 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the overall national preterm birth rate between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S8. Preterm birth (<34 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate between April 2015 and March 2017. Figure S9. Preterm birth (<28 weeks of gestation) rates by ethnicity across the 130 Health Trusts according to the national ethnic group preterm birth rate between April 2015 and March 2017. Table S1. Distribution of live births by maternal characteristics and preterm birth status at 34 weeks of gestation between April 2015 and March 2017. Table S2. Distribution of live births by maternal characteristics and preterm birth status at 28 weeks of gestation between April 2015 and March 2017. Table S3. Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in absolute risk of preterm births (<34 weeks of gestation) across Health Trusts between April 2015 and March 2017. Table S4. Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in absolute risk of preterm births (<28 weeks of gestation) across Health Trusts between April 2015 and March 2017.

Abbreviations

BMI Body mass index

DARS-NIC Data Access Request Service

HICs High-income countries

IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation

LSOA Lower Layer Super Output Area

MIS Maternity Information Systems

NHS National Health Service

NMPA National Maternity and Perinatal Audit

ONS Office for National Statistics

QUiPP App QUantitative Innovation in Predicting Preterm Birth application

RR Risk ratio

SD Standard deviation

UK United Kingdom

95% CI 95% Confidence interval

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank the wider members of the Tommy’s National Centre for Maternity Improvement Programme Delivery Team for their advice, input and administrative support and the Women’s Voices Involvement Group, who contributed their views and recommendations. Jane Sandall, at King’s College London, is an NIHR Senior Investigator Emerita and is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Erik Lenguerrand and Andrew Judge are supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Authors’ contributions

All authors were involved in the conception, design and data collection of the study. GAK, AH, AJ and EL performed the data analysis and GAK, EL, AJ, AH and DA drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the article and contributed to interpreting the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Tommy’s Charity, UK. The funder was not involved in the conceptualisation, data collection, analysis and reporting of this study.

Availability of data and materials

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly available. The data that support this study will be available from the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) (https://maternityaudit.org.uk/pages/home)—following approval from Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This project has been reviewed and approved by the scientific committee of the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) on behalf of Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP). As such, it falls under their legal authority and is covered by the NMPA CAG Sect. 251 approval. Further details are available here: CAG S251 approval letter 16CAG0058.pdf (maternityaudit.org.uk).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

G. Kayode and A. Howell are joint first authors.

A. Judge and E. Lenguerrand are joint last authors.
==== Refs
References

1. Chawanpaiboon S Vogel JP Moller AB Lumbiganon P Petzold M Hogan D Landoulsi S Jampathong N Kongwattanakul K Laopaiboon M Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis Lancet Glob Health 2019 7 1 e37 e46 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0 30389451
Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, Landoulsi S, Jampathong N, Kongwattanakul K, Laopaiboon M, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–46.30389451
2. Zeitlin J Szamotulska K Drewniak N Mohangoo AD Chalmers J Sakkeus L Irgens L Gatt M Gissler M Blondel B Preterm birth time trends in Europe: a study of 19 countries BJOG 2013 120 11 1356 1365 10.1111/1471-0528.12281 23700966
Zeitlin J, Szamotulska K, Drewniak N, Mohangoo AD, Chalmers J, Sakkeus L, Irgens L, Gatt M, Gissler M, Blondel B. Preterm birth time trends in Europe: a study of 19 countries. BJOG. 2013;120(11):1356–65.23700966
3. Preterm birth. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth#cms.
4. Premature birth, management, complications. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/77092.
5. Morgan AS Mendonça M Thiele N David AL Management and outcomes of extreme preterm birth BMJ 2022 376 e055924 10.1136/bmj-2021-055924 35012942
Morgan AS, Mendonça M, Thiele N, David AL. Management and outcomes of extreme preterm birth. BMJ. 2022;376:e055924.35012942
6. Births in Scottish hospitals. https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/births-in-scottish-hospitals/births-in-scottish-hospitals-year-ending-31-march-2021/.
7. Northern Ireland Public Health Agency: Children’s health in Northern Ireland: a statistical profile of births using data drawn from the Northern Ireland Child Health System, Northern Ireland Maternity System and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. In. https://www.publichealth.hscni.net/sites/default/files/2023-05/RUAG%20Childrens%20Health%20in%20NI%20-%202021-22%20-%20FINAL.pdf; 2019.
8. Birth characteristics in England and Wales: 2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2020#:~:text=In%202020%2C%207.4%25%20of%20live,compared%20with%200.15%25%20in%202019. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2020#:~:text=In%202020%2C%207.4%25%20of%20live,compared%20with%200.15%25%20in%202019.
9. Safer maternity care - the national maternity safety strategy - progress and next steps. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662969/Safer_maternity_care_-_progress_and_next_steps.pdf.
10. NHS England: Saving babies lives: a care bundle for reducing stillbirth. In. Edited by NHS England. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/saving-babies-lives-car-bundl.pdf; 2017.
11. Story L Simpson NAB David AL Alfirevic ZZ Bennett PR Jolly M Shennan AH Reducing the impact of preterm birth: preterm birth commissioning in the United Kingdom Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2019 3 100018 31403111
Story L, Simpson NAB, David AL, Alfirevic ZZ, Bennett PR, Jolly M, Shennan AH. Reducing the impact of preterm birth: preterm birth commissioning in the United Kingdom. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019;3:100018.31403111
12. Oliver-Williams C Fleming M Wood AM Smith G Previous miscarriage and the subsequent risk of preterm birth in Scotland, 1980–2008: a historical cohort study BJOG 2015 122 11 1525 1534 10.1111/1471-0528.13276 25626593
Oliver-Williams C, Fleming M, Wood AM, Smith G. Previous miscarriage and the subsequent risk of preterm birth in Scotland, 1980–2008: a historical cohort study. BJOG. 2015;122(11):1525–34.25626593
13. Castanon A Brocklehurst P Evans H Peebles D Singh N Walker P Patnick J Sasieni P Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: retrospective-prospective cohort study BMJ 2012 345 e5174 10.1136/bmj.e5174 22899563
Castanon A, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, Walker P, Patnick J, Sasieni P. Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: retrospective-prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e5174.22899563
14. Liu B Roberts CL Clarke M Jorm L Hunt J Ward J Chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections and the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes: a retrospective cohort study Sex Transm Infect 2013 89 8 672 678 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051118 24005255
Liu B, Roberts CL, Clarke M, Jorm L, Hunt J, Ward J. Chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections and the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Transm Infect. 2013;89(8):672–8.24005255
15. Stock SJ Horne M Bruijn M White H Heggie R Wotherspoon L Boyd K Aucott L Morris RK Dorling J A prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin, to predict preterm labour: the QUIDS meta-analysis and prospective cohort study Health Technol Assess 2021 25 52 1 168 10.3310/hta25520 34751645
Stock SJ, Horne M, Bruijn M, White H, Heggie R, Wotherspoon L, Boyd K, Aucott L, Morris RK, Dorling J, et al. A prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin, to predict preterm labour: the QUIDS meta-analysis and prospective cohort study. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25(52):1–168.34751645
16. Stock SJ Horne M Bruijn M White H Boyd KA Heggie R Wotherspoon L Aucott L Morris RK Dorling J Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): a prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysis PLoS Med 2021 18 7 e1003686 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003686 34228732
Stock SJ, Horne M, Bruijn M, White H, Boyd KA, Heggie R, Wotherspoon L, Aucott L, Morris RK, Dorling J, et al. Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): a prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021;18(7):e1003686.34228732
17. Santhakumaran S Statnikov Y Gray D Battersby C Ashby D Modi N Survival of very preterm infants admitted to neonatal care in England 2008–2014: time trends and regional variation Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018 103 3 F208 f215 10.1136/archdischild-2017-312748 28883097
Santhakumaran S, Statnikov Y, Gray D, Battersby C, Ashby D, Modi N. Survival of very preterm infants admitted to neonatal care in England 2008–2014: time trends and regional variation. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103(3):F208-f215.28883097
18. Smith LK Hindori-Mohangoo AD Delnord M Durox M Szamotulska K Macfarlane A Alexander S Barros H Gissler M Blondel B Quantifying the burden of stillbirths before 28 weeks of completed gestational age in high-income countries: a population-based study of 19 European countries Lancet 2018 392 10158 1639 1646 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31651-9 30269877
Smith LK, Hindori-Mohangoo AD, Delnord M, Durox M, Szamotulska K, Macfarlane A, Alexander S, Barros H, Gissler M, Blondel B, et al. Quantifying the burden of stillbirths before 28 weeks of completed gestational age in high-income countries: a population-based study of 19 European countries. Lancet. 2018;392(10158):1639–46.30269877
19. Shennan A Chandiramani M Bennett P David AL Girling J Ridout A Seed PT Simpson N Thornton S Tydeman G MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020 222 3 261.e261 261.e269 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.040
Shennan A, Chandiramani M, Bennett P, David AL, Girling J, Ridout A, Seed PT, Simpson N, Thornton S, Tydeman G, et al. MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):261.e261-261.e269.
20. National Collaborating Centre for Womens Childrens Health NICE: clinical guidelines Preterm Labour and Birth 2015
National Collaborating Centre for Womens Childrens Health. NICE: clinical guidelines. In: Preterm labour and birth. 2015. https://maternityaudit.org.uk/pages/home.
21. Rolnik DL Wright D Poon LC O'Gorman N Syngelaki A de Paco MC Akolekar R Cicero S Janga D Singh M Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia N Engl J Med 2017 377 7 613 622 10.1056/NEJMoa1704559 28657417
Rolnik DL, Wright D, Poon LC, O’Gorman N, Syngelaki A, de Paco MC, Akolekar R, Cicero S, Janga D, Singh M, et al. Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):613–22.28657417
22. Lamont RF Nhan-Chang CL Sobel JD Workowski K Conde-Agudelo A Romero R Treatment of abnormal vaginal flora in early pregnancy with clindamycin for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011 205 3 177 190 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.047 22071048
Lamont RF, Nhan-Chang CL, Sobel JD, Workowski K, Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R. Treatment of abnormal vaginal flora in early pregnancy with clindamycin for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):177–90.22071048
23. MacDorman MF Thoma M Declercq E Howell EA The relationship between obstetrical interventions and the increase in U.S. preterm births, 2014–2019 PLoS One 2022 17 3 e0265146 10.1371/journal.pone.0265146 35353843
MacDorman MF, Thoma M, Declercq E, Howell EA. The relationship between obstetrical interventions and the increase in U.S. preterm births, 2014–2019. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0265146.35353843
24. Boerma T Ronsmans C Melesse DY Barros AJD Barros FC Juan L Moller AB Say L Hosseinpoor AR Yi M Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections Lancet 2018 392 10155 1341 1348 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7 30322584
Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, Moller AB, Say L, Hosseinpoor AR, Yi M, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341–8.30322584
25. Zeitlin J Alexander S Barros H Blondel B Delnord M Durox M Gissler M Hindori-Mohangoo AD Hocquette A Szamotulska K Perinatal health monitoring through a European lens: eight lessons from the Euro-Peristat report on 2015 births BJOG 2019 126 13 1518 1522 10.1111/1471-0528.15857 31260601
Zeitlin J, Alexander S, Barros H, Blondel B, Delnord M, Durox M, Gissler M, Hindori-Mohangoo AD, Hocquette A, Szamotulska K, et al. Perinatal health monitoring through a European lens: eight lessons from the Euro-Peristat report on 2015 births. BJOG. 2019;126(13):1518–22.31260601
26. Delnord M Hindori-Mohangoo AD Smith LK Szamotulska K Richards JL Deb-Rinker P Rouleau J Velebil P Zile I Sakkeus L Variations in very preterm birth rates in 30 high-income countries: are valid international comparisons possible using routine data? BJOG 2017 124 5 785 794 10.1111/1471-0528.14273 27613083
Delnord M, Hindori-Mohangoo AD, Smith LK, Szamotulska K, Richards JL, Deb-Rinker P, Rouleau J, Velebil P, Zile I, Sakkeus L, et al. Variations in very preterm birth rates in 30 high-income countries: are valid international comparisons possible using routine data? BJOG. 2017;124(5):785–94.27613083
27. Delnord M Mortensen L Hindori-Mohangoo AD Blondel B Gissler M Kramer MR Richards JL Deb-Rinker P Rouleau J Morisaki N International variations in the gestational age distribution of births: an ecological study in 34 high-income countries Eur J Public Health 2018 28 2 303 309 10.1093/eurpub/ckx131 29020399
Delnord M, Mortensen L, Hindori-Mohangoo AD, Blondel B, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Richards JL, Deb-Rinker P, Rouleau J, Morisaki N, et al. International variations in the gestational age distribution of births: an ecological study in 34 high-income countries. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(2):303–9.29020399
28. Thomson K Moffat M Arisa O Jesurasa A Richmond C Odeniyi A Bambra C Rankin J Brown H Bishop J Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ Open 2021 11 3 e042753 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042753 33722867
Thomson K, Moffat M, Arisa O, Jesurasa A, Richmond C, Odeniyi A, Bambra C, Rankin J, Brown H, Bishop J, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e042753.33722867
29. Saigal S Doyle LW An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood Lancet 2008 371 9608 261 269 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60136-1 18207020
Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008;371(9608):261–9.18207020
30. Aughey H, Blotkamp A, Carroll F, Geary R, Gurol-Urganci I, Harris T, Hawdon J, Heighway E, Jardine J, Knight H, et al. National Maternity and Perinatal Audit clinical report 2019. In. https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/national-maternity-and-perinatal-audit-nmpa-clinical-report-2019/: HQIP; 2019.
31. Births QMI. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/methodologies/birthsqmi.
32. Lower layer super output area population estimates (supporting information). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/lowersuperoutputareamidyearpopulationestimates.
33. Lloyd CD Norman PD McLennan D Deprivation in England, 1971–2020 Appl Spat Anal Policy 2023 16 1 461 484 10.1007/s12061-022-09486-8 36405332
Lloyd CD, Norman PD, McLennan D. Deprivation in England, 1971–2020. Appl Spat Anal Policy. 2023;16(1):461–84.36405332
34. Zou GY Donner A Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data Stat Methods Med Res 2011 22 6 661 670 10.1177/0962280211427759 22072596
Zou GY, Donner A. Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;22(6):661–70.22072596
35. Yelland LN Salter AB Ryan P Performance of the modified Poisson regression approach for estimating relative risks from clustered prospective data Am J Epidemiol 2011 174 8 984 992 10.1093/aje/kwr183 21841157
Yelland LN, Salter AB, Ryan P. Performance of the modified Poisson regression approach for estimating relative risks from clustered prospective data. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(8):984–92.21841157
36. Aughey H Jardine J Knight H Gurol-Urganci I Walker K Harris T van der Meulen J Hawdon J Pasupathy D Iatrogenic and spontaneous preterm birth in England: a population-based cohort study BJOG 2023 130 1 33 41 10.1111/1471-0528.17291 36073305
Aughey H, Jardine J, Knight H, Gurol-Urganci I, Walker K, Harris T, van der Meulen J, Hawdon J, Pasupathy D. Iatrogenic and spontaneous preterm birth in England: a population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2023;130(1):33–41.36073305
37. Dekker GA Lee SY North RA McCowan LM Simpson NA Roberts CT Risk factors for preterm birth in an international prospective cohort of nulliparous women PLoS ONE 2012 7 7 e39154 10.1371/journal.pone.0039154 22815699
Dekker GA, Lee SY, North RA, McCowan LM, Simpson NA, Roberts CT. Risk factors for preterm birth in an international prospective cohort of nulliparous women. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e39154.22815699
38. Zhang Z Multiple imputation with multivariate imputation by chained equation (MICE) package Ann Transl Med 2016 4 2 30 26889483
Zhang Z. Multiple imputation with multivariate imputation by chained equation (MICE) package. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(2):30.26889483
39. Rubin DB Schenker N Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications Stat Med 1991 10 4 585 598 10.1002/sim.4780100410 2057657
Rubin DB, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med. 1991;10(4):585–98.2057657
40. Sterne JA Davey Smith G Sifting the evidence-what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ 2001 322 7280 226 231 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226 11159626
Sterne JA, Davey Smith G. Sifting the evidence-what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001;322(7280):226–31.11159626
41. Taylor-Robinson D Agarwal U Diggle PJ Platt MJ Yoxall B Alfirevic Z Quantifying the impact of deprivation on preterm births: a retrospective cohort study PLoS ONE 2011 6 8 e23163 10.1371/journal.pone.0023163 21826237
Taylor-Robinson D, Agarwal U, Diggle PJ, Platt MJ, Yoxall B, Alfirevic Z. Quantifying the impact of deprivation on preterm births: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8):e23163.21826237
42. Janghorbani M Stenhouse E Millward A Jones RB Neighborhood deprivation and preterm birth in Plymouth, UK J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006 19 2 85 91 10.1080/14767050500363428 16581603
Janghorbani M, Stenhouse E, Millward A, Jones RB. Neighborhood deprivation and preterm birth in Plymouth, UK. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;19(2):85–91.16581603
43. Harvey SM Faber KS Obstacles to prenatal care following implementation of a community-based program to reduce financial barriers Fam Plann Perspect 1993 25 1 32 36 10.2307/2135990 8432374
Harvey SM, Faber KS. Obstacles to prenatal care following implementation of a community-based program to reduce financial barriers. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993;25(1):32–6.8432374
44. Flenady V Middleton P Smith GC Duke W Erwich JJ Khong TY Neilson J Ezzati M Koopmans L Ellwood D Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries Lancet 2011 377 9778 1703 1717 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60064-0 21496907
Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, Duke W, Erwich JJ, Khong TY, Neilson J, Ezzati M, Koopmans L, Ellwood D, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1703–17.21496907
45. McHale P Maudsley G Pennington A Schluter DK Barr B Paranjothy S Taylor-Robinson D Mediators of socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth: a systematic review BMC Public Health 2022 22 1 1134 10.1186/s12889-022-13438-9 35668387
McHale P, Maudsley G, Pennington A, Schluter DK, Barr B, Paranjothy S, Taylor-Robinson D. Mediators of socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1134.35668387
46. Li Y Quigley MA Macfarlane A Jayaweera H Kurinczuk JJ Hollowell J Ethnic differences in singleton preterm birth in England and Wales, 2006–12: analysis of national routinely collected data Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2019 33 6 449 458 10.1111/ppe.12585 31642102
Li Y, Quigley MA, Macfarlane A, Jayaweera H, Kurinczuk JJ, Hollowell J. Ethnic differences in singleton preterm birth in England and Wales, 2006–12: analysis of national routinely collected data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2019;33(6):449–58.31642102
47. Opondo C Gray R Hollowell J Li Y Kurinczuk JJ Quigley MA Joint contribution of socioeconomic circumstances and ethnic group to variations in preterm birth, neonatal mortality and infant mortality in England and Wales: a population-based retrospective cohort study using routine data from 2006 to 2012 BMJ Open 2019 9 7 e028227 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028227 31371291
Opondo C, Gray R, Hollowell J, Li Y, Kurinczuk JJ, Quigley MA. Joint contribution of socioeconomic circumstances and ethnic group to variations in preterm birth, neonatal mortality and infant mortality in England and Wales: a population-based retrospective cohort study using routine data from 2006 to 2012. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e028227.31371291
48. Abel WM Efird JT The association between trust in health care providers and medication adherence among black women with hypertension Front Public Health 2013 1 66 10.3389/fpubh.2013.00066 24350234
Abel WM, Efird JT. The association between trust in health care providers and medication adherence among black women with hypertension. Front Public Health. 2013;1:66.24350234
49. Armstrong K Putt M Halbert CH Grande D Schwartz JS Liao K Marcus N Demeter MB Shea JA Prior experiences of racial discrimination and racial differences in health care system distrust Med Care 2013 51 2 144 150 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827310a1 23222499
Armstrong K, Putt M, Halbert CH, Grande D, Schwartz JS, Liao K, Marcus N, Demeter MB, Shea JA. Prior experiences of racial discrimination and racial differences in health care system distrust. Med Care. 2013;51(2):144–50.23222499
50. Yeo S Language barriers and access to care Annu Rev Nurs Res 2004 22 59 73 10.1891/0739-6686.22.1.59 15368768
Yeo S. Language barriers and access to care. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2004;22:59–73.15368768
51. Lau YZ Widdows K Roberts SA Khizar S Stephen GL Rauf S Heazell AEP Assessment of the quality, content and perceived utility of local maternity guidelines in hospitals in England implementing the saving babies’ lives care bundle to reduce stillbirth BMJ Open Qual 2020 9 2 e000756 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000756 32327423
Lau YZ, Widdows K, Roberts SA, Khizar S, Stephen GL, Rauf S, Heazell AEP. Assessment of the quality, content and perceived utility of local maternity guidelines in hospitals in England implementing the saving babies’ lives care bundle to reduce stillbirth. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9(2):e000756.32327423
52. Polus S Lerberg P Vogel J Watananirun K Souza JP Mathai M Gulmezoglu AM Appraisal of WHO guidelines in maternal health using the AGREE II assessment tool PLoS ONE 2012 7 8 e38891 10.1371/journal.pone.0038891 22912662
Polus S, Lerberg P, Vogel J, Watananirun K, Souza JP, Mathai M, Gulmezoglu AM. Appraisal of WHO guidelines in maternal health using the AGREE II assessment tool. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e38891.22912662
53. Carlisle N Care A Anumba DOC Dalkin S Sandall J Shennan AH How are hospitals in England caring for women at risk of preterm birth in 2021? The influence of national guidance on preterm birth care in England: a national questionnaire BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023 23 1 47 10.1186/s12884-023-05388-w 36670432
Carlisle N, Care A, Anumba DOC, Dalkin S, Sandall J, Shennan AH. How are hospitals in England caring for women at risk of preterm birth in 2021? The influence of national guidance on preterm birth care in England: a national questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):47.36670432
54. Watson HA Seed PT Carter J Hezelgrave NL Kuhrt K Tribe RM Shennan AH Development and validation of predictive models for QUiPP App vol 2: tool for predicting preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 55 3 348 356 10.1002/uog.20401 31325332
Watson HA, Seed PT, Carter J, Hezelgrave NL, Kuhrt K, Tribe RM, Shennan AH. Development and validation of predictive models for QUiPP App vol 2: tool for predicting preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(3):348–56.31325332
55. Watson HA Carlisle N Seed PT Carter J Kuhrt K Tribe RM Shennan AH Evaluating the use of the QUiPP app and its impact on the management of threatened preterm labour: a cluster randomised trial PLoS Med 2021 18 7 e1003689 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003689 34228735
Watson HA, Carlisle N, Seed PT, Carter J, Kuhrt K, Tribe RM, Shennan AH. Evaluating the use of the QUiPP app and its impact on the management of threatened preterm labour: a cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med. 2021;18(7):e1003689.34228735
56. Dibben C Clemens T Place of work and residential exposure to ambient air pollution and birth outcomes in Scotland, using geographically fine pollution climate mapping estimates Environ Res 2015 140 535 541 10.1016/j.envres.2015.05.010 26005952
Dibben C, Clemens T. Place of work and residential exposure to ambient air pollution and birth outcomes in Scotland, using geographically fine pollution climate mapping estimates. Environ Res. 2015;140:535–41.26005952
57. Opondo C Jayaweera H Hollowell J Li Y Kurinczuk JJ Quigley MA Variations in neonatal mortality, infant mortality, preterm birth and birth weight in England and Wales according to ethnicity and maternal country or region of birth: an analysis of linked national data from 2006 to 2012 J Epidemiol Community Health 2020 74 4 336 345 10.1136/jech-2019-213093 31964723
Opondo C, Jayaweera H, Hollowell J, Li Y, Kurinczuk JJ, Quigley MA. Variations in neonatal mortality, infant mortality, preterm birth and birth weight in England and Wales according to ethnicity and maternal country or region of birth: an analysis of linked national data from 2006 to 2012. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74(4):336–45.31964723
58. Lynch CD Zhang J The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007 21 Suppl 2 86 96 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00865.x 17803622
Lynch CD, Zhang J. The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21(Suppl 2):86–96.17803622
59. No authors listed Committee opinion no 700: methods for estimating the due date Obstet Gynecol 2017 129 5 e150 e154 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002046 28426621
Committee opinion no 700: methods for estimating the due date. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2017/05000/committee_opinion_no_700__methods_for_estimating.50.aspx.28426621
