4.7 Article

US county-level prevalence and spatial distribution of optimal birth outcomes 2018-2019

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20517-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01HD092653]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shifting focus towards healthy reproductive outcomes can provide opportunities for new interventions and strategies to promote optimal health. Analyzing data from different counties in the United States, our findings reveal racial and geographic inequities in reproductive outcomes.
A shift in focus towards healthy reproductive outcomes may reveal opportunities for novel interventions and strategies to promote optimal health. Using variables from the National Center for Health Statistics restricted use natality files, we calculated Empirical Bayes smoothed (EBS) rates of optimal birth for the all live births-both overall and by maternal race/ethnicity-by applying the smoothing tool in GeoDa version 1.18.0.10 We defined counties achieving greater racial birth equity as those where the overall EBS optimal birth rate was greater than the national 75th percentile and the absolute difference between maternal racial/ethnic categories was smaller than the national 25th percentile difference. During the study period, 49.80% of overall births could be classified as an optimal birth according to the study definition. Of the 3140 US counties, only 282 (8.98%) appeared to advance White-Black equity in optimal births, and 205 (6.53%) appeared to advance White-Hispanic equity in optimal births. In the effort improve maternal health, we should focus not only on the absence of negative outcomes, but also the occurrence of positive outcomes. Our analytic results suggest that optimal births can be measured and that geographic inequities by race occur.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available