Back

Maternal mortality and adverse child outcomes for women with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Rotenberg, S.; Chilufya-Moyo, M.; Valentine, A.; Smythe, T.; Forde, I.; Mitra, M.; Kuper, H.

2026-08-27 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.08.25.26361292 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Reducing maternal mortality and improving newborn and child outcomes are targets of the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence on how these efforts are reaching women with disabilities is lacking. Objectives: to estimate global, relative inequalities in stillbirth, neonatal, infant, and maternal mortality for women with disabilities compared to women without disabilities. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycINFO, and Embase from 1 January 2015 to 28 January 2026, to identify articles on disability and stillbirth, neonatal, infant, and maternal mortality. We included studies that had a recognised measure of disability as an exposure, a control group of women without disabilities and at least one of the four outcomes. A pooled estimate for each outcome was done using a random-effects meta-analysis of the minimally adjusted results. Results: We identified over 4,300 titles, of which 17 papers were eligible for inclusion. Almost all data came from nationally-representative data sources in high-income countries. We found that women with disabilities were 4.66 times more likely (95% C.I. 1.70-12.75) to experience maternal mortality compared to women without disabilities. Women with disabilities were also 37% more likely to have a stillbirth and 27% and 48% more likely to have a neonatal or infant death compared to women without disabilities, respectively. Conclusions: Women with disabilities consistently have higher incidence of maternal, stillbirth, neonatal, and infant mortality, even in countries that have relatively low incidence of these outcomes. There is a lack of evidence globally and particularly from LMICs, and on effective interventions to improve maternal and infant outcomes for women with disabilities.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.