Talk:Infant mortality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comparability section

I removed the cite to Berdadine Healy for the claim that the infant mortality numbers aren't comparable b/c other countries count live births differently. The author of the article is wrong. The trained statictians of infant mortality reports use a methodology to account for those differences. e.g., UNICEF writes: "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise, CRING.1 In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD,2 an estimation methodology that minimize the errors embodied on each estimate and harmonize trends along time.3 Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official U5MR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."

see http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=562

Bernadine Healy, on the other hand:

1) was kicked out of the Red Cross after misspending money for 9/11 victims; 2) hasn't actually practiced much medicine recently and instead has run for office as a republican and served in various republican political appointments. 3) was a member of the Advisory board of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an organization later shown to have been founded by a PR firm and funded by Phillip Morris to criticise scientific research that showed cigarettes to be harmful. 4) spends her days now writing (apparently BS) republican op-ed pieces for US News.

She is bogus. Not the statistics from the UN, CDC and World Health Organization.

Although, I agree, that to the extent that other countries measure infant mortality differently, that is relevant; but there is nothing I've seen that shows that that difference isn't properly accounted for in the leading statistics compiled by trained non-political statisticians.

see: http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

I'm not good at wiki formatting, though and would appreciate if someone could tweak the formatting for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.228.47.11 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of ad hominem argument (I don't care about Healy's GOP involvement or what she was kicked out of), that said. Your criticism of her _argument_ stands and is supported by: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/401S and http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/05/22/regarding-the-uss-high-infant-mortality-rate/ (to be clear, I'm agreeing with you; I just wish you ditched the irrelevant attack on her credibility and got directly to your criticism of her argument.) Incidentally, the method of counting does mitigate the differences between some developed countries and the united states, but does not fully explain them. Furthermore, the US was apparently ranked 6th in 1949 and has improved at a rate significantly below the rates of other countries, falling to 23rd in 2001(See the article in the Journal of Nutrition listed above.) 68.247.28.77 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)GMM

I am not sure about the section saying that U.S. registers all births if they show any sign of life. There must be some gestational age limit. If I am not mistaken abortion is legal till 20-22 weeks in U.S. (for medical reasons). Also, I think it should be mentioned (immediately in conjunction with this paragraph) that the numbers in good lists (CIA Factbook, WHO) are adjusted, so the difference in reporting is minimized (I wonder what is the error). --Jirka6 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add a section for historical trends

I came across this article out of curiosity regarding historical trends in infant mortality e.g. -- rates in antiquity, or in pre industrial Europe, or what have you.

Is this information available anywhere in Wikipedia? If not, then I think that this article could use expansion for a section that deals with trends in such over long historical periods

I too would like such data, presented somewhere. Specifically, what fraction of births reached their majority (18 or 21, or such age that normally allows them to marry and have children) over historical times. I have found that the average death age for the kings of England and Scotland from 1000 to 1600 AD was 49, somewhat better than monks of the period. I presume this was better than the general population; but in both of those 'occupations' you have weeded out those that died by age 20. Given infant and childhood mortality rates in the 1800s and extrapolating to 1500, it appears that at least half of the births did not make it to age 20. However, I would like to see the results of some studies. Please assist.

[edit] Update with new data?

Many of the points in here need to be updated with the new data by Save the Children. http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/SOWM_2006_final.pdf?stationpub=000000&ArticleID=&NewsID=


Re: New Data?

WHO statistics estimate diarrhea as the 2nd most common cause of deaths (17% of deaths) in children under age 5, the most common cause being acute respiratory infection (19% of deaths).

These WHO statistics can be found in (Lancet 2005; 365: 1147–52). This article also breaks down causes of childhood mortality (<5yrs old) for 6 regions of the world.

A graph representing causes of death among chilldren under 5 years of age, and other useful information can be found at: http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/OVERVIEW/CHILD_HEALTH/child_epidemiology.htm

--65.125.151.253 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no complete list... even the links don't take you to a complete list and start somewhere around 170?--209.248.136.146 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Data

Using information from the CIA World Fact Book, I think I could produce a statistical map for this page. I'll let you know when I'm done. Black-Velvet 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I made one. But I just realised there's another graph from the Wikimedia Commons. Well, that's a good three hours put to waste. You can find my map here. Black-Velvet 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment here about use of CIA fact book. It seems to me that many articles in many sections use this source as definitive (for political, demographic, and other stats). But there are two issues with this.

First, too seldom do those who cite the fact book note the reference year for the DATA. The CIA Fact book is not always up to date, while original sources from WHO or other organizations always are the latest official stats. So may I recommend that if you do a map you indicate the reference year? 1990, 2000, 2005, or what? This way, you or somebody else can update the statistics. Second, I would recommend that with any health or population stats for multiple countries, the UN or other internatioal agency source be given (UN Demographic Yearbook or whatever), because that's where the most recent updates are going to be found, and that, after all, is where the factbook gets its own data (it doesn't do independent evaluation of those data). Thank you.Mack2 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Abortions

Any data on how the cultural preferences on abortion affects IM? For example, some infants born with certain diseases might be outright aborted in certain nations where it's more culturally permissable to do so.--Rotten 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism and Infant Mortality

The Capitalism states that globalization and capitalism leads to public income growth and that this is the cause of decline in infant mortality. For me this is true in an absulute overview, but not as direct parameters highly correlated. The amount of money spent for public health care is the nummer which counts, normaly rich countries spent more money for this so you get your correlation. Cuba was and is a example for the opposit coorelation, low GDP/head and low infant mortality, because the medical system is well developed. The people on the talk page of capitalism claim that abortion lowers the number of children dieing later. My question: Is ist a good thing to tie Capitalism and Infant mortality closely together? --Stone 12:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your question, but this page does note that the Soviet Union misrepresented its infant mortality rates to appear lower than they really were. Cuba's high abortion rate also causes the infant mortality to be low, which should probably be mentioned in this article. I'll try to add that.--Gloriamarie 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two paragraphs plagiarized from 1992 CBO staff memorandum

This change to the article consists of two paragraphs that were copied verbatim from pages 1 and 2 of a 1992 Congressional Budget Office staff memorandum without any credit. While the source is public domain, that's pretty rude. I will remove the offending paragraphs shortly. Eubulides 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Global Trends; Rising Rates and Failed States

Shouldn't some space be devoted to those countries whose rates have risen? The rate of such a rise, and mention of the factors contributing to those rises would be helpful. Iraq is an example of an explosive rise in infant mortality indicative of a failed state. Instead of showing present rates, I think it would be helpful to be able to see how changes have played out in the last 50 years. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515 Mentions that the rise in ranking for mortality rates in the United States as compared to the rest of the world were attributable to the improvement of health care in the average country, as opposed to no significant improvement in the US. Rawkcuf 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

[edit] Redirect?

Is it a joke or necessary to redirect from "dead babies"? It's relevant, sure - but it looks like it's more of a joke if you ask me... RWBronco (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Leone - and bad numbers in the article

Sierra Leone gets two seperate IMR numbers within the article (284 vs. 184) Probably from different years? There is also no link to the 2007 world fact book, which would make checking this out much easier.

And if anyone wants to do a break-down by continent, that'd be cool. Because UNICEF does not do that.

~ender 2008-02-21 11:42:AM MST