Socioeconomic inequalities in the rate of stillbirths by cause: a population-based study
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To assess time trends in socioeconomic inequalities in overall and cause-specific stillbirth rates in England. Design: Population-based retrospective study. Setting: England. Participants: Stillbirths occurring among singleton infants born between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2007. Main outcome measure: Cause-specific stillbirth rate per 10 000 births by deprivation tenth and year of birth. Deprivation measured using the UK index of multiple deprivation at Super Output Area level. Methods: Poisson regression models were used to estimate the relative deprivation gap (comparing the most and least deprived tenths) in rates of stillbirths (overall and cause-specific). Excess mortality was calculated by applying the rates seen in the least deprived tenth to the entire population at risk. Discussions with our local NHS multicentre ethics committee deemed that this analysis of national non-identifiable data did not require separate ethics approval. Results: There were 44 stillbirths per 10 000 births, with no evidence of a change in rates over time. Rates were twice as high in the most deprived tenth compared with the least (rate ratio (RR) 2.1, 95% CI 2.0 to 2.2) with no evidence of a change over time. There was a significant deprivation gap for all specific causes except mechanical events (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5). The widest gap was seen for stillbirths due to antepartum haemorrhages (RR 3.1, 95% CI 2.8 to 3.5). No evidence of a change in the rate of stillbirth or deprivation gap over time was seen for any specific cause. Conclusion: A wide deprivation gap exists in stillbirth rates for most causes and is not diminishing. Unexplained antepartum stillbirths accounted for 50% of the deprivation gap, and a better understanding of these stillbirths is necessary to reduce socioeconomic inequalities.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Placental insufficiency is the most common cause of stillbirth and is associated with other adverse pregnancy outcomes such as fetal growth restriction and pre-eclampsia.
“Placental insufficiency is the most common cause of stillbirth [1] as well as other adverse pregnancy outcomes such as fetal growth restriction [2] and pre-eclampsia [3].”
From Fully Automated 3-D Ultrasound Segmentation of the Placenta, Amniotic Fluid, and Fetus for Early Pregnancy Assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Flenady, V., Koopmans, L., Middleton, P., Frøen, J. F., Smith, G. C., Gibbons, K., Coory, M., Gordon, A., Ellwood, D., McIntyre, H. D., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62233-7 · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stillbirths: recall to action in high-income countries
Flenady, V., Wojcieszek, A. M., Middleton, P., Ellwood, D., Erwich, J. J., Coory, M., Khong, T. Y., Silver, R. M., Smith, G. C. S., Boyle, F. M., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01020-x · Cited by 667 · see citing works
Self-citationLooney, P., Yin, Y., Collins, S. L., Nicolaides, K. H., Plasencia, W., Molloholli, M., Natsis, S., & Stevenson, G. N. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2021.3052143 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Volume and vascularity: Using ultrasound to unlock the secrets of the first trimester placenta
Mathewlynn, S., & Collins, S. L. (2019) · Placenta · doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2019.06.379 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seaton, S. E., Field, D. J., Draper, E. S., Manktelow, B. N., Smith, G. C. S., Springett, A., & Smith, L. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Leicester (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Seaton, Sarah E
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e001100
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3383980
- OpenAlex
- W2130222737
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Apollo (cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (MET-08-05-101, NIHR-MET-08-05, RP-PG-0407-10029)
- University of Leicester
- Programme Grants for Applied Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Keywords
- stillbirth, socioeconomic disparities, antepartum hemorrhage, unexplained stillbirth, temporal trends, excess mortality, singleton pregnancy
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