Talk:Infant mortality rate

message: I see there has already been a lot of discussion on the Berdadine Healy article, By all means these claims are totally wrong. The only reason to keep this paragraph is to warn people against it. The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. US infant mortality is dragged down significantly by the poorer conservative states:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
Some US states do have "Western European" levels of infant mortality, at least for whites:
New Jersey .......... 3.7
Massachusetts .... 4.0
California ............. 4.6
New York ............ 4.6
The US average is dragged down by the poorer conservative states. The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:
West Virginia ....... 7.5
Oklahoma ........... 7.5
Arkansas ............ 7.2
Louisiana ............ 7.1
Indiana ............... 7.0
Tennessee .......... 7.0
Mississippi ......... 7.0
A similar thing happens in Europe concerning the poorer former soviet-block states. These are however a lot poorer as the US states above in terms of GDP per capita. 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00027&plugin=0&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels
The definition of infant mortality is dead before the first year after live birth. Crucial is the definition of live birth, see here for instance for the European Union and the US. 
http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_a1_frep_01_en.pdf (see item 8)
(Hans de Vries (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice they have a methodology, but it doesn't prove Healy wrong.  The WHO and its methodologies are far from infallible and it's pretty clear some countries (e.g. Japan) are cooking the baby books.
see http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=562
Bernadine Healy, on the other hand:
1) was kicked out of the Red Cross after misspending money for 9/11
victims;
2) hasn't actually practiced much medicine recently and instead has run
for office as a republican and served in various republican political
appointments. 
3) was a member of the Advisory board of The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition, an organization later shown to have been founded by a
PR firm and funded by Phillip Morris to criticise scientific research
that showed cigarettes to be harmful. 
4) spends her days now writing (apparently BS) republican op-ed pieces
for US News.
She is bogus. Not the statistics from the UN, CDC and World Health Organization. 
Although, I agree, that to the extent that other countries measure
infant mortality differently, that is relevant; but there is nothing
I've seen that shows that that difference isn't properly accounted for
in the leading statistics compiled by trained non-political
statisticians. 
see: http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf
I'm not good at wiki formatting, though and would appreciate if someone could tweak the formatting for me.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.228.47.11 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a very poor test.  The fact they improved at the same rate proves nothing.  The second point is irrelevant to the question of whether "infant" is being defined differently.67.173.73.156 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, that might be an interesting topic for research, but this is an encyclopedia, so no original research should be included.--Jirka6 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparability section 

message: I came across this article out of curiosity regarding historical trends in infant mortality e.g. -- rates in antiquity, or in pre industrial Europe, or what have you.
Is this information available anywhere in Wikipedia? If not, then I think that this article could use expansion for a section that deals with trends in such over long historical periods
I too would like such data, presented somewhere.  Specifically, what fraction of births reached their majority (18 or 21, or such age that normally allows them to marry and have children) over historical times.  I have found that the average death age for the kings of England and Scotland from 1000 to 1600 AD was 49, somewhat better than monks of the period.  I presume this was  better than the general population; but in both of those 'occupations' you have weeded out those that died by age 20.  Given infant and childhood mortality rates in the 1800s and extrapolating to 1500, it appears that at least half of the births did not make it to age 20.  However, I would like to see the results of some studies. Please assist.
STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!
WE MOST STOP THOSE MURRDERERS!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavaspiderman (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section for historical trends 

message: Many of the points in here need to be updated with the new data by Save the Children.
http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/SOWM_2006_final.pdf?stationpub=000000&ArticleID=&NewsID=
Re: New Data?
WHO statistics estimate diarrhea as the 2nd most common cause of deaths (17% of deaths) in children under age 5, the most common cause being acute respiratory infection (19% of deaths).
These WHO statistics can be found in (Lancet 2005; 365: 1147–52). This article also breaks down causes of childhood mortality (<5yrs old) for 6 regions of the world. 
A graph representing causes of death among chilldren under 5 years of age, and other useful information can be found at: http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/OVERVIEW/CHILD_HEALTH/child_epidemiology.htm
--65.125.151.253 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update Hong Kong to 1.8/1,000 as of 2006. Source: http://www.fhb.gov.hk/statistics/en/statistics/infant_mortality_rate.htm DOR (HK) (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update with new data? 

message: Using information from the CIA World Fact Book, I think I could produce a statistical map for this page. I'll let you know when I'm done. Black-Velvet 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Data 

message: Any data on how the cultural preferences on abortion affects IM? For example, some infants born with certain diseases might be outright aborted in certain nations where it's more culturally permissable to do so.--Rotten 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortions 

message: This change to the article consists of two paragraphs that were copied verbatim from pages 1 and 2 of a 1992 Congressional Budget Office staff memorandum without any credit. While the source is public domain, that's pretty rude. I will remove the offending paragraphs shortly. Eubulides 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two paragraphs plagiarized from 1992 CBO staff memorandum 

message: Shouldn't some space be devoted to those countries whose rates have risen?  The rate of such a rise, and mention of the factors contributing to those rises would be helpful.  Iraq is an example of an explosive rise in infant mortality indicative of a failed state.  Instead of showing present rates, I think it would be helpful to be able to see how changes have played out in the last 50 years.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515       Mentions that the rise in ranking for mortality rates in the United States as compared to the rest of the world were attributable to the improvement of health care in the average country, as opposed to no significant improvement in the US.  Rawkcuf 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Global Trends; Rising Rates and Failed States 

message: Is it a joke or necessary to redirect from "dead babies"? It's relevant, sure - but it looks like it's more of a joke if you ask me... RWBronco (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: I have added statistics from Census Bureau - Do you think that it is worthwhile to create an infant mortality in the USA article?
=== Check US Data ===
I've just spotted that the US Data from  is being reported incorrectly, with values transposed along by one state at the time (the original includes a top value for the US overall. Not sure of ways to easily edit WikiTables - so just flagging that up here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.218 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA data

message: I've just spotted that the US Data from  is being reported incorrectly, with values transposed along by one state at the time (the original includes a top value for the US overall. Not sure of ways to easily edit WikiTables - so just flagging that up here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.218 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check US Data 

message: I could be wrong, but I fail to see the relevance of USA data on this article. I believe that table should belong in the USA article, not this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killcomic (talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is USA data needed in this article? 

message: The USA Data section should be removed from this article.
It's natural home is the Demographics of the United States page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the USA Data section and put it on the Demographics of the United States page 

message: In reliability engineering, the term infant mortality is used to refer to a particular pattern of failures (often seen in electronics).  Perhaps is would be appropriate to creat an article infant mortality (reliability), and include a disambig hatnote?  70.250.239.119 (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, see bathtub curve.  70.250.239.119 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: The article states: 'Many countries ... only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." If this was happening it may lower IMR but it would not affect perinatal mortality since perinatal mortality is the sum of stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life. If babies showing signs of life but not breathing at birth are moved from the 'live born but died' category to the 'stillborn' category, then the perinatal mortality rate stays the same.  It is not raised. Adrian Murray (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: comparability section:perinatal mortality definition

message: The article perinatal mortality isn't long enough to motivate having it separate, especially since the causes are largely overlapping. Let's make it easier to have an overview.Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no merger is appropriate. Perinatal deaths are not a subset of infant deaths. Many perinatal deaths are PRE-natal, whereas by definition all infant deaths are POST-natal.  These are distinct concepts and phenomena.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from perinatal mortality 

message: My name is Allyssa, a senior undergraduate student from Rice University. I would like to extend and revise this Wikipedia article. I intend on rearranging the sections to make the article flow better. I will also expand on existing sections. Also, I will create sections titled, 'Top causes for infant mortality,' 'Medical disparities,' 'Knowledge disparities,' and 'Policies addressing infant mortality.' 
I hope to contribute salient knowledge on this issue. I also intend on editing this article to meet Wikipedia standard. 
If there are any suggestions on ways to go about doing this, please let me know. 
Allyssa.abacan (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension and Revision  

message: I will be focusing on south east asian countries since disparities can be seen on a bigger level (Singapore and the Philippines). I will narrow down my focus to elaborate on causes (dengue fever, polio, etc) and medical infrastructure within each South East Nation I talk about. I will mainly focus on the top 5 causes of infant mortality. Information on medical infrastructure would hopefully allow readers to gain an understanding of how political structure can influence infant mortality. Also, I plan on writing about successful and failed political policies that aim(ed) to ameliorate infant mortality. 
Hopefully this will allow readers to grasp the root causes for high infant mortality in various countries that have varying SES status. Right now, the article is not holistically explaining infant mortality. 
During my research, I will garner more academically viable resources to make this article more reliable. 
I will see what I can do when considering adding/reorganizing into Epidemiology, Prevention, History, Society and culture. 
Allyssa.abacan (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Further changes

message: Is there any additional information that will make this Wiki article better? 
What other changes need to be made to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? 
I'm expanding and revising this Wikipedia page for a class, Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. Any suggestions are welcomed!
Thanks. 
Allyssa.abacan (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information  

message: The image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infant_Mortality_Rate_by_Region_1950-2050.png
Has the label "Infant mortality rate" on its vertical axis but this unit is not explained. i.e. An infant mortality rate of 120. 120 what? 120 per 1000 births? 120 per 1000000 births? This graph is therefore of questionable value as it is impossible to derive any meaningful information from it.
82.2.100.205 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "Infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of children less than one year of age per 1000 live births." So, I guess it's per 1000 births. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph does not explain units 

message: I have a problem with the world map that is currently in second position. The caption says: "World infant mortality rates, under age 5, in 2012". But the definition of infant mortality is under 1 year of age; whereas under 5 years of age is child mortality. So I guess the caption is wrong. I tried to trace it back to that UNICEF report but that map is not in there, I guess someone created it from scratch based on the tables in the UNICEF report? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it contains an error. Corrected the caption. Not sure how to correct the picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph caption is confusing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Infant mortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As noted above, at #Add_a_section_for_historical_trends, there's no history section.  It's well documented (one of many sources) that unpasteurized milk was the leading cause of infant mortality at one time. Pasteurization of milk cut infant mortality by around 3/4; estimates vary.  A history section should cover what have been the leading causes that have been addresses over time.  (Maybe I'll start one, covering at least the milk angle, to start, if no one steps in within a week or so.)--Elvey(t•c) 04:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: yes please! Consult the manual of style for Wikiproject Medicine, but from memory, the history section should be just before "Society and culture". EvMsmile (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section warranted 

message: (fifth paragraph)
How does institutional racism impact infant mortality rates in African Americans--specifically in regards to environmental disadvantage? The paragraph touches on the issue but doesn't go into detail. A link to the "Environmental Racism" page would be helpful here.
Mwtoston (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment Section: more detail about institutional racism  

message: Information regarding vaccines should have separate section-- with more information about relation to IMR declination. Also phrasing in last sentence ("extremely important") could be replaced with stronger references regarding documented safety of vaccines and correlation to IMR reduction.
Mwtoston (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Medicine and biology" Section  

message: In the 'Medical treatments' section, you mention that technological advancements and more efficient medical treatments are needed to decrease ethnic and racial disparities in terms of infant mortality worldwide. As a reader I would be interested in learning what specific technological advancements you are talking about that will lead to groundbreaking medical techniques. Also, if possible, you should add a bit about how these technological advancements would help infants and whether or not people of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds would be granted equal access to these new treatments.Michaelguerena (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Medical treatments" section - peer edit 

message: Do they help fight Infant mortality -
Or do people think: I have donated for Wikipedia - let us put this to an end with the donations.--37.230.10.218 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Donations 

message: The infant mortality page does not offer many global perspectives at the moment. Perhaps it would be beneficial to have a separate page for Infant mortality in the United States in which subsections unique to the US could exist while the infant mortality page concentrates on a broader international viewpoint. Also I believe the layout of the page could use some fixes in terms of the order of the contents. Kylaj (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kylaj, I suggest you first add some ontent about infant mortality in the U.S. in a new section here. Later when it gets too big you can spin it off into a separate Wikipedia article.EMsmile (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing adding a page on Infant mortality in the United States  

message: The HRSA CoINhas added a section on childhood trauma.  We intend to expand this section a bit and welcome your assistance and/or feedback.  Since we are scientists in the US, most of our data will come from the US.  We would be very grateful if scientists and statisticians from around the world would add their data to this page.  We hope that through comparison and sharing of emerging models and promising practices, we might be able to turn the trajectories of the co-occurring epidemics of suicide, violence, untreated mental illness and addiction.  KTKonkel (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Childhood Trauma 

message: moved the section of Education. Re-wrote with all new sources Lalin Mendez (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Education section 

message: I don't want to add directly since I work with IHME, but can other editors decide whether this is a useful external link to include? It's an interactive data visualization of child and infant mortality in African nations, and will be updated later this year to include all low- and middle-income countries. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/lbd/under5#
ARSeattle (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful External Link? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 20th century/Infant mortality. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "20th century/Infant mortality" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The introduction states that “Premature birth is the biggest contributor to the IMR” and provides a citation for the CDC, however that information may be outdated as the CDC now states that the leading cause of infant mortality is birth defects, and premature birth is now the second leading cause.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_09.pdf  Would like to update information in the introduction, and add additional information under the “Prevention and Causes” section to include subsections on “Mother’s Health” and “Nutrition.” Gmackey18 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation II Group 24 proposed edits

message: The Prevention and Outcomes section starts off with a public health section, which briefly glosses over prenatal care and the mother's health during pregnancy. This could potentially be turned into its own prenatal care section. Additionally, the Medical Treatments section seems to be a continuation of the Public Health section, and these two could be combined into one. ~~Gmackey18~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmackey18 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention and Outcomes Reorganization

message: Group 23 Peer Reviews Here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDrucker (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II Group 23 Peer Review 

message: * The definition of infant mortality rate (IMR) in the lead goes to a source link that is just a homepage. 
* Why does the article cite National Vital Statistics Reports from 2013 and 2002? There is a report from July 2020 here. Note that even the latest report, is for 2018 data.
* The lead says the leading cause (in 2013) was "birth defects" but then goes on to list "congenital malformations" as another cause -- but congenital malformations links to birth defects. They are the same thing.
* The lead says "Lack of prenatal care, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and drug use during pregnancy can also cause complications which may result in infant mortality" but links to an advice page for mothers to avoid birth defects in general, rather than "complications which may result in infant mortality". So this source does not support the claim made.
* The statement "Many environmental factors contribute to infant mortality, such as the mother's level of education, environmental conditions, and political and medical infrastructure" is sourced to a primary research study in Poland. We need a general review paper or textbook to make this sort of statement.
* The lead says "In 1990 9 million infants younger than 1 year died globally." I see that the class added a source for this but the source gives figures for 2007 and they are for child mortality, not infant mortality. 
* It isn't clear why the lead should spend any time discussing child mortality, other than to define it so we know how it differs. There is a whole article for child mortality.
* The lead says "Throughout the world, infant mortality rate (IMR) fluctuates drastically, and according to Biotechnology and Health Sciences, education and life expectancy in the country is the leading indicator of IMR. This study was conducted across 135 countries over the course of 11 years, with the continent of Africa having the highest infant mortality rate of any region studied with 68 deaths per 1,000 live births." We generally shouldn't cite primary research studies for facts on Wikipedia, certainly not in the lead, and nor do we tend to describe the details of studies unless they are famous. The word "fluctuates" suggest change over time, rather than location. The text " according to Biotechnology and Health Sciences" is inappropriate -- that is simply the name of the journal, not any authority (e.g. WHO), and there is no reason to name the source here. 
* Nearly all of the source used for the lead are only used for the lead. This suggests the lead has been written independently rather than as a summary of existing body text. Generally, the body text should be written first, cited appropriately, and the lead written as a summary of that text, with fewer citations needed. 
* I agree with the comments above that the Covid19 section is inappropriate. There is no indication at all that this is a significant cause of infant mortality -- there are very many other infectious diseases that are, which don't get a mention. 
-- Colin°Talk 16:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: This is a big article, and I've only really reviewed the lead. I think one of the problems with using this article for a class is that it has been used many times already for a class. The result is a bit of a rambling mess to be honest, and rather unfair on the class to be expected to build upon such a shaky foundation. In a class exercise, there is likely only really points to be gained from what new stuff you write, when in fact, this article could really do with someone chopping it down, summarising and ensuring the existing material is correct, up-to-date and well sourced. 
One general problem I see, along with the use of primary research studies, is using sources that discuss a cause (e.g. premature birth or birth defects) but don't discuss it specifically in terms of infant mortality. Doing this is original research. It can lead to root causes being discussed that lead to birth defects that aren't themselves a significant cause of infant mortality.
I suggest that this topic not be used again for student editing, unless the focus is on condensing and fixing the existing material. -- Colin°Talk 16:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: General notes

message: how psychological abuse can kill a child? how sexual abuse can kill a child?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:193:E423:958D:720F:CE36:844C (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  how psychological abuse can kill a child? how sexual abuse can kill a child?