The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

A comparison of methods of adjusting stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for birthweight in hospital and geographical populations

A comparison of methods of adjusting stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for birthweight in hospital and geographical populations
A comparison of methods of adjusting stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for birthweight in hospital and geographical populations
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.
birth weight, methods, cohort studies, humans, epidemiology, england, infant, infant mortality, birth, newborn, hospital mortality, fetal death, mortality, london, comparative study, health
0269-5022
119-124
Joyce, Rachel
4bb0c26f-d749-4e78-8d58-79e20297bd9a
Peacock, Janet
62df4239-ae7e-44cf-aa3c-3c2e7f1e511c
Joyce, Rachel
4bb0c26f-d749-4e78-8d58-79e20297bd9a
Peacock, Janet
62df4239-ae7e-44cf-aa3c-3c2e7f1e511c

Joyce, Rachel and Peacock, Janet (2003) A comparison of methods of adjusting stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for birthweight in hospital and geographical populations. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 17 (2), 119-124. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-3016.2003.00486.x).

Record type: Article

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.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 4 April 2003
Keywords: birth weight, methods, cohort studies, humans, epidemiology, england, infant, infant mortality, birth, newborn, hospital mortality, fetal death, mortality, london, comparative study, health

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 61840
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61840
ISSN: 0269-5022
PURE UUID: 2538207b-8777-4f3d-bfed-3604d79c6d32

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Sep 2008
Last modified: 08 Jan 2022 01:13

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Rachel Joyce
Author: Janet Peacock

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×