Evolution of infant mortality and family-based risk factors in a preindustrial Austrian population: 1630-1908.

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Alina Gavrus-Ion, Mireia Esparza, Torstein Sjøvold, Miguel Hernández, Neus Martínez-Abadías, Esther Esteban
{"title":"Evolution of infant mortality and family-based risk factors in a preindustrial Austrian population: 1630-1908.","authors":"Alina Gavrus-Ion, Mireia Esparza, Torstein Sjøvold, Miguel Hernández, Neus Martínez-Abadías, Esther Esteban","doi":"10.1017/S0021932025000239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Infant mortality, a reflection of socioeconomic and health conditions of a population, is shaped by diverse factors. This study delves into a pre-industrial population, scrutinizing neonatal and post-neonatal deaths separately. Family factors such as mortality crises, religion, and legitimacy are also explored. Data of 9,086 people obtained through multigenerational information from ecclesiastic records from 1603 to 1908 were analysed by means of a joinpoint regression analysis. Death risk was assessed with univariate and multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard models. Early neonatal mortality was 5.6% of births and showed a gradual and steady increase from 1630 to 1908, with no substantial improvement over the three centuries analysed. Late neonatal (4.3% of births) and post-neonatal mortality (18.7% of births) shared a different pattern, showing a decline between the mid-18th and mid-19th centuries, and an increase by the 20th century that could be caused by socioeconomic factors and the impact of several epidemics. In the historical population of Hallstatt, infant survival was influenced by the sex of the newborn, the death of the mother and the precedent sibling, and by the birth interval. Environmental and cultural factors, such as mortality crises and religion, influenced late neonatal and post-neonatal mortality, but not early neonatal mortality. The results highlight the need to independently assess early neonatal mortality in studies of infant mortality in historical populations, and to use as complete time periods as possible to capture differences in mortality patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":47742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biosocial Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biosocial Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932025000239","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Infant mortality, a reflection of socioeconomic and health conditions of a population, is shaped by diverse factors. This study delves into a pre-industrial population, scrutinizing neonatal and post-neonatal deaths separately. Family factors such as mortality crises, religion, and legitimacy are also explored. Data of 9,086 people obtained through multigenerational information from ecclesiastic records from 1603 to 1908 were analysed by means of a joinpoint regression analysis. Death risk was assessed with univariate and multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard models. Early neonatal mortality was 5.6% of births and showed a gradual and steady increase from 1630 to 1908, with no substantial improvement over the three centuries analysed. Late neonatal (4.3% of births) and post-neonatal mortality (18.7% of births) shared a different pattern, showing a decline between the mid-18th and mid-19th centuries, and an increase by the 20th century that could be caused by socioeconomic factors and the impact of several epidemics. In the historical population of Hallstatt, infant survival was influenced by the sex of the newborn, the death of the mother and the precedent sibling, and by the birth interval. Environmental and cultural factors, such as mortality crises and religion, influenced late neonatal and post-neonatal mortality, but not early neonatal mortality. The results highlight the need to independently assess early neonatal mortality in studies of infant mortality in historical populations, and to use as complete time periods as possible to capture differences in mortality patterns.

婴儿死亡率是人口社会经济和健康状况的反映,受多种因素影响。本研究以工业化前的人口为研究对象,分别对新生儿死亡和新生儿后期死亡进行了研究。此外,还探讨了死亡危机、宗教和合法性等家庭因素。通过联结点回归分析法分析了从 1603 年至 1908 年教会记录中获取的多代信息,共收集了 9086 人的数据。死亡风险通过单变量和多变量考克斯比例危险模型进行评估。早期新生儿死亡率占新生儿总数的 5.6%,从 1630 年到 1908 年呈逐步稳定上升趋势,在所分析的三个世纪中没有实质性改善。晚期新生儿死亡率(占出生婴儿的 4.3%)和新生儿后期死亡率(占出生婴儿的 18.7%)则呈现出不同的模式,在 18 世纪中叶至 19 世纪中叶期间有所下降,而到 20 世纪则有所上升,其原因可能是社会经济因素和一些流行病的影响。在哈尔施塔特的历史人口中,婴儿存活率受新生儿性别、母亲和前一个兄弟姐妹死亡以及出生间隔的影响。环境和文化因素(如死亡危机和宗教)影响了新生儿后期和新生儿后期死亡率,但不影响新生儿早期死亡率。研究结果突出表明,在对历史人群的婴儿死亡率进行研究时,需要对早期新生儿死亡率进行独立评估,并使用尽可能完整的时间段来捕捉死亡率模式的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Journal of Biosocial Science is a leading interdisciplinary and international journal in the field of biosocial science, the common ground between biology and sociology. It acts as an essential reference guide for all biological and social scientists working in these interdisciplinary areas, including social and biological aspects of reproduction and its control, gerontology, ecology, genetics, applied psychology, sociology, education, criminology, demography, health and epidemiology. Publishing original research papers, short reports, reviews, lectures and book reviews, the journal also includes a Debate section that encourages readers" comments on specific articles, with subsequent response from the original author.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信