Racial differentials in American Indian- White American Postneonatal Mortality in the United States: evidence from cohort linked birth/infant death records

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Laurens Holmes Jr, Elias Malachi Enguancho, Rakinya Hinson, Justin L. Williams, Carlin Nelson, K. Whaley, K. Dabney, J. Williams, Emanuelle M Dias
{"title":"Racial differentials in American Indian- White American Postneonatal Mortality in the United States: evidence from cohort linked birth/infant death records","authors":"Laurens Holmes Jr, Elias Malachi Enguancho, Rakinya Hinson, Justin L. Williams, Carlin Nelson, K. Whaley, K. Dabney, J. Williams, Emanuelle M Dias","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nPostneonatal mortality (PNM), which differs from infant and perinatal mortality, has been observed in the past 25 years with respect to the health outcomes of children. While infant and perinatal mortality have been well-evaluated regarding racial differentials, there are no substantial data on PNM in this perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not social determinants of health adversely affect racial/ethnic PNM differentials in the USA.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA cross-sectional, nonexperimental epidemiologic study design was used to assess race as an exposure function of PNM using Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data (2013). The outcome variable assessed PNM, while the main independent variables were race, social demographic variables (i.e. sex and age) and social determinants of health (i.e. marital status and maternal education). The chi-square statistic was used to assess the independence of variables by race, while the logistic regression model was used to assess the odds of PNM by race and other confounding variables.\n\n\nFindings\nDuring 2013, there were 4,451 children with PNM experience. The cumulative incidence of PNM was 23.6% (n = 2,795) among white infants, 24.3% (n = 1,298) among Black/African-Americans (AA) and 39.5% (n = 88) were American-Indian infants (AI), while 21.3% (n = 270) were multiracial, χ2 (3) = 35.7, p < 0.001. Racial differentials in PNM were observed. Relative to White infants, PNM was two times as likely among AI, odds ratio (OR) 2.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61, 2.78). After controlling for the confounding variables, the burden of PNM persisted among AI, although slightly marginalized, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.70, (99% CI 1.10, 2.65).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nIn a representative sample of US children, there were racial disparities in PNM infants who are AI compared to their white counterparts, illustrating excess mortality. These findings suggest the need to allocate social and health resources in transforming health equity in this direction.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Postneonatal mortality (PNM), which differs from infant and perinatal mortality, has been observed in the past 25 years with respect to the health outcomes of children. While infant and perinatal mortality have been well-evaluated regarding racial differentials, there are no substantial data on PNM in this perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not social determinants of health adversely affect racial/ethnic PNM differentials in the USA. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional, nonexperimental epidemiologic study design was used to assess race as an exposure function of PNM using Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data (2013). The outcome variable assessed PNM, while the main independent variables were race, social demographic variables (i.e. sex and age) and social determinants of health (i.e. marital status and maternal education). The chi-square statistic was used to assess the independence of variables by race, while the logistic regression model was used to assess the odds of PNM by race and other confounding variables. Findings During 2013, there were 4,451 children with PNM experience. The cumulative incidence of PNM was 23.6% (n = 2,795) among white infants, 24.3% (n = 1,298) among Black/African-Americans (AA) and 39.5% (n = 88) were American-Indian infants (AI), while 21.3% (n = 270) were multiracial, χ2 (3) = 35.7, p < 0.001. Racial differentials in PNM were observed. Relative to White infants, PNM was two times as likely among AI, odds ratio (OR) 2.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61, 2.78). After controlling for the confounding variables, the burden of PNM persisted among AI, although slightly marginalized, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.70, (99% CI 1.10, 2.65). Originality/value In a representative sample of US children, there were racial disparities in PNM infants who are AI compared to their white counterparts, illustrating excess mortality. These findings suggest the need to allocate social and health resources in transforming health equity in this direction.
美国印第安人和白人新生儿后期死亡率的种族差异:来自队列相关出生/婴儿死亡记录的证据
目的:在过去的25年里,已经观察到新生儿后期死亡率(PNM)与婴儿和围产期死亡率不同,与儿童的健康结果有关。虽然婴儿和围产期死亡率在种族差异方面得到了很好的评估,但在这方面没有关于PNM的实质性数据。本研究的目的是评估健康的社会决定因素是否会对美国的种族/民族PNM差异产生不利影响。设计/方法/方法采用横断面、非实验流行病学研究设计,使用队列关联出生/婴儿死亡数据(2013年)评估种族作为PNM暴露函数。结果变量评估了PNM,而主要的独立变量是种族、社会人口变量(即性别和年龄)和健康的社会决定因素(即婚姻状况和产妇教育)。采用卡方统计法评价各变量受种族的独立性,采用logistic回归模型评价各种族及其他混杂变量对PNM的影响。研究结果:2013年,有4451名儿童有PNM经历。白人婴儿中PNM的累积发病率为23.6% (n = 2795),黑人/非洲裔美国人(AA)中为24.3% (n = 1298),美洲印第安人(AI)中为39.5% (n = 88),多种族婴儿中为21.3% (n = 270), χ2 (3) = 35.7, p < 0.001。观察到PNM的种族差异。相对于白人婴儿,AI婴儿发生PNM的可能性是白人婴儿的两倍,优势比(OR)为2.11(95%可信区间[CI] 1.61, 2.78)。在控制混杂变量后,人工智能患者的PNM负担持续存在,尽管略有边缘化,调整优势比(aOR) 1.70, (99% CI 1.10, 2.65)。独创性/价值在美国儿童的代表性样本中,与白人婴儿相比,人工智能的PNM婴儿存在种族差异,说明死亡率过高。这些发现表明,有必要分配社会和卫生资源,以朝着这一方向转变卫生公平。
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
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.
×
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