Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in Timely Antenatal Care Between First and Second-Generation Migrants in the Netherlands

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess whether there are differences in the timing of first antenatal care visit between 1st and 2nd-generation migrants, and if so, how such differences could be explained. The study has been conducted in the framework of Generation R Study, a multi-ethnic population-based study conducted in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study population consists of 845 women of the six largest ethnic groups. Data were derived from the electronic antenatal charts of the participating midwives and from written questionnaires. Logistic regression analyses have been carried out to investigate whether difference could be explained by need, predisposing and enabling factors. More first than second generation women enter antenatal care after 14 weeks of pregnancy (28.1 vs. 18.7 %). Women who were not likely to adopt healthy behaviour regarding pregnancy—such as timely taking folic acid—equally were not inclined to enter antenatal care early in pregnancy. The role of Dutch language mastery was limited. Given our results, first generation women are less likely to receive timely health educational advice or to benefit from screening opportunities than second generation women. Future studies should pay more attention to adequate assessment of proficiency of the host language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kupek E, Petrou S, Vause S, Maresh M. Clinical, provider and sociodemographic predictors of late initiation of antenatal care in England and Wales. BJOG. 2002;109(3):265–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alderliesten ME, Vrijkotte TG, van der Wal MF, Bonsel GJ. Late start of antenatal care among ethnic minorities in a large cohort of pregnant women. BJOG. 2007;114(10):1232–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Park JH, Vincent D, Hastings-Tolsma M. Disparity in prenatal care among women of colour in the USA. Midwifery. 2007;23(1):28–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ny P, Dykes AK, Molin J, Dejin-Karlsson E. Utilisation of antenatal care by country of birth in a multi-ethnic population: a four-year community-based study in Malmö, Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(7):805–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rowe RE, Magee H, Quigley MA, Heron P, Askham J, Brocklehurst P. Social and ethnic differences in attendance for antenatal care in England. Public Health. 2008;122(12):1363–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choté AA, de Groot CJ, Bruijnzeels MA, Redekop K, Jaddoe VW, Hofman A, et al. Ethnic differences in antenatal care use in a large multi-ethnic urban population in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2011;27(1):36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Foets M, Schuster J, Stronks K. Gezondheids(zorg)onderzoek onder allochtone bevolkingsgroepen. Een praktische introductie. 2007.

  8. Bais JMJ, Pel M. The basis of the Dutch obstetric system: risk selection. Eur Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;2(4):209–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. AbouZahr C, Wardlaw T. Antenatal care in developing countries: promises, achievements and missed opportunities-an analysis of trends, levels and differentials, 1990–2001.: World Health Organization; 2003.

  10. Villar J, Bergsjo P. Scientific basis for the content of routine antenatal care. I. Philosophy, recent studies, and power to eliminate or alleviate adverse maternal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choté AA, Koopmans GT, Redekop WK, de Groot CJ, Hoefman RJ, Jaddoe VW, et al. Explaining ethnic differences in late antenatal care entry by predisposing, enabling and need factors in the Netherlands. The Generation R Study. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15(6):689–99.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Timmins CL. The impact of language barriers on the health care of Latinos in the United States: a review of the literature and guidelines for practice. J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2002;47(2):80–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs E, Chen AH, Karliner LS, Agger-Gupta N, Mutha S. The need for more research on language barriers in health care: a proposed research agenda. Milbank Q. 2006;84(1):111–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gijsberts MDJ. Jaarrapport integratie 2009. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research/SCP; 2009.

  15. Andersen RM. National health surveys and the behavioral model of health services use. Med Care. 2008;46(7):647–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wiegers TA, van der Velden LFJ, Hingstman L. Behoefteraming verloskundigen 2004–2015. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nutbeam D. The evolving concept of health literacy. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2072–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pagnini DL, Reichman NE. Psychosocial factors and the timing of prenatal care among women in New Jersey’s HealthStart program. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32(2):56–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trinh LT, Rubin G. Late entry to antenatal care in New South Wales, Australia. Reprod Health. 2006;3:8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nothnagle M, Marchi K, Egerter S, Braveman P. Risk factors for late or no prenatal care following Medicaid expansions in California. Matern Child Health J. 2000;4(4):251–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaddoe VWV, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EAP, Tiemeier H, Verhulst FC, et al. The Generation R Study: design and cohort profile. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(6):475–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaddoe VW, van Duijn CM, van der Heijden AJ, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EA, et al. The Generation R Study: design and cohort update until the age of 4 years. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23(12):801–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stronks K, Kulu-Glasgow I, Agyemang C. The utility of ‘country of birth’ for the classification of ethnic groups in health research: the Dutch experience. Ethn Health. 2009;14(3):255–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Timmermans S, Jaddoe VW, Mackenbach JP, Hofman A, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Steegers EA. Determinants of folic acid use in early pregnancy in a multi-ethnic urban population in the Netherlands: The Generation R Study. Prev Med. 2008;47(4):427–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van Eijsden M, van der Wal MF, Bonsel GJ. Folic acid knowledge and use in a multi-ethnic pregnancy cohort: the role of language proficiency. BJOG. 2006;113(12):1446–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Phillippi JC. Women’s perceptions of access to prenatal care in the United States: a literature review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54(3):219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith GD, Chaturvedi N, Harding S, Nazroo J, Williams R. Ethnic inequalities in health: a review of UK epidemiological evidence. Crit Public Health. 2000;10(4):375–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Scheppers E, van Dongen E, Dekker J, Geertzen J, Dekker J. Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: a review. Fam Pract. 2006;23(3):325–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berghella V, Buchanan E, Pereira L, Baxter JK. Preconception care. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010;65(2):119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all women participating in the Generation R study and the midwives in Rotterdam, who provided data for this study. The first phase of the Generation R Study was made possible by financial support from the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). The department of Health Policy and Management received an additional grant, specifically for the study presented in this article, from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), in collaboration with the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (Grant No. 261-98-911). Supplementary financing was received from the Department of Health Policy and Management to accomplish this study.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Anushka A. Choté, Gerrit T. Koopmans, Renske J. Hoefman, Margo Trappenburg & Marleen Foets

  2. The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Anushka A. Choté & Vincent W. V. Jaddoe

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Christianne J. M. de Groot

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Vincent W. V. Jaddoe & Albert Hofman

  5. Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Vincent W. V. Jaddoe

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Eric A. P. Steegers

  7. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Johan P. Mackenbach

  8. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Margo Trappenburg

  9. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Margo Trappenburg

  10. Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Wassenaar, The Netherlands

    Marleen Foets

Authors
  1. Anushka A. Choté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerrit T. Koopmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christianne J. M. de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renske J. Hoefman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent W. V. Jaddoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Albert Hofman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric A. P. Steegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johan P. Mackenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Margo Trappenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marleen Foets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anushka A. Choté.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choté, A.A., Koopmans, G.T., de Groot, C.J.M. et al. Differences in Timely Antenatal Care Between First and Second-Generation Migrants in the Netherlands. J Immigrant Minority Health 16, 631–637 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9841-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9841-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation