U.S. Still Lagging Behind in Reduction of Child Deaths

A new study has shown that while world-wide child mortality rates have plummeted over the past two decades, the U.S. has not improved as much as other countries.

Article Source

123 other countries improved more than the U.S., the highest-income country, to see an increase in health disparities across racial and economic groups. The effect of the disparity was especially seen in newborns, where high quality obstetrical care is crucial.

Globally, about 40 percent of all deaths of children under five happen in newborns. In the U.S., about 60 percent of all child deaths are newborns. The survey, undertaken by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said an estimated 11.9 million children under age five died in 1990, compared with 7.7 million infant deaths in 2009.

The study has shown that 31 developing countries are likely to reduce child deaths by 66 percent in 2015 compared to 1990 levels. Only Swaziland, Lesotho, Equatorial Guinea, and Antigua and Barbuda saw increases in child mortality between 1990 and 2010.

Swaziland, Lesotho, Equatorial Guinea, and Antigua and Barbuda

First thought is population density, in comparison to the other countries and combined with our "highest income" status people in our country are more apt to have more deaths because we have more children.

However, being that we are such a medically advanced nation, why our numbers of these deaths haven't improved along side the other 123 countries doesn't make sense. I leave this and anything else regarding the topic open for discussion.

Originally posted by UberL33t


First thought is population density, in comparison to the other countries and combined with our "highest income" status people in our country are more apt to have more deaths because we have more children.

" more deaths because we have more children " .


I`d imagine that the figures are calculated as : deaths per 100,000 population or something akin to that . So that can`t be it.

High population density should (in a first world country) increase the survival rates of infants , as it centralises expertise and the necessary infrastructure and services .

To a large degree this study seems to be about the improvements of other nations health care ........its just that the percentage of newborn deaths in the U.S has remained static.

So what is this glass ceiling preventing further improvements ?
There is no doubting that the expertise and infrastructure is present ......
Question>::
have some Americans just been unable to access/afford it ?

Mortality

1-4 years of age

Number of deaths: 4,631

Deaths per 100,000 population: 28.4

Leading causes of death
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Congenital malformations

Centre for Disease Control


edit: to tidy up.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by UmbraSumus]

That's weird.

A couple of years ago I read a similar article about the same subject in the Netherlands.
Us Dutch are not really breeding like bunnies. An estimate of two children a family.

Oddly enough, the study was based on information supplied by the countries involved. Therein lies the proof in the pudding... not all countries count the various types of death and do not count all births, some are skewed by income, caste, class, and region. Plus, when you have more room for improvement, your ratio of improvement looks good.

For instance, if I struck out once, and then hit a home run, Id have a .500 batting average. Compare that to a pro that has been up to bat 500 times. Statistically, I'm as good as he is...but am I really?

When taken as a whole against the US, we look very bad. However, I can assure you that I would rather my daughter be taken care of here in the USA than in Swaziland.

reply to post by AlreadyGone

For instance, if I struck out once, and then hit a home run, Id have a .500 batting average. Compare that to a pro that has been up to bat 500 times. Statistically, I'm as good as he is...but am I really?

Very good analogy, makes perfect sense.