Spacing babies: Small gaps look less harmful than big ones
Version 2 2024-06-17, 11:04
Version 1 2015-04-21, 17:43
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-17, 11:04 authored by J ShelleySpacing babies: Small gaps look less harmful than big ones
History
Journal
BMJ (Online)Volume
349Article number
ARTN g4717Location
EnglandPublisher DOI
ISSN
1756-1833eISSN
1756-1833Language
EnglishPublication classification
C4 Letter or noteCopyright notice
2014, BMJ JournalsIssue
jul23 1Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUPUsage metrics
Keywords
Science & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineMedicine, General & InternalGeneral & Internal MedicineOUTCOMESMETAANALYSISRISKBirth IntervalsFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, Small for Gestational AgeMalePregnancyPremature Birth160302 Fertility111404 Reproduction111402 Obstetrics and Gynaecology111706 Epidemiology920599 Specific Population Health (excl. Indigenous Health) not elsewhere classified920412 Preventive Medicine920507 Women's Health920499 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) not elsewhere classified940112 Families and Family ServicesSchool of Health and Social DevelopmentInterpregnancy intervalsBirth spacing
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC