Retrospective cohort study estimates neonatal morbidity in Métis children, suggesting improved care standards are needed.
BACKGROUND: Composite indicators of neonatal morbidity specific to Métis populations in Canada are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of neonatal morbidity and neonatal death among Métis neonates in Alberta, and to identify maternal and neonatal factors associated with neonatal morbidity. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study including all singleton live births to Métis mothers in Alberta between April 2006 and March 2016. Hospital discharge data were used to evaluate the Neonatal Adverse Outcome Indicator (NAOI), which comprises a set of newborn medical complications and neonatal death. We estimated overall and annual NAOI incidence proportions and overall neonatal mortality. Multilevel regression models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for maternal and neonatal characteristics associated with NAOI. RESULTS: Among 7853 neonates, the overall NAOI incidence proportion was 10.1% (95% CI 9.5, 10.8), ranging annually from 7.7% (95% CI 6.1, 9.7) to 11.9% (95% CI 8.1, 17.2). The most common conditions were respiratory conditions originating in the perinatal period (4.8%, 95% CI 4.3, 5.3) and birth trauma (3.4%, 95% CI 3.0, 3.8). The overall neonatal mortality rate was 2.9 per 1000 live births (95% CI 1.9, 4.4). Increased risk of NAOI was associated with pre-pregnancy disease (aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03, 1.51), pregnancy-related disease (aRR 1.92, 95% CI 1.65, 2.18), assisted vaginal delivery (aRR 2.52, 95% CI 2.09, 2.94), caesarean delivery (aRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.41), male sex (aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09, 1.42), preterm birth (aRR 4.36, 95% CI 3.71, 5.00) and any congenital malformation (aRR 2.71, 95% CI 1.87, 3.56). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of neonatal morbidity among Métis neonates in Alberta highlights the importance of continued surveillance using standardised indicators. Incorporating NAOI into perinatal and obstetric care may inform culturally responsive improvements in care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serrano-Lomelin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: