Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 63–73 | Cite as

Utilization of Pay-in Antenatal Leave Among Working Women in Southern California

  • Sylvia Guendelman
  • Michelle Pearl
  • Steve Graham
  • Veronica Angulo
  • Martin Kharrazi
Original Paper

Objectives: Examine antenatal leave arrangements among pregnant workers in California, and the occupational, demographic and well-being characteristics associated with leave taking. Unlike most states, California provides paid pregnancy leave up to 4 weeks antenatally and 6–8 weeks postnatally. Methods: Weighted data from postpartum telephone interviews conducted between July 2002 and November 2003 were analyzed for 1214 women participating in a case–control study of birth outcomes in Southern California. Eligible women worked at least 20 h/week during the first two trimesters of pregnancy or through the date of prenatal screening. The overall response rate was 73%. Results: Fifty-two percent of women took no leave, 32% took antenatal leave expecting to return to their job or employer sometime after giving birth, and 9% quit their jobs during pregnancy. For leave-takers with paid leave (69%), the state was the main source of pay (74%). Medical problems (52%) rather than maternity leave benefits (25%) were the most common stated reasons for taking leave. The strongest predictors of leave taking versus working through pregnancy were feeling stressed and tired (adjusted OR = 4.3, 95% CI [2.2–8.2]) and having young children (adjusted OR = 2.1, 95% CI [1.2–3.7]), followed by occupational factors (night shift, unfulfilling and inflexible work, short work tenure). Lack of employer-offered maternity leave benefits was associated with increased quitting relative to both leave taking and working through pregnancy. Conclusions: Maternity benefits influence quitting, but alone do not determine antenatal leave taking. Working pregnant women in California utilize leave cautiously and predominantly to cope with health problems, work dissatisfaction and fatigue.

KEY WORDS:

maternity leave working women stress utilization of pay-in antenatal leave pregnancy 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this study was obtained from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (award #R40 MC00305-01). The senior author initially developed this paper during a residency at the Bellagio Conference and Study Center, Rockefeller Foundation. The authors thank Alan Hubbard for statistical consultation, and Lora Santiago and Judy Bolstad for clerical assistance.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith K, Downs B, O’Connell M. Maternity leave and employment patterns: 1961–1995. Current Population Reports. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 70–79.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waldfogel J. Family leave coverage in the 1990s. Monthly Labor Review. 1999; October 13–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stillman JM. Perspectives on women's occupational health. J Med Women's Assoc 2000;55:69–71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamerman S. From maternity to parental leave policies: Women's health, employment, and child and family well-being. J Med Women's Assoc 2000;55:96–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Speroff L. The effect of aging on fertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1994;2:115–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Publication No. 103-3, 29 USC#2601 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission on Family and Medical Leave (United States). A workable balance: Report to Congress on family and medical leave policies, United States, Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Washington, DC, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    California Employment Development Department. Quarterly Report of State Sponsored Non-Disability Insurance, terminated pregnancy claims, 1989–2003. Disability Insurance Division, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ceron-Mireles P, Sanchez-Carrillo C, Harlow S, Nunez-Urguiza R. Conditions of maternal work and low birth weight in Mexico City. Salud Publica de Mexico 1997;39:2–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ceron-Mireles P, Harlow S, Sanchez-Carrillo C. The risk of prematurity and small for gestational-age birth in Mexico City. The effects of working conditions and antenatal leave. Am J Public Health 1996;86:825–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alegre A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ, Cruz E, Prada M. Influence of work during pregnancy on fetal weight. J Reprod Med 1984;29:334–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy Work, Basic Books, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sas Institute, Inc. Cary, North Carolina, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu Q, Séguin L, Goulet L. Effet bénéfique d’un arrêt du travail avant l’accouchement. Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 2002; January–February pp. 72–77.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frazier L, Goldberg A, Lipcomb L. Medically recommended cessation of employment among pregnant women in Georgia. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:971–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dube A, Kaplan E. Paid Family Leave in California: An analysis of costs and benefits, Department of Economics, University of California, June 19, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lobel M, Dunkel-Shetter C, Scrimshaw S. Prenatal maternal stress and prematurity: A prospective study of socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Health Psychol 1992;11:32–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitehead N, Hill H, Brogan D, Blackmore-Prince C. Exploration of threshold analysis in the relation between stressful life events and preterm delivery. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002;155:117–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia Guendelman
    • 1
    • 4
  • Michelle Pearl
    • 2
  • Steve Graham
    • 2
  • Veronica Angulo
    • 1
  • Martin Kharrazi
    • 3
  1. 1.Maternal and Child Health Program, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Sequoia FoundationCalifornia Department of Health ServicesSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Genetic Disease BranchCalifornia Department of Health ServicesSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Professor Maternal and Child Health ProgramUniversity of CliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations