Understanding immigrant women’s experiences of maternity care is critical if receiving country care systems are to respond appropriately to increasing global migration. This systematic review aimed to compare what we know about immigrant and non-immigrant women’s experiences of maternity care.

Objective  This study aimed to investigate pregnancy outcomes in Somali‐born women compared with those women born in each of the six receiving countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden.Design  Meta‐analyses of routinely collected data on confinements and births.Setting  National or regional perinatal datasets spanning 3–6 years between 1997 and 2004 from six countries.Sample  A total of 10 431 Somali‐born women and 2 168 891 receiving country‐born women.Methods  Meta‐analyses to compare outcomes for Somali‐born and receiving country‐born women across the six countries.Main outcome measures  Events of labour (induction, epidural use and proportion of women using no analgesia), mode of birth (spontaneous vaginal birth, operative vaginal birth and caesarean section) and infant outcomes (preterm birth, birthweight, Apgar at 5 minutes, stillbirths and neonatal deaths).Results  Compared with receiving country‐born women, Somali‐born women were less likely to give birth preterm (pooled OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.81) or to have infants of low birthweight (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.98), but there was an excess of caesarean sections, particularly in first births (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25–1.59) and an excess of stillbirths (pooled OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.38–2.51).Conclusions  This analysis has identified a number of disparities in outcomes between Somali‐born women and their receiving country counterparts. The disparities are not readily explained and they raise concerns about the provision of maternity care for Somali women postmigration. Review of maternity care practices followed by implementation and careful evaluation of strategies to improve both care and outcomes for Somali women is needed.

Introduction. The relation of migration to infant outcomes is unclear. There are studies which show that some migrant groups have similar or even better outcomes than those from the receiving country. Equally, raised risk of adverse outcomes for other migrant groups has been reported. Objective. We sought to determine (1) if migrants in western industrialized countries have consistently higher risks of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, or infant mortality, (2) if there are migrant sub‐groups at potentially higher risk, and (3) what might be the explanations for any risk differences found. Design and Setting. Systematic review of the literature on perinatal health outcomes among migrants in western industrialized countries. Methods and Main outcome measures. Drawing on a larger systematic review of perinatal outcomes and migration, we reviewed studies including mortality outcomes (stillbirths and infant deaths). Results. Eligible studies gave conflicting results. Half (53%) reported worse mortality outcomes, one third (35%) reported no differences and a few (13%) reported better outcomes for births to migrants compared to the receiving country population. Refugees were the most vulnerable group. For non‐refugees, non‐European migrants in Europe and foreign‐born blacks in the United States had the highest excess mortality. In general, adjustment of background factors did not explain the increased mortality rate among migrants. Regarding causes of death, higher preterm birth rates explained the increased mortality figures among some migrant groups. The increased mortality from congenital anomalies may be related to restricted access to screening, but also to differing attitudes to screening and termination of pregnancy. Conclusions. Mortality risk among babies born to migrants is not consistently higher, but appears to be greatest among refugees, non‐European migrants to Europe, and foreign‐born blacks in the US. To understand this variation better, more information is needed about migrant background, such as length of time in receiving country and receiving country language fluency. Additional data on demographic, health care, biological, medical, and socioeconomic risk factors should be gathered and analyzed in greater detail.

Objective To explore the association between depression and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by partners or ex-partners of women attending general practice. Design Descriptive, cross sectional survey. Setting 30 general practitioners in Victoria, Australia. Participants 1257 consecutive female patients. Main outcome measures Some type of abuse in an adult intimate relationship (composite abuse scale), depression (Beck depression inventory or Edinburgh postnatal depression scale), and physical health (SF-36). Results 18.0% (218/1213) of women scored as currently probably depressed and 24.1% (277/1147) had experienced some type of abuse in an adult intimate relationship. Depressed women were significantly more likely to have experienced severe combined abuse than women who were not depressed after adjusting for other significant sociodemographic variables (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 12.0). These variables included not being married, having a poor education, being on a low income, being unemployed or receiving a pension, pregnancy status, or being abused as a child. Conclusion Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse are strongly associated with depression in women attending general practice. Doctors should sensitively ask depressed women about their experiences of violence and abuse in intimate relationships. Research into depression should include measures of partner abuse in longitudinal and intervention studies.