ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2026
Very Low Birth Weight Infants Among Latinx Women in the United States: Is the Paradox Lost?
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the context of this paper, the “Latinx paradox” refers to the observation that Latinx women, despite fewer resources, have comparable risks of delivering low birth weight infants compared with non-Latinx White women. Whether this paradox exists among infants with very low birthweight (VLBW) remains unclear. Using 2016–2019 US natality data (n=12,621,156), VLBW rates were examined among Latinx compared withother groups. The data was further stratified by nativity (foreign-born (FB) and US-born (USB). Adjusted (socioeconomic and health-related confounders) nested multivariable logistic regression models were developed. The reference group was USB non-Latinx White women. The VLBW rate was 0.97% for Latinx women (n= 2,671,945) and 0.76% for non-Latinx White women (n=7,738,273). When stratified by nativity, the ratewas 1.03% for USB Latinx women (n=1,521,232) and 0.9% for FB Latinxwomen (n=1,150,713). These are both increased compared with USB non-Latinx White women (0.78%). The unadjusted model produced the following results: OR:1.33; 95% CI: 1.30-1.35 for USB Latinx women and OR: 1.16; CI:1.13-1.18 for FB Latinx women compared with the reference group. Within the adjusted model, odds of VLBW were increased for USB Latinx women (OR: 1.45: CI: 1.42-1.48) and FB Latinx women (OR: 1.36; CI: 1.33-1.40). The “Latinx paradox” is not observed with VLBW infants when Latinx women are compared with non-Latinx White women, and the absence of paradox holds for those who are USB or FB. This supports prior studies that healthcare disparities, as well as disparities in other areas experienced by racial and ethnic minority groups in the US, affect VLBW rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41965486What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.