Inclusion of non-viable neonates in the birth record and its impact on infant mortality rates in Shelby County, Tennessee, USA
- PMID: 21589834
- PMCID: PMC3094009
- DOI: 10.4081/pr.2010.e1
Inclusion of non-viable neonates in the birth record and its impact on infant mortality rates in Shelby County, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Rates of infant death are one of the most common indicators of a population's overall health status. Infant mortality rates (IMRs) are used to make broad inferences about the quality of health care, effects of health policies and even environmental quality. The purpose of our study was threefold: i) to examine the characteristics of births in the area in relation to gestational age and birthweight; ii) to estimate infant mortality using variable gestational age and/or birthweight criteria for live birth, and iii) to calculate proportional mortality ratios for each cause of death using variable gestational age and/or birthweight criteria for live birth. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all Shelby County resident-linked birth and infant death certificates during the years 1999 to 2004. Descriptive test statistics were used to examine infant mortality rates in relation to specific maternal and infant risk factors. Through careful examination of 1999-2004 resident-linked birth and infant death data sets, we observed a disproportionate number of non-viable live births (≤20 weeks gestation or ≤350 grams) in Shelby County. Issuance of birth certificates to these non-viable neonates is a factor that contributes to an inflated IMR. Our study demonstrates the complexity and the appropriateness of comparing infant mortality rates in smaller geographic units, given the unique characteristics of live births in Shelby County. The disproportionate number of pre-viable infants born in Shelby County greatly obfuscates neonatal mortality and de-emphasizes the importance of post-neonatal mortality.
Keywords: African-American neonates.; extreme prematurity; fetal death; infant mortality rates; viability.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: the authors report no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Northam S, Knapp TR. The reliability and validity of birth certificates. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35:3–12. - PubMed
-
- MacDorman MF, Martin JA, Mathews TJ, et al. Explaining the 2001–02 infant mortality increase: data from the linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2005;53:1–22. - PubMed
-
- Balchin I, Whittaker JC, Steer PJ, Lamont RF. Are reported preterm birth rates reliable? An analysis of interhospital differences in the calculation of the weeks of gestation at delivery and preterm birth rate. BJOG. 2004;111:160–13. - PubMed
-
- Kirby RS. Invited commentary: using vital statistics databases for perinatal epidemiology: does the quality go in before the name goes on? Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:889–90. - PubMed
-
- Joseph KS, Kramer MS, Allen AC, et al. Implausible birth weight for gestational age. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;153:110–113. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
