Perinatal Data of Refugee Women from the Gynaecology Department of Charité University Hospital Berlin Compared with German Federal Analysis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The aim of this study was to record the perinatal data of refugee women at Charité Hospital, Berlin, and to evaluate possible differences in pre-, peri- and postnatal outcomes compared with indigenous women. Material and Methods All pregnant women who gave birth in the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 September 2017 and were registered at least once in the hospital as “refugee” were included in the analysis. The data recorded from the refugee women were compared with the perinatal data of the German Federal obstetric analysis for the year 2016, which was published by the IQTIG (Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen [Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare]). Results The analysis comprised 907 refugee women and 928 infants (21 twin pregnancies). Pregnant refugee women were significantly younger than the pregnant women from the Federal analysis (birth before the age of 30: 66 vs. 41%, p < 0.001, RR: 1.6, 95% CI: 62.9 – 69.2). They had a history both of more pregnancies (≥ 3 pregnancies: 29.4 vs. 13.4%, p < 0.001, RR: 2.2, 95% CI: 26.4 – 32.5) and of more miscarriages (> 2 miscarriages: 9.7 vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001, RR: 1.6, 95% CI: 7.9 – 11.8) and more often had a history of suffering from psychological stress (11.1 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001, RR: 2.70, 95% CI: 9.2 – 13.4). There were more premature births (10.3 vs. 3.0%, p < 0.001, RR: 3.36, 95% CI: 8.4 – 12.4), post-term pregnancies (8.5 vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001, RR: 15.4, 95% CI: 6.7 – 10.5), and cases of postpartum anaemia (28.7 vs. 22.0%, p < 0.001, RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 25.7 – 31.7) and puerperal endometritis (1 vs. 0.2%, p = 0.006, RR: 4.3, 95% CI: 0.5 – 1.9) compared with the Federal analysis. The neonatal outcome showed an increased rate of hypotrophy (11 vs. 7%, p < 0.001, RR: 1.6, 95% CI: 9.1 – 13.2), more stillbirths (0.7 vs. 0.2%, p = 0.006, RR: 3, 95% CI: 0.2 – 1.4) and increased congenital malformations (2.8 vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001, RR: 3, 95% CI: 0.2 – 1.4). Conclusion Both refugee women and their infants showed significant differences. Despite the average younger age of the pregnant refugee women, the rates of premature birth and stillbirth and congenital malformations were significantly more frequent. More intensive antenatal screening with differentiated foetal organ diagnostics including psychosomatic care could contribute to early identification and prompt diagnosis. As regards the postpartum anaemia and puerperal endometritis, which occur more often in refugee women, midwife engagement and an improvement in the living situation in homes and accommodation facilities could be of great importance.