Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disasters and Perinatal Health: A Systematic Review

Open access
Harville, Emily, Xiong, Xu, Buekens, Pierre·2010·Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The empirical literature on the effects of disaster on pregnancy and the postpartum period is limited. The objective of this review was to examine the existing evidence on the effect of disasters on perinatal health. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl, PsycInfo), including literature on disasters and pregnancy outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies), mental health, and child development. A total of 110 articles were identified, but many published reports were anecdotes or recommendations rather than systematic studies. The final review included 49 peer-reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Studies addressing the World Trade Center disaster of September 11 and other terrorist attacks, environmental/chemical disasters, and natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes were identified. Disasters of various types may reduce fetal growth in some women, although there does not appear to be an effect on gestational age at birth. Severity of exposure is the major predictor of mental health issues among pregnant and postpartum women. After a disaster, mental health of the mother may more strongly influence on child development than any direct effect of disaster-related prenatal stress. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that disaster impacts maternal mental health and some perinatal health outcomes, particular among highly exposed women. Future research should focus on understudied outcomes such as spontaneous abortion. Relief workers and clinicians should concentrate on the most exposed women, particularly with respect to mental health. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this educational activity, the obstetrician/gynecologist should be better able to compare and contrast the effects of different types of disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, chemical spills) on pregnant and postpartum women in order to prepare for patient care in the aftermath of such disasters; differentiate the birth outcomes likely to be affected by disaster, in order to identify patients likely to be at high risk; and assess the extent to which pregnant and postpartum women are a uniquely vulnerable population after disaster, to assist in organizing care under such circumstances.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ogx.0b013e31820eddbe

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Harville, E., Xiong, X., & Buekens, P.
Venue
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey
Published
2010-11
Volume
65
Issue
11
Pages
713-728
ISSN
0029-7828 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2131168153
Cited by
381
References
68
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disasters and Perinatal Health: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ogx.0b013e31820eddbe
The paper
Harville, E., Xiong, X., & Buekens, P. (2010). Disasters and Perinatal Health: A Systematic Review. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0b013e31820eddbe

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.