1 / 19

David Dodds, PhD, MPH Epidemiology and Evaluation Section

Effects of Racial and Ethnic Aggregation on Birth Outcome Measures for the American Indian Population of California (2000-2002). David Dodds, PhD, MPH Epidemiology and Evaluation Section Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Branch California Department of Health Services December, 2006

piper-wilkins
Télécharger la présentation

David Dodds, PhD, MPH Epidemiology and Evaluation Section

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effects of Racial and Ethnic Aggregation on Birth Outcome Measures for the American Indian Population of California (2000-2002) David Dodds, PhD, MPH Epidemiology and Evaluation Section Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Branch California Department of Health Services December, 2006 ddodds@dhs.ca.gov

  2. Background: American Indian Population and California • California has the largest American Indian population among states: • 333,000 (race alone, Census 2000) • 628,000 (race alone or in combination, Census 2000)1 • California is home to: • 12 percent of the United States population • 13.5 percent of the American Indian/Alaska Native population2 • Los Angeles County has the largest American Indian population among United States counties.3 • California is home to 106 of 561 federally recognized tribes.4 • Most American Indians in California declare ancestry deriving from non-California tribes.5 *Sources: (1) Census 2000 Summary File 1, Table QT-P6; (2) State of California, Department of Finance, Census 2000: Summary File 1 California Profile, Sacramento, California, 2002.; (3) Census 2000 PHC-T-14,Table 11; (4) Federal Register, November 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 226: 71194-71198 ; (5) Census 2000 PHC-T-18, Table 19.

  3. Background: Births and Disparities • California ranks third in number of American Indian births among states: • Rank 1: Oklahoma (≈ 5,000 per year) • Rank 2: New Mexico (≈ 3,500 per year) • Rank 3: California (≈ 3,000 per year)1 • Disparities persist for American Indians in California and the United States as measured by birth outcomes: • Infant mortality • Low birth weight • Pre-term delivery Source: (1) Martin, JA, et al. (2003). Births: Final Data for 2002. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52, No. 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics (Table 11).

  4. Infant Mortality Rate, California and United States, 2000-2002 Linked Files, by Race* *Race regardless of Hispanic ethnicity. Sources, California and United States: Matthews, TJ, et al. (2004). Infant mortality statistics from the 2002 period linked birth/infant death data set. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics (Table 3). Healthy People 2010, wonder.cdc.gov/data2010.

  5. Study Problem • Race and ethnicity are conventional categories for assessing health disparities in public health. • Current federal guidelines (OMB 1997) require separate categories of race and ethnicity for data collection.1 • The federal race category “American Indian or Alaska Native” overlaps significantly with: • Other races (alone or in combination) • Hispanic ethnicity Source: (1) Office of Management and Budget, 1997, Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, Federal Register Notice, October 30, 1997, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html.

  6. Study Questions • Given overlap between races and ethnicity for American Indians, do different racial/ethnic aggregation techniques alter birth outcome measures? • Are some racial/ethnic aggregation techniques more useful than others?

  7. California: Race and Ethnicity • California has a large Hispanic population. • Race/ethnicity data are often aggregated before analysis: Hispanics first into one group with remainder groups as non-Hispanic race groups. • This technique can diminish statistical size of the American Indian population in states like California.

  8. Example of “Hispanic First” Aggregation:California Resident Live Births by Maternal Race and Ethnicity, 2005(N=548,700) All race groups are Non-Hispanic for White, Asian, African American, Multiple Race, Pacific Islander, American Indian. Data source: Birth Statistical Master File, 2005, analysis by author.

  9. Example Data:California Resident Births 2000-2002 Pooled, by Race and Ethnicity (Number) Source: Linked birth and death cohort files, California, 2000-2002, analysis by author.

  10. Example Data:California Resident Births 2000-2002 Pooled, by Race and Ethnicity (Percent) Source: Linked birth and death cohort files, California, 2000-2002, analysis by author.

  11. Study Problem (continued) • Among federally defined race groups in California, overlap with Hispanic ethnicity was highest for American Indians in Census 2000: • 46% of Californians who chose American Indian race alone indicated Hispanic ethnicity.1 • 39% of Californians who chose American Indian as race alone or in combination with another race, indicated Hispanic ethnicity.2 Source: American Fact Finder, factfinder.census.gov: (1) Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1), P8. Hispanic or Latino by Race [17] - Universe: Total population; (2) Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1), P10. Hispanic or Latino by Race (Total Races Tallied) [15] - Universe: Total races tallied.

  12. Study Problem (continued) • For California births, there are somewhat similar overlaps in race and ethnicity. • California linked files for births and deaths during 2000-2002 show that: • 21% of births by American Indian race alone overlap with Hispanic ethnicity.1 • 34% of births by American Indian race alone or combination overlap with Hispanic ethnicity.1 Source: Linked birth and death cohort files, California, 2000-2002, analysis by author.

  13. Methods • Test three aggregation techniques for American Indians: • Technique 1: American Indian race alone, Not Hispanic • Technique 2: American Indian race alone • Technique 3: American Indian race alone or in combination • Assess effects of aggregation technique on three birth outcome measures: • Infant mortality • Percent of births with low birth weight • Percent of pre-term births • Data: Cohort files of linked California birth and death certificates for pooled years 2000-2002. Three years of data: • Improves rate stability assessed by relative standard error (RSE) • Allows for comparison of state and national data as published by the National Center for Health Statistics

  14. Birth Outcome Measures with 95% Confidence Intervals:Three Aggregation Techniques for American Indians/Alaska Natives Resident to California, 2000-2002 Birth cohort denominators, 2000-2002 pooled: 1) Infant Mortality N=5,927; LBW N=5,926, PTD N=5,365. 2) Infant Mortality N=7,468; LBW N=7,467; PTD N=6,769. 3) Infant Mortality N=17,172; LBW N=17,172; PTD N=15,825. Data filters: LBW, birthweight 227 to 8650 grams; PTD, gestational age 17 to 47 weeks.

  15. Birth Outcome Measures byAggregation Technique for American Indians/Alaska Natives Resident to California, 2000-2002 Source: Linked birth and death cohort files, California, 2000-2002, analysis by author.

  16. Results • Alternative aggregation techniques can change descriptive birth outcome measures. • As aggregations use less restrictive criteria: • denominators increase in size • confidence intervals narrow in width • outcome measures (rates, percents) vary • However, the three techniques tested do not produce measures significantly different from each other. Confidence intervals (95%) overlap across techniques for each birth outcome measure.

  17. Conclusions • Technique 1: “American Indian Race Alone, Not Hispanic” • Advantages: Captures important demographic trends in California related to growth of the Hispanic population by immigration and high fertility. Exclusive categories are easy to understand: all numbers sum to 100%. • Disadvantage: Possibly too restrictive for assessing health needs of the California American Indian population since “race alone” population may be moved to Hispanic • Technique 2: “American Indian Race Alone” • Advantages: Captures the racial heterogeneity of people with American Indian ancestry. Avoids “loss to Hispanics.” Exclusive categories are easy to understand: all numbers sum to 100%. • Disadvantage: Loss of Hispanic category misses large scale demographic trend. • Technique 3: “American Indian Race Alone or in Combination” • Advantage: Captures the most racial heterogeneity (i.e., racial overlap) of people with American Indian ancestry. • Disadvantage: Inclusive categories may be confusing because they sum to more than 100% of the population.

  18. Public Health Implications • Different racial/ethnic aggregation techniques can provide alternative perspectives for assessing health disparities for heterogeneous populations like American Indians of California. • However, in the case of birth outcome measures for California the techniques tested did not provide significantly different measures. Other measures and other states may be different. • Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages.

  19. Public Health Implications • Choice of a useful racial/ethnic aggregation technique must address purposes of data use. • Choice of aggregation technique involves trade-offs among criteria such as: • Ability to identify a population for a target purpose (e.g., health services access or detecting a particular disparity) • Ability to compare birth outcomes measures in published literature • Ease of interpretation by the public

More Related