This systematic literary works review is designed to play a role in the literary works by wanting to enhance our knowledge of the Latina paradox by critically examining the present empirical evidence to explore exactly just how paperwork status is calculated and may even be theorized to influence maternity results among this populace. We hypothesize that paperwork status shall influence maternity results in a way that appropriate status (among foreign-born Latinas) is going to be protective for maternity results (being undocumented will increase danger for negative results). We specify this among foreign-born Latinas, because we all know that U.S.-born Latinas (despite having status that is legal are more inclined to have even worse maternity results. This assessment will further elucidate exactly exactly exactly how Latinas’ vulnerability to outcomes that are adverse shaped and reified by documents status. This review has three objectives: to (1) synthesize the empirical evidence on the relationship between documentation status and pregnancy outcomes among Latina women in the United States; (2) examine how these studies define and operationalize documentation status in this context; and (3) make recommendations of how a more comprehensive methodological approach can guide public health research on the impact of documentation status on Latina immigrants to the United States to achieve our aim


We carried out literature queries within PubMed, online of Science, Academic Re Re Re Search Premier, and Bing Scholar for studies that analyzed the association between paperwork status and maternity results (Appendix Table A1). We used keywords (including word-form variations) methodically across all databases to recapture: (1) population of great interest (Hispanic, Latina); (2) visibility of great interest (paperwork or appropriate status); and (3) outcomes of great interest ( ag e.g., preterm birth PTB, LBW, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, GWG). We searched listed here terms: populace of great interest (latin* OR hispanic* OR mexic*); visibility of great interest (“immigration status” OR “legal status” OR “naturalized citizen” OR “illegal status” OR “illegals” OR “alien*” OR “undocumented” OR “documentation status” OR documented immigra* OR undocumented immigra* OR legal immigra* OR illegal immigra*); and outcomes of great interest (“pregnancy weight gain” OR “pregnancy-induced hypertension” OR “pregnancy induced hypertension” OR birth outcome* OR “pregnancy outcome*” OR “eclampsia” OR “pre-eclampsia” OR “pregnancy weight” OR “postpartum” OR “low birth weight” OR “low birth-weight” OR “low birthweight” OR “small for gestational age” OR “preterm birth” OR “pre-term birth” OR “diabetes” OR “glucose” OR “gestation”). Our search ended up being carried out in August 2017 by having a swingers heaven au subsequent review that is manual of listings.

We included English language posted studies, white papers, reports, dissertations, along with other literary works detailing original research that is observational in america. Studies had been included when they: (1) included and/or limited their research test to Latina ladies; (2) quantitatively examined associations between paperwork status and maternity results; and (3) centered on Latina females from non-U.S. territories (as a result of our interest that is specific in dimension and effect of documents status).

Research selection and information removal

As shown in Figure 1, the search procedure yielded a set that is initial of unique essays. Of the article that is initial, 1444 had been excluded considering name and abstract review, making 480 articles for complete text review. Of the, six articles came across our addition requirements. Overview of these articles’ guide listings yielded three extra articles, bringing the full total for addition to nine.

FIG. 1. Information extraction chart.

Each paper identified within our search had been individually analyzed by two writers. Paper games had been evaluated and excluded should they had been obviously away from review subject. The abstract and subsequently the full text were reviewed if the title did not provide sufficient information to determine inclusion status. A third author examined the paper to determine inclusion/exclusion in the case of discrepant reviews. Finally, this process that is same put on our summary of the reference listings associated with included papers.

Each writer individually removed information related to the scholarly research design and analysis. To steer our review, we utilized the PRISMA reporting checklist, adjusted as a Qualtrics abstraction form to facilitate taking traits from each article, including: paperwork status dimension; maternity results meaning and ascertainment; race/ethnicity and nation of beginning of research test; covariates; and approach that is statistical including handling of lacking data. To assess each included study’s resiliency from bias, we used a modified form of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies (Appendix A1), with two writers separately appraising each research. Considering the fact that one reason for this review would be to report the standard of research in this region while making tips for future research, we include all studies in this review—irrespective of resiliency from bias—as is in keeping with the appearing nature of the research subject.

This research ended up being exempted by the Portland State University institutional review board.