Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes
Next Article in Special Issue
Stress, Anxiety, and Depression for Chinese Residents in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Mediating and Moderating Effects of Family Cohesion between Positive Psychological Capital and Health Behavior among Early Childhood Parents in Dual Working Families: A Focus on the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Interplay between Social and Ecological Determinants of Mental Health for Children and Youth in the Climate Crisis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph18094782
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Language Proficiency and Migrant–Native Disparities in Postpartum Depressive Symptoms

by
Sousan Hamwi
1,*,
Elsa Lorthe
2,3 and
Henrique Barros
1,4
1
EPIUnit–Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, 4050-091 Porto, Portugal
2
Unit of Population Epidemiology, Department of Primary Care, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
3
Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRA, Université de Paris, F-75004 Paris, France
4
Departamento de Ciências de Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(9), 4782; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094782
Submission received: 22 March 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 22 April 2021 / Published: 29 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Social Determinants of Mental Health)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Migrant women have a higher risk of developing postpartum depressive symptoms (PPDS) than do native women. This study aimed to investigate the role of host-country language proficiency in this disparity. We analysed the data of 1475 migrant and 1415 native women who gave birth at a Portuguese public hospital between 2017 and 2019 and were participants in the baMBINO cohort study. Migrants’ language proficiency was self-rated and comprised understanding, speaking, reading, and writing skills. PPDS were assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale with a cut-off score of ≥10. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the association between language proficiency and PPDS. PPDS were experienced by 7.2% of native women and 12.4% among migrants (p < 0.001). Increasing proportions of PPDS were observed among decreasing Portuguese proficiency levels; 11% among full, 13% among intermediate, and 18% among limited proficiency women (ptrend < 0.001). Full (aOR 1.63 (95% CI 1.21–2.19)), intermediate (aOR 1.68 (95% CI 1.16–2.42)), and limited (aOR 2.55 (95% CI 1.64–3.99)) language proficiencies were associated with increasingly higher odds of PPDS among migrant women, compared to native proficiency. Prevention measures should target migrant women at high risk of PPDS, namely those with limited language skills, and promote awareness, early detection, and help-seeking, in addition to facilitating communication in their perinatal healthcare encounters.

1. Introduction

Postpartum depression (PPD) is a non-psychotic depression that affects about 17% of healthy mothers within one year of childbirth [1,2,3]. The exact aetiology of PPD is still unknown, but literature suggests a combination of genetic, physical, psychosocial, and obstetric risk factors [4,5]. If left undetected or untreated, PPD can have serious adverse consequences on women’s health, on the maternal–infant bond, on the child’s cognitive and emotional development, and on the family well-being as a whole [6,7,8,9].
It is well established that migrant women are more likely to suffer from PPD than are native women [10,11,12,13]. A meta-analysis showed that the risk of experiencing postpartum depressive symptoms (PDDS) is 1.5–2 times higher among migrant women than among natives [14]. Reasons behind this difference are likely to be of a complex nature, including unfamiliarity with the host-country and migration-related stress, poor marital adjustment or abuse, low socioeconomic status, lack of social support, and reduced access to health and social services [14,15].
While the migrant population is globally increasing and diversifying, language barriers are more frequently encountered in clinical practice and are gaining more attention in public health research [16]. Nevertheless, despite being one of the most documented barriers to maternal healthcare access and utilisation among migrants, literature providing a comprehensive assessment of language barriers’ effect on migrants’ perinatal health is scarce [16], and no previous study has investigated the association between host-country language proficiency and PPDS. The reason could be that women who do not speak the host-country language are often excluded from studies [17], as their inclusion could be costly and challenging and research tools may not be validated or available in many languages [18].
An additional limitation lies in the heterogeneity of language skills’ measurement in the existing literature. Many studies define local language competence simply according to the preference to conduct the study interview in that language [19,20]. On the other hand, many studies from the United States refer to Limited English Proficiency as speaking English “less than very well”, based on the classification of the United States Census Bureau [21,22]. This means that migrants of intermediate, limited, and no language proficiency are all considered non-proficient, which is an oversimplification of the reality and might dilute the language barrier effect, especially for the least proficient migrants.
Studying migrant and native women in Portugal, we aimed to answer the following question: Does host-country language proficiency influence the rate of PPDS?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study was based on data collected within the scope of baMBINO (Perinatal Health in Migrants: Barriers, Incentives, and Outcomes)—A Portuguese prospective cohort study. baMBINO aimed to investigate the maternity experiences and outcomes of migrant women, defined as foreign-born women, compared to those of native women. A more detailed description of baMBINO is provided elsewhere [23].

2.2. Setting

In Portugal, the universal healthcare system enables all women to have free access to health services, including migrants, regardless of their legal status. Except for emergency health situations, women in their postpartum period should seek healthcare through their primary healthcare centres and family doctors [24]. Speciality care in the National Health Service, like mental health services, is based on referrals from women’s family doctors or any other specialist. There are orientations but no specific national guidelines relating to the prevention or management of PPD in Portugal [24]. It is also worth noting that professional interpretation services are not often available in a timely manner in the healthcare settings in Portugal, and either ad-hoc interpreters like patients’ family members or friends, automated translation services like Google Translate, or shared languages like English are commonly used to facilitate communication with non-Portuguese speakers.

2.3. Participants

Eligibility criteria in baMBINO included adult migrant and native women who had a live birth in one of the 32 (out of 39) collaborating Portuguese maternity units between April 2017 and March 2019.
Overall, 5431 women consented to participate in baMBINO, out of which 2863 were migrants. Contact information and clinical data of enrolled women were collected from their medical records. A team of trained multi-lingual interviewers later contacted those women to complete a computer-assisted telephone interview (median months from delivery to interview, 2; interquartile range, 3 to 4). Women were interviewed in their preferred language, using interpreters when needed, and over 90% of the interviews took place within six months of recruitment. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) [25] was administered during this interview, along with the Migrant-Friendly Maternity Care Questionnaire (MFMCQ) [26], covering maternity care and migration experience topics, including proficiency in the Portuguese language.

2.4. Study Population

For this study, all interviewed baMBINO participants were considered eligible (n = 3006). We excluded women who had a twin birth with one stillbirth (n = 5), did not report their Portuguese proficiency level (n = 81), did not respond to the EPDS (n = 5), or were interviewed more than 12 months after birth (n = 25) (Figure 1).

2.5. Exposure Measure

The host-country language (Portuguese) proficiency was our exposure of interest and was categorised into native, full, intermediate, or limited. Portuguese-born women were assumed to have native proficiency. In contrast, migrant women were asked, as part of the MFMCQ, to rate four components of their proficiency (understanding, speaking, reading, and writing) based on the following scale: 0 (no proficiency), 1 (limited proficiency), 2 (intermediate proficiency), and 3 (full proficiency). Category 0 contained a small number of women (n = 25 in understanding, n = 39 in speaking, n = 43 in reading, and n = 57 in writing), so we combined it with category 1. Finally, the mode of the four components’ values for each woman was defined to be her final overall proficiency score. We assumed that women had an intermediate proficiency when the set of values was bimodal (n = 77). We also assumed full proficiency for Brazil-born women where Portuguese is the primary spoken language, but not for women born in Portuguese speaking African countries due to the wide range of local spoken languages there, in contrast to Brazil. Oral proficiency scores (including only speaking and understanding) were consistent with the overall proficiency scores, so we only used the overall scores in our analysis.

2.6. Outcome Measure

Our primary outcome was self-reported postpartum depressive symptoms (PPDS), assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)—A ten-item questionnaire that reflects a woman’s mood in the week before administration with a final score ranging from 0 to 30 [25]. The cut-off score we used as an indicator of PPDS was ≥10.

2.7. Covariates

The following covariates were considered in the analyses: women’s migration-related characteristics (migrant status (foreign-born vs. native-born), the region of birth according to the World Bank classification, length of stay in Portugal, and legal status in Portugal), economic and sociodemographic characteristics (maternal age, marital status, highest educational level attained, monthly household income per person, and having an individual health insurance plan apart from access to the National Health Services, which is available to all women (no vs. yes)), obstetric characteristics (parity, previous pregnancy complications, smoking during the index pregnancy, complications during the index pregnancy, twin pregnancy, delivery with an obstetric intervention (instrumented delivery (vacuum or forceps), episiotomy, or caesarean section), adverse neonatal outcomes (preterm birth (<37 gestational weeks), low birth weight (<2500 g), congenital malformation, or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit), and time elapsed since delivery).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

We first compared the characteristics of women by their interview status. We then described the frequencies and proportions of participants’ characteristics and compared them across language proficiency and depression risk groups (EPDS scores 0–9 vs. ≥10) using the chi-square or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. We tested for a trend of the effect of language proficiency on PPDS in the study population. We also compared the mean values of the log-transformed EPDS scores across language proficiency groups using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
We investigated the association between language proficiency and an EPDS score ≥10 using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models and reported the results as crude (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
We chose the covariates included in the final multivariable models based on their relevance according to the literature and the best statistical fit for the models. Covariates included maternal age, highest educational degree attained, marital status, having an individual health insurance plan, parity, delivery with an obstetric intervention, and adverse neonatal outcomes.
Among the variables included in the models, the percentage of missing data ranged from 0 to 4.4%. We conducted our analyses on complete-cases and then applied multiple imputations by chained equations (MICE) [27]. The imputation model involved using the exposure, the outcome, and all covariates of the multivariable models. Associations were estimated within each of the 50 imputed data sets generated with 20 iterations, and results were pooled in a single estimate according to Rubin rules.
We performed a sensitivity analysis by restricting our population to natives and recent migrants—those living in Portugal for ≤5 years—to disentangle the effect of language proficiency on PPDS from the possible effect of the improved acculturation and social support due to long durations of stay in the host country. We conducted additional sensitivity analyses using the EPDS cut-off values ≥11 and ≥13 to verify the robustness of our results.
All data were analysed using Stata 15.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical significance was set at two-tailed p < 0.05.

3. Results

Among the 5431 women enrolled in baMBINO, 3006 (55%) were interviewed and considered eligible for this study, and 2890 (96%) were included in the final analysis (Figure 1).
There were significant differences in most maternal characteristics by their interview status. Women who were not interviewed were most often from Portuguese-speaking African countries, young (18–24 years old), single, of low education (<12th grade), multiparous, smokers during pregnancy, and with no interventions during delivery. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in terms of their migrant status (being native or migrant), having twin pregnancy, complications during pregnancy, or adverse neonatal outcomes (Table S1).
Among women included, 1475 (51%) were migrants, out of which 874 (59.3%) had full proficiency in Portuguese, 412 (27.9%) had intermediate proficiency, and 189 (12.8%) had limited proficiency (Table 1).
The proportions of women having PPDS (EPDS scores ≥ 10) were overall greater among migrants than among native women (7.2% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.001), with increasing proportions of PPDS with decreasing language proficiency levels. Among native women, 7.1% had EPDS scores ≥10, compared to 11.3%, 12.6%, and 18.0% among migrants with full, intermediate, and limited Portuguese proficiency levels, respectively (ptrend < 0.001) (Table 2).
We also found increasing means of log-transformed EPDS scores with decreasing language proficiency (ptrend < 0.001), with the lowest value being for native women and the highest for migrants with limited Portuguese competence (1.02, 1.19, 1.21, and 1.29 for native, full, intermediate, and limited language skills, respectively).
Women’s language proficiency varied according to most of the maternal characteristics studied: region of birth, length of stay in Portugal, legal status, age, marital status, education level, income, health insurance, obstetric history, smoking during pregnancy, delivery with any obstetric intervention, and time elapsed since delivery (Table 1). On the other hand, the maternal characteristics associated with an EPDS score of ≥10 were: being Asian- or European-born (excluding Portugal), a recent arrival to Portugal (≤5 years), low monthly household income (<500 EUR/person), non-users of individual health insurance plans, and no obstetric interventions during recent birth (Table 1).
No significant differences in PPDS were found according to age, marital status, legal status, education level, obstetric history, smoking or complications during pregnancy, twin pregnancies, adverse neonatal outcomes, or time elapsed since delivery (Table 1).
Analyses after multiple imputation produced similar results to those of complete-case analyses. Full, intermediate, and limited Portuguese skills were associated with higher risks of PPDS (EPDS scores ≥10); aOR 1.63 (95% CI 1.21–2.19); aOR 1.68 (95% CI 1.16–2.42); aOR 2.55 (95% CI 1.64–3.99) compared to native Portuguese, respectively (Table 2).
When restricting the analysis to recent migrants, the effect of language proficiency on PPD risk was generally stronger than when considering the overall migrant group (Table 2). Similar results were found when using the cut-offs 11 or higher and 13 and higher (Table S2).

4. Discussion

Our study confirms a higher risk of postpartum depressive symptoms among migrant women in Portugal than among native women. Considering relevant socioeconomic and obstetric variables, migrants’ risk of having PPDS increases as their host-country language proficiency decreases, particularly among newcomers. These findings were robust to the different EPDS cut-off values used to define PPDS.
Similarly to what we observed, an Australian study that compared the postpartum experiences of foreign-born to native-born women found that migrants who had less than proficient English skills were 2.4 times more likely to have an EPDS score ≥13 than did native speakers [28]. In another Canadian study, migrant women who could not speak English or French had double the PPDS risk (EPDS score ≥10) of those who could speak either [29].
A systematic review reported different findings on the association between acculturation and PPDS among primarily Hispanic migrants in the United States [19]. Most studies included in the review showed no significant association between language preference for the interview and PPDS in the adjusted models [19]. However, these studies had small sample sizes (ranging from 66 to 377), mixed native-born with foreign-born Hispanic women in the samples, and used the interview language preference, which is not always a good measure of host-country language skills, considering that even proficient women could prefer to be interviewed in their native tongue. Likewise, another US study on migrant mothers of Arabic descent showed no effect of language preference on PPDS [30].
We propose different hypotheses through which language barriers can contribute to PPDS risk disparities.
At the individual level, the decreased ability to communicate using the local language might be associated with a higher sense of isolation, stigma, dependence on others to assist with daily activities, and a lack of social support, which is usually much needed in the postpartum period, thus leading to the development of depressive symptoms [28,31]. This could be especially true for recent and minority migrant groups, as they will probably have fewer means of social support than those who have been in the country for a long time and are more acculturated and more familiar with the health system, which is supported by our results.
At the healthcare level, having to use a second language in the healthcare settings is shown to be associated with language-specific health communication anxiety, and this anxiety is accompanied by a reluctance to seek out health services [32]. This effect was found to be significantly stronger for mental health than for physical health contexts [32]. In addition, limited local language ability, which can add up to limited comprehension of medical terminologies, has been shown to be associated with feelings of discrimination and reduced mental health services access and use [33,34,35,36,37,38]. These are some of the indirect pathways that lack of language proficiency could be contributing to increasing the burden of undetected, untreated PPDS among migrants. Additionally, language proficiency is central to establishing a rapport between patients and mental healthcare providers and unravelling something as subtle, complicated, and intimate as emotions, which is necessary to achieve proper diagnosis and treatment [39].

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

We believe that a main strength of this study is that it links up perspectives and concepts of various disciplines, namely linguistics/psycholinguistics and psychology/psychiatry.
The interviews were conducted in the women’s language of preference, which allowed the inclusion of non-proficient migrant women. Migrants’ self-rated language proficiency measurement in our study was more comprehensive than most of the literature that simply categorises women as being a speaker or a non-speaker of the host-country language. Our language proficiency measure combined different components and proficiency levels, which could better reflect the heterogeneity of migrants’ linguistic competence and the potentially consequent PPDS disparities that might not have been detected otherwise.
Moreover, to assess PPDS, we applied the most widely validated and used depression screening tool among clinicians and researchers in perinatal care: the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. The EPDS was administered using the validated versions compatible with the women’s languages. We also chose the EPDS cut-off value recommended in the original validation study [25] and across the different cultures and languages of women in our study population (≥10). Additionally, we tested the other recommended EPDS cut-off values of ≥11 (maximising combined sensitivity and specificity) and ≥13 (maximising specificity), based on a recently published meta-analysis of individual participant data [40], which attests to the robustness of our results.
A limitation of this study is that, due to a high attrition rate, many characteristics of the interviewed women differed significantly from those not interviewed. This could possibly restrict the external validity of our study results.
While language skills were not measured objectively, we believe that perceived communication barriers are more relevant in the scope of PPD and can also be utilised as a simple screening measure to identify migrant women at high risk of PDDS.
We had no information on whether women had strong social support or sought mental health services. This could have, consequently, attenuated the association between limited language skills and PPDS in our study. Showing stronger associations across recent migrants, who are less likely than long-term migrants to have a strong social support network, supports this conclusion.
Finally, we had no information on whether women could communicate with their community or healthcare providers in other shared languages such as English, in which case the effect of language barriers would have also been attenuated.

4.2. Implications for Health Policy and Future Research

To live up to the United Nations Member States’ 2020 pledge to “Leave No One Behind” [41]—a commitment to prioritise and accelerate the progress of those furthest behind—it is vital to design and implement migrant-targeted health policies that aim to address both migrant–native and migrant–migrant maternal health inequities. Identifying and characterising the different PPD risk groups within migrant women could be an essential step in approaching these equities.
Public health prevention measures should aim to identify and reach migrant women at high risk of PPD during pregnancy and after birth—particularly those who arrived recently to the host country or have limited language skills—and promote awareness, early identification of PPDS, and seeking mental health services if needed. This would serve to decrease the burden of undetected and untreated PPDS in these groups and, consequently, the possible long-term adverse consequences.
Additionally, health policies aiming to facilitate migrant women’s communication with their healthcare providers and addressing language barriers experienced during the pregnancy and postpartum periods could be essential steps in reducing PPDS risk among vulnerable migrant women groups and approaching equity in maternal mental health between migrant and native women.
Future research to better understand the mechanisms linking language proficiency to PPDS are needed. For example, it will be interesting to investigate how the quality of communication influences the association between language proficiency and PPDS.

5. Conclusions

Host-country language proficiency plays a role in PPDS migrant–native disparities even when considering socioeconomic and obstetric variables. Public health measures should aim to identify and reach migrant women at high risk of PPDS, namely recent migrants and those with limited language skills, and promote awareness, early identification of PPDS, and seeking mental health services if needed. These measures, along with efforts to facilitate women’s communication with healthcare providers, would constitute essential milestones in the journey of achieving maternal health equity.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/ijerph18094782/s1, Table S1: Maternal characteristics by interview status among women who consented to participate (n = 5272), Table S2: Associations between language proficiency and EPDS scores ≥11, and ≥13.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.H., E.L., and H.B.; methodology, S.H., E.L., and H.B.; formal analysis, S.H. and E.L.; data curation, S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H.; writing—review and editing, S.H., E.L., and H.B.; visualization, S.H.; supervision, E.L. and H.B.; project administration, H.B.; funding acquisition, H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The baMBINO project, under which this study was conducted, was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020), and by national funds of the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016874), under the scope of the project “Perinatal Health in Migrants Barriers, Incentives, and Outcomes” (Ref. PTDC/DTPSAP/6384/2014) and of the Research Unit of Epidemiology—Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto (EPIUnit) (Ref. UID/DTP/04750/2013). S.H. has a PhD grant from FCT, Portugal (PD/BD/135920/2018).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project baMBINO was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto (CE14013), by the National Committee of Data Protection (13585/2016), and by ethical committees of all 32 collaborating hospitals.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shorey, S.; Chee, C.Y.I.; Ng, E.D.; Chan, Y.H.; Tam, W.W.S.; Chong, Y.S. Prevalence and incidence of postpartum depression among healthy mothers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2018, 104, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hahn-Holbrook, J.; Cornwell-Hinrichs, T.; Anaya, I. Economic and Health Predictors of National Postpartum Depression Prevalence: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-Regression of 291 Studies from 56 Countries. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 8, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. O’Hara, M.W.; Mc Cabe, J.E. Postpartum depression: Current status and future directions. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2013, 9, 379–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hutchens, B.F.; Kearney, J. Risk Factors for Postpartum Depression: An Umbrella Review. J. Midwifery Womens. Health 2020, 65, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Speyer, L.G.; Hall, H.A.; Ushakova, A.; Murray, A.L.; Luciano, M.; Auyeung, B. Links between perinatal risk factors and maternal psychological distress: A network analysis. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Soe, N.N.; Wen, D.J.; Poh, J.S.; Li, Y.; Broekman, B.F.P.; Chen, H.; Chong, Y.S.; Kwek, K.; Saw, S.-M.; Gluckman, P.D.; et al. Pre- and Post-Natal Maternal Depressive Symptoms in Relation with Infant Frontal Function, Connectivity, and Behaviors. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Letourneau, N.L.; Dennis, C.L.; Benzies, K.; Duffett-Leger, L.; Stewart, M.; Tryphonopoulos, P.D.; Este, D.; Watson, W. Postpartum depression is a family affair: Addressing the impact on mothers, fathers, and children. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2012, 33, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Liberto, T.L. Screening for Depression and Help-Seeking in Postpartum Women During Well-Baby Pediatric Visits: An Integrated Review. J. Pediatr. Health Care 2012, 26, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Stuart-Parrigon, K.; Stuart, S. Perinatal Depression: An Update and Overview. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2014, 16, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Ganann, R.; Sword, W.; Black, M.; Carpio, B. Influence of Maternal Birthplace on Postpartum Health and Health Services Use. J. Immigr. Minority Health 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sword, W.; Watt, S.; Krueger, P. Postpartum health, service needs, and access to care experiences of immigrant and Canadian-born women. JOGNN J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2006, 35, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eastwood, J.G.; Phung, H.; Barnett, B. Postnatal depression and socio-demographic risk: Factors associated with Edinburgh Depression Scale scores in a metropolitan area of New South Wales, Australia. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2011, 45, 1040–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chien, L.-Y.; Tai, C.-J.; Yeh, M.-C. Domestic Decision-Making Power, Social Support, and Postpartum Depression Symptoms Among Immigrant and Native Women in Taiwan. Nurs. Res. 2012, 61, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Falah-Hassani, K.; Shiri, R.; Vigod, S.; Dennis, C.-L. Prevalence of postpartum depression among immigrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2015, 70, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dennis, C.L.; Merry, L.; Gagnon, A.J. Postpartum depression risk factors among recent refugee, asylum-seeking, non-refugee immigrant, and Canadian-born women: Results from a prospective cohort study. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2017, 52, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Schwei, R.J.; Del Pozo, S.; Agger-Gupta, N.; Alvarado-Little, W.; Bagchi, A.; Chen, A.H.; Diamond, L.; Gany, F.; Wong, D.; Jacobs, E.A. Changes in research on language barriers in health care since 2003: A cross-sectional review study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 54, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Anderson, F.M.; Hatch, S.L.; Comacchio, C.; Howard, L.M. Prevalence and risk of mental disorders in the perinatal period among migrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Womens. Ment. Health 2017, 20, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Oakley, A.; Wiggins, M.; Turner, H.; Rajan, L.; Barker, M. Including culturally diverse samples in health research: A case study of an urban trial of social support. Ethn. Health 2003, 8, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alhasanat, D.; Giurgescu, C. Acculturation and Postpartum Depressive Symptoms among Hispanic Women in the United States. MCN Am. J. Matern. Nurs. 2017, 42, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fung, K.; Dennis, C.-L. Postpartum depression among immigrant women. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2010, 23, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boylen, S.; Cherian, S.; Gill, F.J.; Leslie, G.D.; Wilson, S. Impact of professional interpreters on outcomes for hospitalized children from migrant and refugee families with limited English proficiency: A systematic review. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 1360–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ryan, C. Language Use in the United States: 2011; American Community Survey Reports; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2013.
  23. Lisi, C.; De Freitas, C.; Barros, H. Maternal Country of Birth and Exclusive Breastfeeding During the First In-Hospital Day in Portugal: The Influence of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative. J. Hum. Lact. 2021, 37, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Branquinho, M.; Canavarro, M.C.; Fonseca, A. Knowledge and attitudes about postpartum depression in the Portuguese general population. Midwifery 2019, 77, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cox, J.L.; Holdenand, J.M.; Sagovsky, R. Detection of Postnatal Depression Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 1987, 150, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Gagnon, A.J.; De Bruyn, R.; Essén, B.; Gissler, M.; Heaman, M.; Jeambey, Z.; Korfker, D.; McCourt, C.; Roth, C.; Zeitlin, J.; et al. Development of the Migrant Friendly Maternity Care Questionnaire (MFMCQ) for migrants to Western societies: An international Delphi consensus process. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Azur, M.J.; Stuart, E.A.; Frangakis, C.; Leaf, P.J. Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2011, 20, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bandyopadhyay, M.; Small, R.; Watson, L.F.; Brown, S. Life with a new baby: How do immigrant and Australian-born women’s experiences compare? Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2010, 34, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zelkowitz, P.; Milet, T.H. Screening for post-partum depression in a community sample. Can. J. Psychiatry 1995, 40, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alhasanat-Khalil, D.; Giurgescu, C.; Benkert, R.; Fry-McComish, J.; Misra, D.P.; Yarandi, H. Acculturation and Postpartum Depression Among Immigrant Women of Arabic Descent. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 2019, 21, 1208–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Martinez-Schallmoser, L.; Telleen, S.; Macmullen, N.J. The Effect of Social Support and Acculturation on Postpartum Depression in Mexican American Women. J. Transcult. Nurs. 2003, 14, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Zhao, Y.; Segalowitz, N.; Voloshyn, A.; Chamoux, E.; Ryder, A.G. Language Barriers to Healthcare for Linguistic Minorities: The Case of Second Language-specific Health Communication Anxiety. Health Commun. 2019, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Snowden, L.R.; Masland, M.C.; Peng, C.J.; Wei-Mien Lou, C.; Wallace, N.T. Limited English proficient Asian Americans: Threshold language policy and access to mental health treatment. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 72, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Moore, L.; Jayaweera, H.; Redshaw, M.; Quigley, M. Migration, ethnicity and mental health: Evidence from mothers participating in the Millennium Cohort Study. Public Health 2019, 171, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Da Conceição, F.; Santiago, M.; Figueiredo, M.H. Immigrant Women’s Perspective on Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Systematic Review. J. Immigr. Minor. Heal. 2013, 17, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, W.; Hong, S.; Takeuchi, D.T.; Mossakowski, K.N. Limited English proficiency and psychological distress among Latinos and Asian Americans. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75, 1006–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Chen, J.; Cross, W.M.; Plummer, V.; Lam, L.; Tang, S. A systematic review of prevalence and risk factors of postpartum depression in Chinese immigrant women. Women Birth 2019, 32, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nilaweera, I.; Doran, F.; Fisher, J. Prevalence, nature and determinants of postpartum mental health problems among women who have migrated from South Asian to high-income countries: A systematic review of the evidence. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 166, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Teng, L.; Robertson Blackmore, E.; Stewart, D.E. Healthcare worker’s perceptions of barriers to care by immigrant women with postpartum depression: An exploratory qualitative study. Arch. Womens. Ment. Health 2007, 10, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Levis, B.; Negeri, Z.; Sun, Y.; Benedetti, A.; Thombs, B.D. Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 2020, 371, m4022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Seventieth United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 18 04782 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of participation throughout the baMBINO study, Portugal.
Figure 1. Flowchart of participation throughout the baMBINO study, Portugal.
Ijerph 18 04782 g001
Table
Table 1. Maternal characteristics by host-country language proficiency and EPDS score (n = 2890).
Table 1. Maternal characteristics by host-country language proficiency and EPDS score (n = 2890).
CharacteristicsLanguage ProficiencypEPDS Scorep
Native
(n = 1415)		Full
(n = 874)		Intermediate
(n = 412)		Limited
(n = 189)		 0–9
(n = 2604)		≥10
(n = 286)
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%) n (%)n (%)
Migration-related characteristics
Region of birth (n = 1475)
Brazil-325 (37.2)0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 284 (22.0)41 (22.2)
PALOP a-357 (40.9)256 (62.2)45 (23.8) 588 (45.6)70 (37.8)
Other African countries-6 (0.7)15 (3.6)19 (10.1)<0.00133 (2.6)7 (3.8)<0.001
Europe-154 (17.6)106 (25.7)58 (30.7) 274 (21.2)44 (23.8)
Asia-2 (0.2)13 (3.2)56 (29.6) 50 (3.9)21 (11.3)
America-30 (3.4)22 (5.3)11 (5.8) 61 (4.7)2 (1.1)
Length of stay in Portugal (n = 1466)
≤5 years-254 (29.2)164 (40.2)146 (77.2) 474 (36.9)90 (49.2)
5–10 years-192 (22.1)135 (33.1)34 (18.0)<0.001321 (25.0)40 (21.8)0.005
>10 years-423 (48.7)109 (26.7)9 (4.8) 488 (38.1)53 (29.0)
Migrant legal status (n = 1468)
Citizenship-381 (43.8)128 (31.1)14 (7.4) 466 (36.3)57 (31.0)
Permanent residency/EU citizen-130 (15.0)79 (19.2)33 (17.6)<0.001213 (16.6)29 (15.8)0.32
Temporary residency-293 (33.7)175 (42.6)114 (61.6) 504 (39.2)78 (42.4)
Undocumented migrants-65 (7.5)29 (7.1)27 (14.4) 101 (7.9)20 (10.9)
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age (years) (n = 2890)
18–24182 (12.9)140 (16.0)74 (18.0)37 (19.6) 384 (14.7)49 (17.1)
25–34780 (55.1)473 (54.1)239 (58.0)117 (61.9)<0.0011452 (55.8)157 (54.9)0.54
≥35453 (32.0)261 (29.9)99 (24.0)35 (18.5) 768 (29.5)80 (28.0)
Marital status (no partner) (n = 2890)341 (24.1)234 (26.8)148 (35.9)21 (11.1)<0.001665 (25.5)79 (27.6)0.44
Highest education level attained (n = 2889)
Post-secondary (>12th grade)567 (40.1)285 (32.6)123 (29.9)80 (42.6) 951 (36.5)104 (36.4)
Upper secondary (12th grade)482 (34.0)399 (45.7)122 (29.6)38 (20.2)<0.001953 (36.6)88 (30.8)0.10
Lower secondary (9th grade)297 (21.0)146 (16.7)110 (26.7)32 (17.0) 518 (19.9)67 (23.4)
None or primary (≤4th grade)69 (4.9)44 (5.0)57 (13.8)38 (20.2) 181 (7.0)27 (9.4)
Monthly household income (n = 2736)
<500 EUR/person585 (43.0)530 (65.0)300 (78.1)148 (83.2) 1393 (56.3)170 (64.6)
500–1000 EUR/person649 (47.8)252 (30.9)70 (18.2)28 (15.7)<0.001917 (37.1)82 (31.2)0.03
>1000 EUR/person125 (9.2)33 (4.1)14 (3.7)2 (1.1) 163 (6.6)11 (4.2)
Individual health insurance plan (yes) (n = 2796)629 (45.5)217 (26.0)60 (14.9)19 (10.8)<0.001857 (34.0)68 (25.0)0.003
Obstetric characteristics
Multiparous (n = 2763)665 (48.7)436 (52.6)217 (56.4)99 (53.8)0.041270 (51.1)147 (53.5)0.45
Obstetric history (n = 2806)
First pregnancy700 (50.7)393 (46.5)168 (41.8)85 (47.5) 1218 (48.2)128 (46.2)
Previous pregnancy(ies) with no complications ᵇ463 (33.6)314 (37.2)171 (42.5)74 (41.3)0.01916 (36.2)106 (38.3)0.78
Previous pregnancy(ies) with complications ᵇ217 (15.7)138 (16.3)63 (15.7)20 (11.2) 395 (15.6)43 (15.5)
Smoking during pregnancy (n = 2826) 205 (14.8)61 (7.1)17 (4.3)8 (4.3)<0.001260 (10.2)31 (11.1)0.64
Complications during pregnancy ᶜ (n = 2825)396 (28.6)252 (29.5)109 (27.3)49 (26.3)0.76717 (28.1)89 (32.1)0.16
Twin pregnancy (n = 2890)19 (1.3)16 (1.8)4 (1.0)1 (0.5)0.4236 (1.4)4 (1.4)0.98
Delivery with any obstetric intervention ᵈ (n = 2784)959 (70.2)605 (72.0)246 (62.4)120 (65.2)0.0031754 (70.0)176 (63.5)0.03
Adverse neonatal outcome ᵉ (n = 2878)208 (14.8)150 (17.2)49 (12.0)25 (13.3)0.08384 (14.8)48 (16.8)0.36
Time elapsed since delivery (n = 2889)
1–3 months877 (62.0)597 (68.4)262 (63.6)100 (52.9) 1669 (64.1)167 (58.4)
4–6 months397 (28.0)219 (25.1)117 (28.4)65 (34.4)0.001711 (27.3)87 (30.4)0.12
>6 months141 (10.0)57 (6.5)33 (8.0)24 (12.7) 223 (8.6)32 (11.2)
a PALOP refers to Portuguese-speaking African countries. ᵇ Previous pregnancy complications were reported by the participants during the phone interview and included: anaemia, high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, severe back pain, placenta praevia, placental abruption, preterm rupture of membranes, preterm labour, depression, and other rare complications. ᶜ Complications during pregnancy were retrieved from clinical records and included: high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, acute pyelonephritis, placenta praevia, placental abruption, and other rare complications. ᵈ Obstetric interventions included instrumented delivery (vacuum or forceps), episiotomy, and caesarean section. ᵉ Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital malformation, or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit.
Table
Table 2. Associations between language proficiency and EPDS scores ≥10.
Table 2. Associations between language proficiency and EPDS scores ≥10.
Proficiency in PortugueseEDPS Score 0–9EDPS Score ≥10
n (%)n (%)OR (95%CI)ptrendaOR a (95%CI)aOR ᵇ (95%CI)
Complete sample n = 2604n = 286n = 2890 n = 2583n = 2890
Native1314 (92.9)101 (7.1)1.00 (reference)<0.0011.00 (reference)1.00 (reference)
Full775 (88.7)99 (11.3)1.66 (1.24–2.22)1.71 (1.24–2.35)1.63 (1.21–2.19)
Intermediate360 (87.4)52 (12.6)1.88 (1.32–2.68)1.79 (1.22–2.65)1.68 (1.16–2.42)
Limited155 (82.0)34 (18.0)2.85 (1.87–4.36)2.64 (1.64–4.24)2.55 (1.64–3.99)
Restricted to natives and recent migrants ᶜ n = 1788n = 191n = 1979 n = 1780n = 1979
Native1314 (92.9)101 (7.1)1.00 (reference)<0.0011.00 (reference)1.00 (reference)
Full214 (84.3)40 (15.7)2.43 (1.64–3.60)2.50 (1.60–3.92)2.44 (1.61–3.69)
Intermediate143 (87.2)21 (12.8)1.91 (1.16–3.15)1.89 (1.10–3.24)1.69 (1.01–2.85)
Limited117 (80.1)29 (19.9)3.22 (2.05–5.08)3.55 (2.09–6.02)3.34 (2.03–5.49)
OR: crude odds ratios; aOR: adjusted odds ratios. a Models adjusted for maternal age, highest educational degree attained, marital status, having an individual health insurance plan, parity, delivery with intervention, and adverse neonatal outcomes, complete-cases analysis. ᵇ Adjusted models after multiple imputation. ᶜ Recent migrants are those who have been living in Portugal for ≤5 years.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamwi, S.; Lorthe, E.; Barros, H. Language Proficiency and Migrant–Native Disparities in Postpartum Depressive Symptoms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4782. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094782

AMA Style

Hamwi S, Lorthe E, Barros H. Language Proficiency and Migrant–Native Disparities in Postpartum Depressive Symptoms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4782. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094782

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hamwi, Sousan, Elsa Lorthe, and Henrique Barros. 2021. "Language Proficiency and Migrant–Native Disparities in Postpartum Depressive Symptoms" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 9: 4782. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094782

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop