Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-Reported Experiences of Racial Discrimination and Black–White Differences in Preterm and Low-Birthweight Deliveries: The CARDIA Study

Open access
Mustillo, Sarah, Krieger, Nancy, Gunderson, Erica P., Sidney, Stephen, McCreath, Heather, Kiefe, Catarina I.·2004·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.94.12.2125
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives. We examined the effects of self-reported experiences of racial discrimination on Black–White differences in preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) and low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) deliveries. Methods. Using logistic regression models, we analyzed data on 352 births among women enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Results. Among Black women, 50% of those with preterm deliveries and 61% of those with low-birthweight infants reported having experienced racial discrimination in at least 3 situations; among White women, the corresponding percentages were 5% and 0%. The unadjusted odds ratio for preterm delivery among Black versus White women was 2.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.33, 4.85), but this value decreased to 1.88 (95% CI=0.85, 4.12) after adjustment for experiences of racial discrimination and to 1.11 (95% CI=0.51, 2.41) after additional adjustment for alcohol and tobacco use, depression, education, and income. The corresponding odds ratios for low birthweight were 4.24 (95% CI=1.31, 13.67), 2.11 (95% CI=0.75, 5.93), and 2.43 (95% CI=0.79, 7.42). Conclusions. Self-reported experiences of racial discrimination were associated with preterm and low-birthweight deliveries, and such experiences may contribute to Black–White disparities in perinatal outcomes.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.94.12.2125

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mustillo, S., Krieger, N., Gunderson, E. P., Sidney, S., McCreath, H., & Kiefe, C. I.
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2004-12
Volume
94
Issue
12
Pages
2125-2131
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.94.12.2125
OpenAlex
W2093276584
Cited by
373
References
4
FWCI
44.32
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

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.