Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:10:50.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reproductive Patterns after Stillbirth and Early Infant Death

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

H. P. Vogel
Affiliation:
Department of Social Medicine, University of Birmingham
E. G. Knox
Affiliation:
Department of Social Medicine, University of Birmingham

Summary

Birth records in Birmingham were examined for evidence of reproductive compensation following a fetal or infant death. Mothers with a stillbirth, a neonatal death, or a post-neonatal death in 1964 were identified, controls were selected, and subsequent reproductive patterns up to 1969 were compared. There was substantial reproductive compensation following the post-neonatal deaths and a lesser degree after neonatal deaths. Stillbirths were followed by compensation in the first year but this was not maintained and there was a net reduction of effective fertility over the whole 5-year period. Within this pattern, the extent of compensation varied according to the number of older surviving children. Both fetal and neonatal deaths tended to recur. There is evidence that reproductive compensation is partly attributable to pre-existing fertility differentials, but also to eventdetermined modifications of reproductive behaviour. With respect to haemolytic disease of the newborn the data provide some evidence in support of the theory that gene frequency stability depends upon reproductive compensation, but the interpretation of the data in this respect is not completely reliable.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fisher, R.A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, G.R. (1972) The short term reduction in birth-incidence of recessive diseases as a result of genetic counselling after the birth of an affected child. Hum. Hered. 22, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J.R. & McKeown, T. (1951) Observations on all births in Birmingham in 1947. Br. J. soc. Med. 5, 177.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J.R. & McKeown, T. (1952) Observations on all births in Birmingham in 1947. Br. J. soc. Med. 6, 183.Google ScholarPubMed
Glass, B. (1950) The action of selection on the principal Rh-alleles. Am. J. hum. Genet. 2, 269.Google ScholarPubMed
Heady, J.A., Morris, J.N. & Daly, C. (1955) Variation of mortality with mother's age and parity. Lancet, i, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W.H. (1968) Stillbirth and birth order. Ann. hum. Genet. 32, 151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, W.H. (1970) Neonatal death and birth order. Ann. hum. Genet. 33, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, J.C. (1965) Social pathology of foetal and infant loss. Br. med. J. i, 1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, E.G. & Mackintosh, J. (1958) Postneonatal infant mortality in Birmingham, 1947–1956. Br. J. prev. soc. Med. 12, 131.Google Scholar
Mayo, O. (1970) On the effects of genetic counselling on gene frequencies. Hum. Hered. 20, 361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newcombe, H.B. (1965) The study of mutation and selection in human populations. Eugen. Rev. 57, 109.Google Scholar
Newcombe, H.B. (1966) Familial tendencies in diseases of children. Br. J. prev. soc. Med. 20, 49.Google ScholarPubMed
Newcombe, H.B. & Rhynas, P.O.W. (1962) Child spacing following stillbirth and infant death. Eugen. Q. 9, 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeds, T.E. (1971) Does reproductive compensation occur? An analysis of Rh-data. Am. J. hum. Genet. 23, 215.Google Scholar
Registrar General for England and Wales (1955) Statistical Review of England and Wales for the year 1955, Part III, Commentary. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Wolff, J.R., Nielson, P.E. & Schiller, P. (1970) Emotional reaction to stillbirth. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 108, 73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed