4.5 Article

Geographical disparities of infant mortality in rural China

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-300412

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, China [QT2003-009, 05 wsb-02]
  2. UNICEF [YH601-11-1141]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT0935]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The purpose of the study was to investigate the trends and causes of regional disparities of infant mortality rate (IMR) in rural China from 1996 to 2008. Design A population-based, longitudinal study. Setting The national child mortality surveillance network. Population Population of the 79 surveillance counties. Main outcome measure IMR, leading causes of infant death and the RR of IMR. Results The IMR in coastal, inland and remote regions declined by 72.4%, 62.9% and 58.2%, respectively, from 1996 to 2008. Compared with the coastal region, the RR of IMR were 1.7 (95% Cl 1.6 to 1.9), 1.9 (95% Cl 1.7 to 2.0) and 1.8 (95% Cl 1.6 to 2.0) for inland region and 2.6 (95% Cl 2.4 to 2.7), 3.2 (95% Cl 3.0 to 3.5) and 3.1 (95% Cl 2.7 to 3.4) for the remote region during 1996-2000, 2001-2005 and 2006-2008, respectively. The regional disparities existed for both male and female IMRs. The postneonatal mortality showed the highest regional disparities. Pneumonia, birth asphyxia, prematurity/low birth weight, injuries and diarrhoea were the main contributors to the regional disparities. There were significantly more infants who did not seek healthcare services before death in the remote region relative to the inland and coastal regions. Conclusion The results indicated persistent existence of regional disparities in IMR in rural China. It is worth noting that regional disparities in IMR increased in the remote and coastal regions during 2001-2005 in rural China. These disparities remained unchanged during 2006-2008. The results indicate that strategies to reduce mortality caused by pneumonia, birth asphyxia and diarrhoea are keys to reducing IMR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据