A comparison of methods of adjusting stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for birthweight in hospital and geographical populations
- 4 April 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology
- Vol. 17 (2) , 119-124
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3016.2003.00486.x
Abstract
Birthweight‐specific rates can be useful for summarising stillbirth and neonatal mortality in populations but, sometimes, a single summary measure is required to compare several relatively small subpopulations. However, any particular summary has its shortcomings, and various methods have been proposed. We wished to compare mortality between local authorities and between hospitals in the Thames regions and thus required a single summary measure for each subpopulation. It was not obvious in advance which summary to use or whether a single method would work well for both local authorities (a geographical unit) and hospitals. This study compared six methods of calculating a single summary, three using indirect standardisation to adjust (500 g bands, 10‐percentile bands, 10 z‐score bands) and three using regression to adjust (mean birthweight, proportion < 2500 g, proportion < 1500 g). The data used were 570 016 births in the Thames Regions, broken down into its 96 local authorities and 65 hospitals. To investigate how well each adjustment had performed, we calculated the rank correlation between the crude and various adjusted mortality rates and mean birthweight, proportion < 2500 g and proportion < 1500 g. This was done separately in the local authorities and hospitals. If a method of adjustment had worked very well, these correlations should be negligible. For the local authorities, adjustment for proportion < 1500 g gave the lowest correlations. Adjustment for mean birthweight and 500 g‐band standardisation did not appear to work so well but gave moderately low correlations. For hospitals, 500 g standardisation gave the lowest correlations. Adjustment for mean birthweight and proportion < 2500 g worked only moderately well. Percentile and z‐score adjustment did not work well for local authorities or hospitals. We conclude that several methods appear to work reasonably well for local authorities, whereas for hospitals, 500 g indirect standardisation worked best. Percentile and z‐score standardisation did not work well in these subpopulations.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- A multilevel model for infant health outcomes: maternal risk factors and geographic variationJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 1998
- Case mix adjustment in comparative auditJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 1995
- The CRIB (clinical risk index for babies) score: a tool for assessing initial neonatal risk and comparing performance of neonatal intensive care unitsThe Lancet, 1993
- Evaluating the quality of the maternity services-a discussion paperBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1991
- Predicting death from initial disease severity in very low birthweight infants: a method for comparing the performance of neonatal units.BMJ, 1990
- Demographic research on infant mortalitySociological Forum, 1989
- Premature Births among Black WomenNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- Racial Differences in Low Birth WeightNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- Birthweight and Perinatal Mortality: III. Towards a New Method of AnalysisInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1986
- ANALYSIS OF BIRTH WEIGHT, GESTATIONAL AGE, AND FETAL VIABILITY, U. S. BIRTHS, 1968Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 1974