Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40133955›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2025

Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review.

Nicola Vousden, Dorothea Geddes-Barton, Stephanie J Hanley, Nia Roberts, Marian Knight

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicola VousdenNuffield Department of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. nicola.vousden@npeu.ox.ac.uk.
Dorothea Geddes-BartonNuffield Department of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Stephanie J HanleyDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Marian KnightNuffield Department of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences SGL030/1007Medical Research Council MR/X004341/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR303806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen facing multiple disadvantage such as financial poverty, poor mental health or domestic abuse, may experience inequalities in health prior to and during pregnancy, as well as into early motherhood. This can have lifelong intergenerational impacts. The primary aim of this overview was to identify the breadth and efficacy of interventions that work across health and social care to reduce inequalities in maternal or child health. The second aim was to explore their relevance to women with lived experience.

methodsAn overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from high-income countries that aim to reduce inequalities for women with social disadvantage during pregnancy was performed. Searches were conducted in eight electronic databases up to August 2023 and supplemented with grey literature searches. We included any individual, hospital, or community level activities specific to women during the pre-conception, antenatal or postpartum period up to one year after. The protocol was registered. Two workshops with women with lived experience of disadvantage explored the relevance of identified interventions, and gaps in evidence, in relation to their experiences.

resultsA total of 36 reviews, including 734 primary studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of reviews included studies undertaken in North America and were of critically low or low quality. Interventions were grouped into 11 categories. The majority of interventions were aimed at single social exposures and targeted individual behavior during pregnancy and the postnatal period. Some at risk populations were excluded from all reviews. There was potential benefit of home-based interventions, psychosocial interventions, models of maternity care and interdisciplinary programs of care for some population groups, across a range of maternal and child health outcomes. Our lived experience group felt these interventions had potential to meet their shared needs for advocacy, support and information, but they should also consider culture, past trauma and factors underpinning pregnancy such as housing and finances.

conclusionsFurther high-quality research is required to demonstrate efficacy and cost-effectiveness of potentially effective interventions in the European health systems. Additional research gaps include interventions prior to pregnancy, culture informed care and upstream determinants of health (PROSPERO: CRD42023455502).

Indexed as

Developed CountriesHealth Status DisparitiesPregnant PeopleFemaleHumansPovertyPregnancyDeprivationDisadvantageEffectivenessInequalitiesPregnancySocial riskUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID40133955
PMCPMC11938774

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.