2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

Table B- 3. MCHP and Chapin Hall Mean Risk Index for TGA Birth Cohorts aSampleMCHP Risk Index for Births withRisk Screen Score in FOCiSChapin Hall Risk Index for WholePopulationMean Risk Index σ Mean Risk index b σ2004–2005 Birth Cohort 2.0 2.10 2.4 1.73Non-TGAs 1.5 1.91 1.9 1.61TGAs 2.7 2.13 3.0 1.682006 Birth Cohort 2.1 2.12 2.3 1.79Non-TGAs 1.6 1.93 1.9 1.67TGAs 2.8 2.15 3.0 1.752007 Birth Cohort 2.2 2.08 2.4 1.79Non-TGAs 1.6 1.91 1.9 1.67TGAs 2.8 2.10 2.9 1.772008 Birth Cohort 2.1 2.06 2.4 1.79Non-TGAs 1.6 1.86 2.0 1.70TGAs 2.8 2.09 3.0 1.732009 Birth Cohort 2.1 2.10 2.4 1.78Non-TGAs 1.6 1.95 2.0 1.70TGAs 2.8 2.08 3.0 1.742004–2009 Birth Cohort 2.1 2.10 2.4 1.68Non-TGAs 1.6 1.91 3.0 1.72TGAs 2.7 2.12 1.9 1.66a Source: Vital Statistics and FOCiS (2004–2009). Data for the year 5 study sample were weighted to account for oversamplingof mothers “at risk” and mothers residing in the Glades TGA. This table reports Maternal Child Health Partnership risk screeningthat is slightly different than was reported in the year 3 report due to updated score data. The birth of twins, triplets, and othermultiples are counted as one birth event.b Because not all mothers in the county were screened at birth, we calculated a risk index based on their number of 11demographic and health characteristics recorded in Vital Statistics. These were the following: (1) no or late prenatal care, (2)mother does not have high school diploma or GED, (3) mother is not married, (4) mother age 19 or lower at birth, (5) mother notborn in U.S., (6) mother received WIC while pregnant, (7) mother smoked, (8) mother had medical complications (other thanprevious C-section), (9) mother had delivery complications, (10) baby’s weight less than 2500 grams, and (11) baby’s gestationalage 36 weeks or less. Mothers whose responses were “I don’t know” to any of these questions were not coded as “at risk” for thatquestion.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 168