11.07.2015 Views

2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 2. Characteristics of Mothers of Newborns in <strong>Palm</strong> <strong>Beach</strong> <strong>County</strong>, 2004–2005 aCharacteristic b <strong>Palm</strong> <strong>Beach</strong> <strong>County</strong> Non-TGAs TGAs(N=29,620) (n=17,185) (n=12,435)Not married (%) 40 27 57Teen mother (%) 9 6 14< HS education (%) 22 13 35Black (%) c 26 18 36Hispanic (%) d 29 22 39Foreign-born (%) 41 36 47Late or no prenatal care 27 23 32Used WIC while pregnant (%) 35 23 52Low-birth-weight baby (%) 8 8 9<strong>Study</strong> risk index mean (SD) d 2.4 (1.7) 1.9 (1.6) 3.0 (1.7)a Source: Vital Statistics. Sample numbers exclude mothers who gave birth in <strong>Palm</strong> <strong>Beach</strong> <strong>County</strong> but were residents of othercounties. Multiple births were counted as one birth event.b Does not include mothers who responded “I don’t know” to any of the Vital Statistics questionsc To be consistent with the racial/ethnic categories in the survey, mothers who identified as Haitian are coded as black.d 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. <strong>The</strong>se 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 2,500 grams, and (11) baby’sgestational age 36 weeks or less. Mothers who responded “I don’t know” to any of these items were not coded “at risk” for thatitem.For comparison purposes, we also analyzed administrative data on the cohort of mothers who gave birthduring the next 4 years, 2006 through 2009. <strong>The</strong>se results, which are presented in Table B- 4, Figure B- 1,Figure B- 2, and Figure B- 3 in Appendix B, indicate little change with respect to most of thecharacteristics available in Vital Statistics of mothers who gave birth in the county over the 5-year period.<strong>The</strong> most significant change was a decline in the percentage of mothers who received late or no prenatalcare. In the county, this was 27 percent for the 2004–2005 birth cohort, and only 14 percent for the 2009cohort; in the TGAs, the percentage declined from 32 percent in 2004–2005 to 18 percent in 2009. Oneindicator of increasing risk in the population is the use of WIC during pregnancy, which increased from35 percent in the county in 2004–2005 to 44 percent in 2009; the corresponding change in the TGAs wasan increase from 52 percent in 2004–2005 to 61 percent in 2009. In addition, there was a modest increasein the percentages of new mothers who were unmarried and who had less than a high school educationfrom 2004–2005 to 2009 across the county.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 7

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!