Inequalities in infant mortality in Brazil at subnational levels in Brazil, 1990 to 2015.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Population Health Metrics Pub Date : 2020-09-30 DOI:10.1186/s12963-020-00208-1
Célia Landmann Szwarcwald, Wanessa da Silva de Almeida, Renato Azeredo Teixeira, Elisabeth Barboza França, Marina Jorge de Miranda, Deborah Carvalho Malta
{"title":"Inequalities in infant mortality in Brazil at subnational levels in Brazil, 1990 to 2015.","authors":"Célia Landmann Szwarcwald,&nbsp;Wanessa da Silva de Almeida,&nbsp;Renato Azeredo Teixeira,&nbsp;Elisabeth Barboza França,&nbsp;Marina Jorge de Miranda,&nbsp;Deborah Carvalho Malta","doi":"10.1186/s12963-020-00208-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In this study, infant mortality rate (IMR) inequalities are analyzed from 1990 to 2015 in different geographic scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Ministry of Health (MoH) IMR estimates by Federative Units (FU) were compared to those obtained by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) group. In order to measure the inequalities of the IMR by FU, the ratios from highest to lowest from 1990 to 2015 were calculated. Maps were elaborated in 2000, 2010, and 2015 at the municipality level. To analyze the effect of income, IMR inequalities by GDP per capita were analyzed, comparing Brazil and the FU to other same-income level countries in 2015, and the IMR municipal estimates were analyzed by income deciles, in 2000 and 2010.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IMR decreased from 47.1 to 13.4 per 1000 live births (LB) from 1990 to 2015, with an annual decrease rate of 4.9%. The decline was less pronounced for the early neonatal annual rate (3.5%). The Northeast region showed the most significant annual decline (6.2%). The IMR estimates carried out by the GBD were about 20% higher than those obtained by the MoH, but in terms of their inequalities, the ratio from the highest to the lowest IMR among the 27 FU decreased from 4 to 2, for both methods. The percentage of municipalities with IMR higher than 40 per 1000 LB decreased from 23% to 2%, between 2000 and 2015. Comparing the IMR distribution by income deciles, all inequality measures of the IMR decreased markedly from 2000 to 2010.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results showed a marked decrease in the IMR inequalities in Brazil, regardless of the geographic breakdown and the calculation method. Despite clear signs of progress in curbing infant mortality, there are still challenges in reducing its level, such as the concentration of deaths in the early neonatal period, and the specific increases of post neonatal mortality in 2016, after the recent cuts in social investments.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"18 Suppl 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12963-020-00208-1","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00208-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Background: In this study, infant mortality rate (IMR) inequalities are analyzed from 1990 to 2015 in different geographic scales.

Methods: The Ministry of Health (MoH) IMR estimates by Federative Units (FU) were compared to those obtained by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) group. In order to measure the inequalities of the IMR by FU, the ratios from highest to lowest from 1990 to 2015 were calculated. Maps were elaborated in 2000, 2010, and 2015 at the municipality level. To analyze the effect of income, IMR inequalities by GDP per capita were analyzed, comparing Brazil and the FU to other same-income level countries in 2015, and the IMR municipal estimates were analyzed by income deciles, in 2000 and 2010.

Results: IMR decreased from 47.1 to 13.4 per 1000 live births (LB) from 1990 to 2015, with an annual decrease rate of 4.9%. The decline was less pronounced for the early neonatal annual rate (3.5%). The Northeast region showed the most significant annual decline (6.2%). The IMR estimates carried out by the GBD were about 20% higher than those obtained by the MoH, but in terms of their inequalities, the ratio from the highest to the lowest IMR among the 27 FU decreased from 4 to 2, for both methods. The percentage of municipalities with IMR higher than 40 per 1000 LB decreased from 23% to 2%, between 2000 and 2015. Comparing the IMR distribution by income deciles, all inequality measures of the IMR decreased markedly from 2000 to 2010.

Conclusion: The results showed a marked decrease in the IMR inequalities in Brazil, regardless of the geographic breakdown and the calculation method. Despite clear signs of progress in curbing infant mortality, there are still challenges in reducing its level, such as the concentration of deaths in the early neonatal period, and the specific increases of post neonatal mortality in 2016, after the recent cuts in social investments.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1990年至2015年巴西次国家一级婴儿死亡率的不平等。
背景:本研究分析了1990 - 2015年不同地理尺度下婴儿死亡率(IMR)的不平等。方法:将联邦单位(FU)估计的卫生部(MoH) IMR与全球疾病负担(GBD)组获得的IMR进行比较。为了用FU来衡量IMR的不平等,我们计算了1990 - 2015年从高到低的比率。2000年、2010年和2015年分别在市级编制了地图。为了分析收入的影响,我们分析了按人均GDP计算的IMR不平等,将巴西和FU与其他相同收入水平的国家在2015年进行了比较,并在2000年和2010年按收入十分位数分析了IMR市政估计。结果:1990 - 2015年,每1000例活产婴儿的IMR从47.1下降到13.4,年下降率为4.9%。早期新生儿年死亡率下降不太明显(3.5%)。东北地区的年降幅最大(6.2%)。GBD估计的IMR比卫生部估计的高20%左右,但就其不平等而言,两种方法的27个FU中IMR最高与最低的比值从4降至2。2000年至2015年间,IMR高于40 / 1000 LB的城市比例从23%下降到2%。比较按收入十分位数划分的收入分配,从2000年到2010年,所有衡量收入分配不平等的指标都显著下降。结论:结果显示,无论地理分布和计算方法如何,巴西的IMR不平等都显著减少。尽管在遏制婴儿死亡率方面取得了明显的进展,但在降低其水平方面仍存在挑战,例如死亡集中在新生儿早期,以及在最近削减社会投资之后,2016年新生儿后期死亡率的具体增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
期刊最新文献
A new method for estimating recent adult mortality from summary sibling histories. Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nutritional status of infants and toddlers: insights from China. Harmonizing measurements: establishing a common metric via shared items across instruments. Examining select sociodemographic characteristics of sub-county geographies for public health surveillance. Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1