 |
Introduction
Here we provide definitions for all measures and technical terms used in The Right Start for America’s Newborns and in related material on this website. We also address situations where there have been changes or problems in the way state-level data have been collected, coded or reported by state departments of health. Such changes can result in substantial year-to-year changes in statistics that are due, at least in part, to the change in the methodology used to collect and report the data rather than to actual changes in behavior. All data are reported by the mother’s place of residence, not the place where the infant was born.
Prior to 2003, all states used the 1989 Revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth.1However, beginning in 2003, states began to adopt the 2003 Revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth. By January 1st, 2005, 12 states, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York (excluding New York City), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, and Puerto Rico had implemented the revised birth certificate. Vermont also implemented the revised certificate in 2005, but after January 1st. Together the 12 states using the revised certificate as of January 1st accounted for 31 percent of all births in 2005.
Data for educational attainment, prenatal care, and tobacco use, although collected on both the revised and unrevised certificates, are not considered comparable between revisions, The discussion of individual measures in the next section provides details on the lack of comparability.
More specifically, for the states that have adopted the revised certificate, it is not appropriate to construct trends for maternal education, prenatal care, and tobacco use if the trend period includes the year in which the state adopted the revised certificate. Similarly, it is not appropriate to compare data on maternal education, prenatal care, and tobacco use for states using the 1989 certificate with data on these three measures for states using the 2003 certificate.
All percentages in the state tables are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. Thus, 9.46 percent is rounded to 9.5 percent in the tables.
Definitions and data sources
Births to foreign-born mothers (percent of births to foreign-born mothers) is the percentage of all births occurring to women who were born outside the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Births to unmarried women (percent of total births to unmarried women) is the percentage of all births occurring to women who were unmarried at the time of the birth. For 48 states and the District of Columbia, marital status was determined by a direct question. In 2005 Michigan and New York inferred marital status in part or in full, respectively, from other information on the birth certificate. See the next section for more details.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics. Data for Nevada for 1995 and 1996 only are from the Technical Notes in Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin S.C., Mathews T.J. (1998), “Births: Final data for 1997,” National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol 47 no 18. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
Late or no prenatal care (percent of total births to mothers receiving late or no prenatal care) is the percentage of births that occurred to mothers who reported receiving prenatal care only in the third trimester of their pregnancy, or reported receiving no prenatal care. Birth certificates that did not report information about prenatal care were not included in this calculation.
Beginning in 2003, the adoption of the revised birth certificate in several states produced “substantive changes in both question wording and the sources for [prenatal care] information [that] have resulted in data that are not comparable” with data for previous years.2 Prior to the revision there were other reporting issues for a few states in some years. See the next section for more details.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Low-birthweight births (percent low-birthweight births) is the percentage of live births weighing less than 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds). Births of unknown weight were not included in these calculations.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Low maternal education (percent of total births to mothers with less than 12 years of education) is the percentage of women who had completed fewer than 12 years of education at the time of the birth. Birth certificates on which maternal education was not reported were not included in this calculation. Data on maternal education were not available for two states in the early 1990s.
Beginning in 2003, the adoption of the revised birth certificate in several states produced substantive changes in the wording of the questions on maternal education that have resulted in data that are not comparable with data for previous years. See the next section for more details.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Number of births by race and ethnicity of mother contains information about race/Hispanic origin of the mother. On birth certificates, as on most federal data collection forms, the question regarding whether a person is Hispanic is separate from the question asking whether a person is white, black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or American Indian. Thus, people are asked to select a racial group and to indicate whether they are of Hispanic origin. A birth to a woman who reported that she was Hispanic and white would usually be included in figures for both of these groups. In order to create mutually exclusive categories, Hispanics were removed from the black and white racial categories in the tabulations presented here. This allows more meaningful comparisons between minorities and the group people typically think of when we say “white.”
It should also be noted that these figures represent the race of the mother, not the race of the child. This is important because increasing numbers of children are born to parents of different races.
Births for which Hispanic origin was not reported are included in the “Other” category.
In 1990, Oklahoma did not collect data on Hispanic origin. New Hampshire did not report Hispanic origin until 1993 and did not collect this information reliably until 1994.
Starting in 2003, multiple race reporting was allowed by several states. See the next section for more details.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Preterm births (percent preterm births) is the percentage of babies born with a gestational age of less than 37 completed weeks. Birth certificates that did not report gestational age were not included in this tabulation.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Repeat teen births (percent of teen births to women who were already mothers) is the percentage of births that were second or higher order births to mothers who were under the age of 20 at the time of the birth. Birth certificates that did not contain information on birth order were not included in this calculation.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Smoking during pregnancy (percent of total births to mothers who smoked during pregnancy) is the percentage of women who smoked during pregnancy. Data for smoking were not collected in NCHS’ standard format in California and are therefore not reported.
Birth certificates on which information on smoking during pregnancy was not reported were not included in this calculation.
Beginning in 2003, the adoption of the revised birth certificate in several states produced substantive changes in the wording of the questions on tobacco use that have resulted in data that are not comparable with data for previous years. See the next section for more details.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
Teen births (percent of total births to teens) was calculated by dividing the number of births to women under age 20 by the total number of births to women of all ages. It should be noted that this is not the same as a teen birth rate, which measures the risk that a teenager will give birth. The percentage of total births to women under age 20 is affected by the fertility of women over age 20, as well as the fertility of teenagers.
Sources: 2005: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 1990-2004 Natality Data Set CD Series 21, numbers 2-9, 11-12, 14-16 (SETS versions), and 16H and 17Ha (ASCII version), National Center for Health Statistics.
U.S. Average is obtained by dividing total U.S. births with a given characteristic by total U.S. births (as reported by NCHS). For measures with incomplete reporting, the average is based only on those states with reported data. For the three measures which have changed for some states due to their adoption of the revised birth certificate, a Multi-State Average has been calculated for 2003-2005 that includes only those states that are still using the 1989 version of the birth certificate.
Reporting Issues
Births to foreign-born mothers. This measure is not reported for South Dakota in 1995-1996 because the percentage was so much lower than in other years, suggesting a problem of underreporting in those years.
Births to unmarried women.3 Between 1998 and 2004, births to unmarried women were “identified by a question on the birth certificates of all but two States. . . . In the two States (Michigan and New York) that use inferential procedures to compile birth statistics by marital status . . . , a birth is inferred as nonmarital if either of these factors is present: a paternity acknowledgment4 was received or the father’s name is missing.” In 2005, “Michigan added a direct question to the birth registration process but continues to use inferential procedures to update information collected using the direct question.”5
However, in 1990, the first year included in this volume, six states used inferential procedures.6 Thus, during the 1990-2005 period covered by this volume, four additional states–California (1997), Connecticut (1998), Nevada (1997), and Texas (1994)–switched from using inferential procedures to using a direct question to identify births to unmarried women.7 At each of these transition points, there is the potential for the percentage of births to unmarried women to change because of the change in the method of identifying births to unmarried women.
In addition, among those states using inferential procedures, in some states the inferential procedures changed during the 1990-2002 period. For example, in the counts of births to unmarried women submitted by Michigan to NCHS, births with paternity acknowledgments were counted as births to unmarried women beginning in 1994. Thus, there is an undercount of about 25 percent for births to unmarried women in Michigan between 1990 and 1993. Data for Texas are also incomplete during 1990-1993.
In 2005, mother’s marital status was not reported on 0.03 percent of birth records in the 48 states and the District of Columbia, where information was obtained exclusively via a direct question. For the missing records, marital status was imputed as married if the father’s age was known and unmarried if the father’s age was not known. This change in imputation had essentially no impact on percentages and rates of nonmarital births.8
Table A2.1 summarizes the reporting transitions made by each of the affected states by providing the date of each change and the likely effect of the change in reporting as estimated by NCHS. In some cases, these changes have substantial effects on the percentage of births to unmarried women that are included in the tables in this volume. In such cases, trend analysis is either impossible or must be limited to an abbreviated period. All such cases are indicated with footnotes in the table.
Late or no prenatal care. Beginning in 2003, for states adopting the 2003 birth certificate, “substantive changes in both question wording and the sources for this information have resulted in data that are not comparable . . .” with data from prior years. “The wording of the prenatal care item was modified to ‘Date of first prenatal visit’ from ‘Month prenatal care began.’ In addition, the 2003 revision process resulted in recommendations that the prenatal care information be gathered from the prenatal care or medical records, whereas the 1989 revision did not recommend a source for these data.”9 Although we have reported data both pre- and post-revision years for those states adopting the revised certificate, these data are not comparable. Data for all other reporting states were based on the 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth.
In earlier years, there were several states in which the percentage of women who received late or no prenatal care changed substantially between two consecutive years. In these situations, we consulted with both NCHS staff and staff of the appropriate state department of health to check into the possibility that reporting problems were responsible, at least in part, for the changes.
Data for 2004-2005 for prenatal care cannot be presented for New York State because New York City continued to use the 1989 certificate, while the balance of New York State used the 2003 certificate. Data for 2004 for prenatal care cannot be presented for Florida and New Hampshire because they adopted the 2003 certificate in 2004 but after January 1. Data for 2005 for prenatal care cannot be presented for Vermont because it adopted the 2003 certificate after January 1, 2005.
Table A2.2 summarizes all instances in which reporting issues were documented.
Low maternal education. In 1990 and 1991, Washington and New York State (exclusive of New York City) did not require reporting of educational attainment. Beginning in 2003, for states adopting the 2003 birth certificate, substantive changes in question wording have resulted in data from prior years. The 2003 revisions to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth ask for the highest degree or level of school completed while the 1989 standard certificate asks the highest grade completed. These questions are too dissimilar to yield comparable results across years. Although we have reported data both pre- and post-revision years for those states adopting the revised certificate, these data are not comparable. Data for all other reporting states were based on the 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth.
Data for 2004-2005 for low maternal education cannot be presented for New York State because New York City continued to use the 1989 certificate, while the balance of New York State used the 2003 certificate. Data for 2004 for maternal education cannot be presented for Florida and New Hampshire because they adopted the 2003 certificate in 2004 but after January 1. Data for 2005 for maternal education cannot be presented for Vermont because it adopted the 2003 certificate after January 1, 2005.
Table A2.3 summarizes all instances in which reporting issues were documented.
Race and ethnicity. Oklahoma did not ask about Hispanic origin until 1991. New Hampshire began asking for Hispanic origin in 1993, but did not collect this information reliably until 1994. Thus, data on race and ethnicity of births are not included in the table in 1990 for Oklahoma and 1990-1993 for New Hampshire.
In Rhode Island, Hispanic origin was not reported or unknown for 13 to 14 percent of total births in 1998 and 1999–up from only 5 percent in 1990. While the percentage dropped to 8 percent in 2000, it increased again in 2001 to 11 percent. Consequently, the distribution of births by Hispanic origin is less reliable during the late 1990s and early 2000s than in the early 1990s. Over 90 percent of births with unknown Hispanic origin in 1998 were to white women.
In 2003, multiple race was reported by Pennsylvania and Washington, which used the 2003 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, as well as California, Hawaii, Ohio (for births occurring in December 2003 only), and Utah. Data from the remaining 44 States and the District of Columbia reported only the four races stipulated in the 1977 OMB standards: White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander.
In 2004, multiple race was reported by Florida (for births occurring from March 1, 2004, only), Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire (for births occurring from July 19, 2004, only), New York State (excluding New York City), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington, which used the 2003 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, as well as California, Hawaii, Michigan (for births at selected facilities only), Minnesota, Ohio, and Utah, which used the 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth.
In 2005, multiple race was reported by Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York State (excluding New York City), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont (for births occurring from July 1, 2005 only), and Washington, which used the 2003 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, as well as California, Hawaii, Michigan (for births at selected facilities only), Minnesota, Ohio, and Utah, which used the 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard of Live Birth.10
To maintain uniform and comparable data between states that report multiple race and those that do not, multiple race is mapped to one of the four races stipulated in the 1977 OMB standards. This report provides the number of births for four groups defined by race and Hispanic origin: non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, and Other, which includes American Indians, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and all those births where Hispanic origin is unknown or not stated.
Repeat teen births. In 1997 and 1998, the number of teen births in which birth order was unknown or not reported was extremely high in Oklahoma. Consequently, the statistics on the percentage of teen births to women who were already mothers are not reliable in those years and are not reported in this volume. Generally, most births with birth order unknown are first births. If it is assumed that most of the births with birth order unknown are actually first-order births, the resulting percentage of repeat teen births for Oklahoma is comparable to that in most other states. In 1999, Oklahoma’s reporting of live birth order improved considerably. Consequently, statistics on repeat teen births for repeat teen births are reported in this volume starting with 1999.
Smoking during pregnancy. South Dakota and California asked about smoking during pregnancy in a format that was not compatible with the standard recommended by NCHS throughout the 1990-1999 period. South Dakota began reporting this information in a compatible format in 2000. Oklahoma began reporting smoking data on the birth certificate in 1991, and New York City, a registration area separate from that of New York State, began reporting in 1994. Indiana and New York State began reporting smoking data in 1999.11 Between 2000 and 2002, data on smoking during pregnancy was reported in a standard format on all birth certificates in all states except for California. In addition, comparable data on smoking during pregnancy is not available for California for 2003-2005.
Beginning in 2003, for states adopting the 2003 birth certificate, substantive changes in question wording have resulted in data from prior years. The tobacco-use-during-pregnancy question that was used in the 1989 revision had a yes or no question, while the 2003 revision asks for the number of cigarettes smoked at different intervals before and during pregnancy. These questions are too dissimilar to yield comparable results across years. Although we have reported data both pre- and post-revision years for those states adopting the revised certificate, these data are not comparable. Data for all other reporting states were based on the 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth.
Data for 2004-2005 for smoking during pregnancy cannot be presented for New York State because New York City continued to use the 1989 certificate, while the balance of New York State used the 2003 certificate. Data for 2004 for smoking during pregnancy cannot be presented for New Hampshire because they adopted the 2003 certificate in 2004 but after January 1, 2004. Data for 2005 for smoking during pregnancy cannot be presented for Vermont because it adopted the 2003 certificate after January 1, 2005.
Data for 2004-2005 on maternal smoking for Florida cannot be presented because the question on smoking on the Florida birth certificate is not comparable with either the 1989 revision or the 2003 revision questions.
Table A2.4 summarizes all instances in which reporting issues were documented.
TABLE A2.1 Summary of reporting changes for births to unmarried women
| State |
Year of change12 |
Nature of change |
Estimated effect of change |
|
California
|
1995
1997
|
Changed methodology for inferring mother’s marital status by taking into account the naming conventions of Hispanic mothers–especially the use of hyphenated surnames. If the child was given a double surname of the mother’s and father’s surnames, regardless of sequence, the mother’s marital status was coded as “married.”
Began determining mother’s marital status by direct question
|
Nonmarital births to Hispanic women in California fell about 17 percent from 1994 to 1995, but nonmarital births declined for other race and ethnic origin groups as well (down 6 percent for non-Hispanic women as a group). This indicates that the drop in Hispanic nonmarital births was not solely the result of the methodological change.
Nonmarital births to women aged 15-24 increased, while nonmarital births to older women decreased. These two changes were compensating, so that the overall levels of nonmarital births were only modestly higher in 1997 compared with 1996.
|
|
Connecticut
|
1998 (June 15)
|
Began determining mother’s marital status by direct question as of June 15, 1998. Previously, inferred marital status by comparison of surnames of the parents and child.
|
The proportion of births to unmarried women was higher (33 percent) in the first six months of 1998 than in the last six months (29 percent). Thus, it appears that the inferential procedures used prior to June 15, 1998, resulted in some overestimation of the number of births to unmarried women.
|
|
Michigan
|
1994
2005
|
Changed methodology for inferring mother’s marital status by taking into account the number of births with paternity acknowledgments.
Added a direct question to the birth registration process but continued to use inferential procedures to update information collected using the direct question.
|
NCHS estimates that there was underreporting of births to unmarried women of about 25 percent for the 1990-1993 period. Thus, there is substantial discontinuity in the nonmarital birth data between 1993 and 1994.
|
|
Nevada
|
1997
|
Began determining mother’s marital status by direct question in 1997. Previously, inferred marital status by comparing the surnames of the mother, father, and child.
|
The proportion of births to unmarried women based on the direct question is somewhat lower than the proportion based on the inferential procedures.
|
|
New York
|
1997
|
New York City changed its method of inferring marital status and began assuming mother is unmarried if the father’s name is missing from the birth certificate, or if a paternity affidavit was filed. This change made New York City’s methodology consistent with the rest of the state.
|
Births to unmarried women in New York City (and, thus, New York State) were overstated during 1990 through 1996. (New York City accounts for nearly half of all New York State’s births.) The 1997 changes in coding procedures in New York City have resulted in more reliable data for the state.
|
|
Texas
|
1994
|
Began determining mother’s marital status by direct question. Previously, Texas allocated as “marital” all births to unmarried women for which a paternity acknowledgment was filed.
|
The number of births to unmarried women was underreported during the years 1990-1993. Thus, there is a considerable discontinuity in the data for Texas between 1993 and 1994, when the reported proportion of births to unmarried women increased from 17 to 29 percent statewide.
|
Sources: Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin S.C., Mathews T.J., and Park M.M. (2000), “Births: Final data for 1998,” National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 48, no. 3. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Ventura, S.J., Bachrach, C.A. (2000), “Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 16. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin S.C., Menacker,F., and Hamilton, B.E. (2001), “Births: Final data for 1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 49, no. 1. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
TABLE A2.2 Summary of reporting issues for the percentage of women receiving late or no prenatal care
| State |
Year(s) in which problem occurred |
Nature of change |
Implications of problem |
|
Massachusetts
|
1996
|
Massachusetts began asking for the exact date of the first prenatal care visit instead of the month prenatal care began.
|
Massachusetts began asking for the exact date of the first prenatal care visit instead of the month prenatal care began.
|
|
Ohio
|
1997-1999
|
According to NCHS data for Ohio, the percentage of births for which no prenatal care information was reported nearly doubled between 1996 and 1998. Over three-quarters of the reported statewide increase in the percentage of births with no prenatal care occurred in Cleveland and Columbus. In Cleveland, this percentage tripled between 1996 and 1998; in Columbus, this percentage increased nine fold. According to a representative of the Ohio Department of Health, this increase may be associated with incomplete recording of information on prenatal care by several hospitals in Cleveland and Columbus. In 1999, the percentage of births in which mothers were reported to receive later or no prenatal care dropped substantially in both Cleveland and Columbus. However, we have no information from the Ohio Department of Health as to why this happened.
|
Since the increase and subsequent decrease in the percentage of births in which no prenatal care was recorded may be due to reporting problems, the percentage of women receiving late or no prenatal care in 1997, 1998, and 1999 should be viewed with caution.
|
|
Pennsylvania and Washington
|
2003-2005
|
In 2003, Pennsylvania and Washington implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
The 2003-2005 prenatal data are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
The 2004-2005 prenatal data are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
New York
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, New York State (excluding New York City) implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
Because non-comparable questions on prenatal care have been used in two different parts of the state, data for 2004-2005 are not presented.
|
|
Florida and New Hampshire
|
2004-2005
|
In 2004 but after January 1, Florida and New Hampshire implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
Because non-comparable questions on prenatal care have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2004 are not presented. The 2005 prenatal data are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas
|
2005
|
On January 1, 2005, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
The 2005 prenatal data are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Vermont
|
2005
|
In 2005 but after January 1, Vermont implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on the timing of prenatal care was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision. In addition, the 2003 revision recommended that information be gathered from prenatal care and medical records; the 1989 standard certificate did not recommend a source be provided.
|
Because non-comparable questions on prenatal care have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2005 are not presented.
|
TABLE A2.3 Summary of reporting issues for the percentage of women with low maternal education
| State |
Year of change14 |
Nature of change |
Estimated effect of change |
|
Pennsylvania and Washington
|
2003-2005
|
In 2003, Pennsylvania and Washington implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
The 2003-2005 data on maternal education are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Pennsylvania and Washington
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
On January 1, 2004, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
|
New York
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, New York State (excluding New York City) implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
Because non-comparable questions on maternal education have been used in two different parts of the state, data for 2004-2005 are not presented.
|
|
Florida and New Hampshire
|
2004-2005
|
In 2004 but after January 1, Florida and New Hampshire implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
Because non-comparable questions on maternal education have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2004 are not presented. The 2005 data on maternal education are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas
|
2005
|
On January 1, 2005, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
The 2005 data on maternal education are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Vermont
|
2005
|
In 2005 but after January 1, Vermont implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on maternal education was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
Because non-comparable questions on maternal education have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2005 are not presented.
|
TABLE A2.4 Summary of reporting issues for the percentage of women who smoked during pregnancy
| State |
Year of change15 |
Nature of change |
Estimated effect of change |
|
California
|
1990-2005
|
No comparable data are available for the entire period.
|
|
|
Pennsylvania and Washington
|
2003-2005
|
In 2003, Pennsylvania and Washington implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
The 2003-2005 data on smoking during pregnancy are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
On January 1, 2004, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
|
New York
|
2004-2005
|
On January 1, 2004, New York State (excluding New York City) implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision
|
Because non-comparable questions on smoking during pregnancy have been used in two different parts of the state, data for 2004-2005 are not presented.
|
|
New Hampshire
|
2004-2005
|
In 2004 but after January 1, New Hampshire implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question on smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
Because non-comparable questions on smoking during pregnancy have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2004 are not presented and data for 2005 are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Florida
|
2004-2005
|
In 2004 but after January 1, Florida changed its questions on smoking during pregnancy but did not fully adopt the questions used in the 2003 revision.
|
Data for 2004-2005 on maternal smoking for Florida cannot be presented because the question on smoking on the Florida birth certificate is not comparable with either the 1989 revision or the 2003 revision questions.
|
|
Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas
|
2005
|
On January 1, 2005, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
The 2005 data smoking during pregnancy are not comparable with data for states using the 1989 revision or with data for earlier years for their own state.
|
|
Vermont
|
2005
|
In 2005 but after January 1, Vermont implemented the 2003 revision to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth wherein the question of smoking during pregnancy was changed between the 1989 revision and the 2003 revision.
|
Because non-comparable questions on smoking during pregnancy have been used in two different parts of the year, data for 2005 are not presented.
|
1 All information on the revision to the U.S. Certificate of Live Birth are based on the discussion in the Technical Notes of Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, Munson ML. Births: Final data for 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 56 no 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007. In some cases, to preserve the precision of the description of the changes, we have quoted directly from the report.
2 Martin, et al., 2006.
3 Unless otherwise indicated, this discussion and all direct quotations are drawn from Ventura, S.J., and Bachrach, C.A. (2000), “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99,” National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 48, no. 16. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
4 A paternity acknowledgment is an acknowledgment from a man who is not married to a child’s mother that he is the child’s father.
5 Technical Notes of Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, Munson ML. Births: Final data for 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 56 no 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.
6 Ventura, S.J., and Martin, J.A. (1993), “Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1990,” Monthly Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 41, no. 9 (supplement). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
7 With the exception of Connecticut, these changes took place at the beginning of the year cited. The date of Connecticut’s change was June 15.
8 Unless otherwise indicated, all 2003 revisions and reporting issues are based on Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Sutton, P.D., Ventura, S.J., Menacker, F., Munson, M.L. (2005). “Births: Final data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 54, no. 2. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
9 Martin, et al. 2006.
10 Martin, et al. (2007).
11 See Mathews, T.J. (1998), “Smoking During Pregnancy, 1990-96,” National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 47, no. 10, Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics and Mathews, T.J. (2001), “Smoking During Pregnancy in the 1990s,” National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 49, no. 7, Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
12 All changes occurred at the beginning of the year unless otherwise indicated.
13 Source: unpublished tabulation provided by Stephanie Ventura, National Center for Health Statistics.
14 All changes occurred at the beginning of the year unless otherwise indicated.
15 All changes occurred at the beginning of the year unless otherwise indicated.
| |