Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, E.
Right arrow Articles by Hoem, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, E.
Right arrow Articles by Hoem, J. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 149, No. 5: 447-453
Copyright © 1999 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

other

Low-weight Neonatal Survival Paradox in the Czech Republic

Elwood Carlson1 and Jan M. Hoem2

1Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina Columbia, SC
2Department Unit, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden

Analysis of vital statistics for the Czech Republic between 1986 and 1993. including 3, 254 infant deaths from 350, 978 first births to married and single women who conceived at ages 18–29 years, revealed a neonatal survival advantage for low-weight infants born to disadvantaged (single, less educated) women, particularly for deaths from congenital anomalies. This advantage largely disappeared after the neonatal period. The same patterns have been observed for low-weight infants born to black women in the United States. Since the Czech Republic had an ethnically homogenous population, virtually universal prenatal care, and uniform institutional conditions for delivery. Czech results must be attributed to social rather than to biologic or medical circumstances. This strengthens the contention that in the United States, the black neonatal survival paradox may be due as much to race-related social stigmatization and consequent disadvantage as to any hypothesized hereditary influences on birth-weight-specific survival. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149: 447–53.

birth weight; ethnic groups; gestational age; infant mortality; neonatology; racial stocks; socioeconomic factors; survival analysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Scand J Public HealthHome page
M. D. Gisselmann
Education, infant mortality, and low birth weight in Sweden 1973--1990: Emergence of the low birth weight paradox
Scand J Public Health, January 1, 2005; 33(1): 65 - 71.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
K. K. Melve and R. Skjaerven
Birthweight and perinatal mortality: paradoxes, social class, and sibling dependencies
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2003; 32(4): 625 - 632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
A. J Wilcox
Commentary: On the paradoxes of birthweight
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2003; 32(4): 632 - 633.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
R. David
Commentary: Birthweights and Bell Curves
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2001; 30(6): 1241 - 1243.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.