Maternal and Child Health
MODEL INDICATORS
FINAL REPORT
Developed by the MCH Model Indicators Working Group:
Charlyn Cassady, Johns Hopkins University
Anita Farel, University of North Carolina
Priscilla Guild, University of North Carolina
Joan Kennelly, University of Illinois at Chicago
Mary Peoples-Sheps (Chair), University of North Carolina
Patricia Potrzebowski, Pennsylvania Dept. of Health
Cheryl Waller, University of North Carolina
Coordinated at the School of Public Health,
University of North Carolina
November 14, 1997
Acknowledgments
Development of the MCH Model Indicators was greatly dependent upon the generous and gracious contributions of many experts in the field, especially those who participated in the development meetings, held in October, 1995 and June, 1997, and those who commented on the preliminary health status indicators in September, 1996. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated. The important contributions of Sarah Teagle to development of indicators for adolescents, of Cerise Knowles to collecting and organizing the information on data sources in Appendix B, and of Ruth Petersen, Ruth Benedict, Eleanor Locklin and Randahl Kirkendall for research assistance at various stages of the project are gratefully acknowledged. The MCH MI database was developed by Jane Stein, DrPH, whose talent, perseverance, and attention to detail are sincerely appreciated. Finally, the assistance of Bill Poole in preparing many of the materials used by the Working Group and of Lori Whitehand and Sarah Pfau in organizing the national meetings and supporting the project in innumerable other ways is acknowledged with thanks and applause.
Developed under a subcontract with the Public Health Foundation, Maternal and Child Health Information Resource Center, No. 240-94-0047.
Table of Contents
Page
Part 1: Introduction 1
Overview of the report 2
Purpose of the project 3
Guiding principles 4
Part 2: MCH Model Indicators 6
Conceptual Model 7
Rationale for a model 7
Domains 7
Relationships among domains 8
Categories of indicators within domains 8
Database 11
Descriptions of the indicators 14
Using the Indicators 155
Data sources 155
Rates based on small numbers of events 155
Model-based (synthetic) estimation 156
Using the conceptual model 156
Using the MCH MI in conjunction with
other sets of MCH indicators 164
Part 3: Process of Indicator Development 166
Background 167
General approach 168
Stratification by race and ethnicity 170
Generating concepts 171
Health status indicators 171
Risk/protective and health services indicators 173
Health systems and contextual indicators 174
Recommendations for further development
and ongoing revisions 175
References 177
Appendices (following page187)
A Several views of the MCH Model Indicators
B Descriptions of data sources for health status
indicators
C Special issues regarding data on injuries
D Rates based on small numbers
E Model-based (synthetic) estimation
F Existing MCH Data Sets, Spring, 1995
G Survey of MCH Leaders, Spring, 1995
H Model Data Set Consensus Conference,
October, 1995
I MCH Information Resource Center Subcontractors
Meeting, January, 1996
J Review of preliminary health status indicators,
September, 1996
K Model Indicators Stakeholders Meeting, June, 1997
Part 1
Introduction
Overview of the Report
In the following pages, a set of Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Model Indicators (MI) is presented. The Model Indicators are intended to be used as a barometer of present conditions of mothers and children in the United States and as a guide to the future development of MCH data sources. As a barometer of the present, the MCH MI reflect a wide range of key health problems and related factors that affect mothers and children. They were developed within a conceptual model that promotes analysis of health problems and development of interventions to address those problems. To allow for timely application, many of the indicators can be constructed from existing data sources. In their role as a guide to the future, the Model Indicators include some measures that are important to monitor but for which no available data sources could be located. These indicators are in the MCH MI to emphasize their importance and to encourage development of data sources that will permit routine surveillance of them. For many of these indicators, some movement towards developing or refining data bases to produce the necessary data elements is already underway.
The conceptual model used to guide development of the MCH MI has five domains: health status, risk/protective status, health (and related) services, health systems capacity and adequacy, and contextual characteristics. Indicators in three of the domains-- health status, health systems capacity and adequacy, and contextual characteristics -- lend themselves to routine surveillance. Indicators in the remaining two domains -- risk/protective status and health services -- should be examined closely, and perhaps monitored routinely, if related indicators in the other domains reach unacceptable values. Each of the indicators fits into one of the following levels of importance for routine surveillance:
Core indicators: 20 health status indicators that should definitely be monitored on a routine basis in order to provide a current snapshot of critical aspects of the health of mothers and children.
Recommended indicators: 55 health status indicators, 9 contextual indicators, and 16 health systems indicators that provide a more detailed view of the health of mothers and children and should be monitored on a routine basis, if possible.
Optional indicators: 49 indicators of risk/protective status and 68 indicators of health services that should be examined when related indicators in the other domains reach unacceptable levels.
This report is presented in three parts. Part 1: Introduction includes general background information about the report and the overall project. Part 2: MCH Model Indicators includes detailed descriptions of the indicators, technical information about the database in which they are stored, discussions of issues involved in calculating them, and guidance on how to use the indicators in MCH practice situations. Part 3: Process of Indicator Development describes the processes involved in developing the indicators and presents recommendations for continuing development and revisions.
The MCH Model Indicators represent a large step forward in a process that started in the early 1980s to develop measures of MCH with standard definitions that would support comparisons across jurisdictional and organizational boundaries. Developed with input from numerous people involved in Maternal and Child Health, including local, state and federal program personnel, advocates for MCH population groups, professional organization staff members, academicians, and researchers, this set of Model Indicators is offered to the MCH community by the MCH community as the next step in this ongoing process.
Purpose of the Project
The need for MCH Model Indicators is evident on many fronts:
Existing sets of indicators do not meet the needs described above. For example, Healthy People 2000 includes many indicators of maternal and child health and related factors, but the list of indicators is extensive and it is not organized to focus on the specific concerns of the MCH community. Other prominent sources of indicators at the national level, such as the new MCHB Title V Performance and Outcome Measures, are deliberately limited in scope because of the reporting requirements associated with them.
In response to evolving demands and long-term fundamental needs for data and information, the Division of Systems, Education and Science in MCHB (recently renamed Division of Science, Education and Analysis) developed an Overall Strategic Plan for Data Utilization and Enhancement. The strategic plan is a dynamic document which is revised frequently and provides a comprehensive set of strategies for enhancing data availability and use. One of those strategies is development and promulgation of a model set of indicators for MCH.
The MCH Model Indicators have a broad mission: to provide a panoramic view of the health of mothers and children, within a framework that encourages problem-solving. They include indicators capable of serving such diverse functions as needs assessment, policy and program development, evaluation, resource allocation, program and policy monitoring, quality assurance, and accountability. These indicators are not intended to be promulgated as requirements for any reporting or funding mechanism, although some of them are identical to required items in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 and to the new MCHB Performance and Outcome Measures.
Guiding Principles
To establish boundaries for the project and to promote consistency in the selection of indicators, the following principles were developed and applied:
Part 2
MCH Model Indicators
Conceptual Model
Rationale for a Model
To ensure that the indicators represent a studied and complete review of options, a broad framework for development was essential. Selecting a framework reflective of the work of many MCH practitioners was also a high priority because it would encourage useful interpretations of the indicators. The model shown in Figure 1 met both of these criteria. It is a variation of a model typically used in program and policy planning.
The model was created after reviewing several other frameworks, beginning with regional models developed by members of the MI Working Group, including those of the Region IV Network for Data Management and Utilization (RNDMU) and the Midwest Maternal and Child Health Data Improvement Project (MMDIP), and then expanding to other relevant work (e.g., the Child and Adolescent Health Policy Center, 1995; Health Systems Research, 1996).
Domains
The model includes five domains selected to reflect health status problems of mothers and children and factors that contribute to those problems.
Health status: Level of health as expressed by indicators of reproductive health for women 15-44 years, and indicators of a wide array of health conditions of infants, children, and adolescents.
Risk/protective status: Level of risk for or protection from health problems.
Health and related services: Utilization of prevention, treatment, and rehabilitative health and health-related services.
Health system capacity and adequacy: Availability of services for mothers, children and families, and coordination of those services to meet population needs.
Contextual characteristics: Characteristics of the community or total population of mothers and children that reflect needs for services.
Relationships among Domains
The primary relationships among the domains in the model are indicated by arrows in Figure 1. While specific indicators may have many other associations, the relationships shown in Figure 1 represent the rationales for selecting these particular domains to guide development and interpretation of the Model Indicators. The health status domain represents the primary focus of all interventions in MCH. The health status of a population, in turn, is influenced by characteristics that place the population at risk for, or provide protection from, a health condition. These characteristics are affected by the health services the population uses. As the model suggests, use of health services also affects health status independent of its effects on risk/protective characteristics. In the environment of these three conceptual domains are two others that have important influences on health services and maternal/child and family characteristics: the capacity and adequacy of the health system and the context in which the population lives.
Categories of Indicators within Domains
Within each of the domains, categories of indicators were identified to ensure that no relevant group of indicators was overlooked . In essence, the categories and subcategories served as an outline for the indicator development process. The first set of categories was derived from the MCH and CSHCN directors’ questions, the sources noted above for selection of domains, and the MCH Overall Strategic Plan for Data Utilization and Enhancement. Other categories evolved as the work unfolded. Table 1 is a list of categories and subcategories.
Table 1
Categories and Subcategories
of Indicators In Each Domain of the Conceptual Model
Domain Category Subcategory
Health status Perinatal morbidity Maternal health
Condition at birth
Prenatal exposures
Disease and injury morbidity Communicable diseases
Sexually transmitted diseases
Nutritional deficiencies
Dental diseases
Chronic diseases
Injuries
Physical and psycho-social Behavioral/emotional
functioning disorders
Sensory impairments
Other
Mortality Total mortality
Cause-specific mortality
Risk/protective status Environmental risks
Health behaviors
History
Nutrition and exercise
Perinatal risk factors
Safety
Sexual practices
Social situation
Health service utilization Health-related services
Preventive services
Primary care services
Specialty care services
Health system capacity Availability of services
and adequacy Acceptability of services
Accessibility of services
Scope of services
Coordination of services
Contextual characteristics Demographic factors
Database
The MCH Model Indicators are stored in a Filemaker Pro database. Filemaker Pro is a versatile program that is available for both IBM-type and Apple Macintosh computers. It has the capability to prepare self-contained databases that can be opened by a user who does not own the program.
The database presently provides several views of the data, some of which are presented in this part of the report, while others are in Appendix A. Specific characteristics and response options included in the database are described below.
Indicator ID: Alphanumeric code assigned to each indicator
Indicator name: Descriptive name
Formula: Numerator, denominator and multiplier. Formulas are presented as rates, proportions, or frequency counts. Indicators of extremely rare events are presented as rates or proportions if one of these is the conventional manner of reporting. Otherwise they are presented as frequency counts.
Domain: One of the following:
Category: Category within the selected domain, as listed in Table 1
Subcategory: Subcategory within selected category, as listed in Table 1
Population groups: Standard age groups for children are <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 0-19. Standard groups for women are 15-17, 18-19, 20-34, and 35-44. Non-standard age groups and gender strata (for infants, children and adolescents) are recommended when research findings and/or data availability suggest that they should be. The phrase in specific population is used in many formulas and refers to the age/gender categories specified for the indicator.*
Recent values: The most recent values for each health status indicator stratified by the recommended age/gender groupings are presented whenever available. In many cases, the data available in published sources do not correspond exactly with recommended strata. For a few indicators, values could not be located in published materials, even when a data source was identified (e.g., sickle cell hospitalization rates).
Reference for recent values: Reference for the recent value.
Existing data source, numerator: One or more data sources required to calculate the numerator of the indicator. When more than one source is given, all of them are required. However, an understanding of the information that precedes this entry is important to accurate interpretation. In some cases, data from more than one source should be combined to produce the indicator. In other cases, different data sources are required to calculate the indicator for different population groups.
Existing data source, denominator: One or more data sources required to calculate the denominator of the indicator. When more than one source is given, all of them are required. However, an understanding of the information that precedes this entry is important for accurate interpretation. In some cases, data from more than one source should be combined to produce the denominator. In other cases, different data sources are required to calculate the denominator for different population groups.
If the indicator is based on survey data, both numerator and denominator are from the same data source. To use the values derived from national or state-level surveys in smaller areas, model-based (synthetic) estimation must be used. See Appendix K for more details.
Availability of data sources required to produce the indicator:
Importance:
Consistency with HP 2000 or OBRA ‘89:
Rationale for including in the MCH MI: Reason for inclusion
Other references: References for general reading about the importance of the condition represented by the indicator and relevant measurement issues.
Comments: Statements about noteworthy aspects of the indicators, including substantive definitions of conditions, discussions of measurement issues, and observations about any of the characteristics listed above.
Relationships: Associations among indicators. Relationships are noted for health status, risk/protective and health service indicators. In most cases, these relationships constitute a rationale for including the risk/protective and health service indicators in the MI. Other relationships that may be documented in the literature are not noted here because a systematic search for all other relationships was not conducted. The contextual and health systems indicators are extensively interconnected with the others. These relationships are not listed because the lists would be lengthy and repetitious and the relationships are fairly well-known.
-------------
The database presently contains the complete information on indicators for this stage of the project, and it is designed to communicate its potential to users. The database structure is flexible and future-oriented. Additional information is easily added; additional indicators are easily appended; and the information can be easily retrieved, sorted, and formatted for a variety of printed reports. The computer files, themselves, can be polished and distributed to users.
As presently designed, the Filemaker Pro system has four main files:
In addition, the database contains an auxiliary file (HStatRel.fm) that holds information on the linkages between the health status indicators and the risk/protective and health services indicators. This file contains one record for each linkage—the indicator ids and indicator names for each pair of linked health status and risk/protective or health services indicators. Thus there are multiple entries for those health status indicators that are linked to more than one risk/protective or health services indicator and vice versa. The ids are entered into this file and the names are added using a lookup function that goes to HStatus.fm or RP_HSrv.fm for the names. If any names are changed in that original file, the change will not be automatically made in HStatRel.fm. To incorporate the change, it is necessary to open HStatRel.fm, select any related id, and then use the relookup command to update this information. The information from this link file is then used within both HStatus.fm and RP_HSrv.fm to incorporate the indicator ids and indicator names of linked variables (on the fly) in the standard report and can be used for other screens and reports as desired.
Finally, there is a small work file (Merged.fm) that brings together some information from the three data files, including indicator id and name, importance code, domain, and category.
Filemaker Pro is also commonly used to prepare data for access via the Worldwide Web. The current version of the database does not take advantage of this potential, but a Filemaker Pro programmer could make the necessary modifications. Since data presentation is best designed with a full understanding of user needs, more extensive development of this database should occur when the future uses and users have been specifically identified.
Descriptions of the Indicators
The MCH Model Indicators are presented in two different ways in this section. First, the indicators are listed by importance, domain, and category in Table 2. This is followed by printouts of all the information in the database for each indicator. The amount and type of information varies by domain. Health status indicators have the most complete descriptions, followed by contextual and health systems indicators. These indicators have importance codes of core or recommended for routine surveillance. Indicators of risk/protective status and health services include relatively less information. They are presented as optional for routine surveillance or investigation of health status indicators that reach levels of concern. For a complete discussion of the rationales for assigning importance levels, see Part 3 of this report
Table 2
MCH Model Indicators
by Importance, Domain and Category
Importance: Core Indicators
Domain: Health Status
Category: Disease and injury morbidity
HST015 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases - measles |
HST021 |
Gonorrhea incidence rate |
HST024 |
HIV prevalence rate |
HST025 |
Anemia prevalence rate |
HST029 |
Overweight prevalence rate |
HST030 |
Blood lead poisoning rate |
HST032 |
Asthma hospitalization rate |
HST035 |
Invasive cervical cancer incidence rate |
HST046 |
Attempted suicide rate |
Category: Mortality
HST056 |
Maternal mortality ratio |
HST058 |
Infant mortality rate |
HST060 |
Postneonatal mortality of term infants weighing >2500 grams at birth |
HST063 |
Extremely low birthweight-specific infant mortality rate |
HST065 |
Motor vehicle-occupant mortality rate |
HST070 |
Fire/hot object or substance mortality rate |
HST075 |
Firearm mortality rate |
Category: Perinatal morbidity
HST004 |
% term low birthweight |
HST005 |
% extremely low birthweight |
HST008 |
Neural Tube Defects (NTD) prevalence rate |
Category: Physical and psycho-social functioning
HST050 |
Tobacco dependence rate |
Importance: Recommended Indicators
Domain: Health Status
Category: Disease and injury morbidity
HST011 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases---diphtheria |
HST012 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—tetanus |
HST013 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—pertussis |
HST014 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—polio |
HST016 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—mumps |
HST017 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—rubella |
HST018 |
Incidence of vaccine preventable diseases—hemophilus influenza B meningitis |
HST019 |
Hepatitis B incidence rate |
HST020 |
Tuberculosis incidence rate |
HST022 |
Chlamydia incidence rate |
HST023 |
Primary and secondary syphilis incidence rate |
HST026 |
Growth retardation prevalence rate |
HST027 |
Failure to thrive prevalence rate |
HST028 |
Underweight prevalence rate |
HST031 |
Dental caries prevalence rate |
HST033 |
Diabetes hospitalization rate |
HST034 |
Sickle cell disease hospitalization rate |
HST036 |
Motor vehicle-occupant injury hospitalization rate |
HST037 |
Motor vehicle-pedestrian injury hospitalization rate |
HST038 |
Motor vehicle-pedalcycle injury hospitalization rate |
HST039 |
Non-automobile motor vehicle injury hospitalization rate |
HST040 |
Fire/hot object injury hospitalization rate |
HST041 |
Poisoning incidence rate |
HST042 |
Firearm injury hospitalization rate |
HST043 |
Fall injury hospitalization rate |
HST044 |
Cut/pierce injury hospitalization rate |
HST045 |
Assault injury incidence rate |
Category: Mortality
HST057 |
Fetal mortality rate |
HST059 |
Neonatal mortality rate |
HST061 |
Perinatal mortality rate |
HST062 |
Low birthweight-specific infant mortality rate |
HST064 |
SIDS rate |
HST066 |
Motor vehicle-pedestrian mortality rate |
HST067 |
Motor vehicle-pedalcycle mortality rate |
HST068 |
Other transport vehicle mortality rate |
HST069 |
Drowning/submersion mortality rate |
HST071 |
Mortality due to suffocation rate |
HST072 |
Asthma mortality |
HST073 |
Homicide rate |
HST074 |
Suicide rate |
Category: Perinatal morbidity
HST001 |
Prenatal hospitalization ratio |
HST002 |
Ectopic pregnancy incidence ratio |
HST003 |
% preterm low birthweight |
HST006 |
% preterm births |
HST007 |
Down Syndrome prevalence rate |
HST009 |
Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) prevalence rate |
HST010 |
Congenital syphilis incidence rate |
Category: Physical and psycho-social functioning
HST047 |
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) prevalence rate |
HST048 |
Depression prevalence rate |
HST049 |
Alcohol use rate |
HST051 |
Drug use rate |
HST052 |
Hearing impairment prevalence rate |
HST053 |
Visual impairment prevalence rate |
HST054 |
Functional limitations prevalence rate |
HST055 |
Confirmed child abuse/neglect rate |
Domain: Contextual Characteristics
Category: Demographics
CTXT001 |
% of total population in each age/sex population group |
CTXT002 |
Reported pregnancy rate |
CTXT003 |
% of population with incomes below 100% of federal poverty levels |
CTXT004 |
% of population with incomes below 200% of federal poverty levels |
CTXT005 |
% children <18 living in families with income below 100% of federal poverty level |
CTXT006 |
% children <18 living with families with income below 200% of federal poverty level |
CTXT007 |
% of population who live in rural areas |
CTXT008 |
% of single parent households with children under age 18 in household |
CTXT009 |
% individuals ages 16-24 who are out of school and who have not completed high school |
Domain: Health System Capacity and Adequacy
Category: Acceptability of services
HSYS004 |
% of women satisfied with their prenatal care |
HSYS005 |
% of parents of children age 2 years satisfied with primary child health care |
Category: Accessibility of services
HSYS006 |
% of population who reside in a primary health care professional shortage area |
HSYS007 |
% of population who reside in a mental health care professional shortage area |
HSYS008 |
% of population who reside in a dental health care professional shortage area |
HSYS009 |
% children < 18 uninsured for some time during past 12 months |
HSYS010 |
% obstetrical practices that actively participate in state Medicaid program |
HSYS011 |
% primary care provider groups that actively participate in state Medicaid program for children |
Category: Availability of services
HSYS001 |
Ratio of resident live births and fetal deaths to providers of prenatal care |
HSYS002 |
Ratio of children to providers of primary child health care |
HSYS003 |
% of counties that have implemented community-based fetal and child mortality reviews |
Category: Coordination of services
HSYS014 |
% of NICUs that follow defined referral criteria |
HSYS015 |
% live births < 1500 grams who were delivered at a risk-appropriate facility |
HSYS016 |
% children with special health care needs who have a medical home |
Category: Scope of services
HSYS012 |
% of primary care provider groups serving children who participate in Vaccines for Children (VFC) program |
HSYS013 |
% of publicly financed managed care plans using MCH/CSHCN standards of care |
Importance: Optional Indicators
Domain: Risk/Protective Status
Category: Environment
RPST001 |
% children exposed to passive tobacco smoke |
RPST002 |
% children living in housing with lead-based paint |
Category: Health behaviors
RPST003 |
% infants who sleep in the prone position |
RPST004 |
% women reporting personal or partner use of injectable drugs |
RPST005 |
% children with good oral hygiene |
RPST006 |
% children with diabetes under control |
RPST008 |
Alcohol use rate |
RPST009 |
Drug use rate |
Category: Health conditions
RPST007 |
Confirmed child abuse/neglect rate |
RPST010 |
% of postneonatal deaths due to infant infections |
RPST011 |
% children with strabismus |
RPST012 |
% children with chronic health condition |
RPST013 |
Chlamydia incidence rate |
RPST014 |
Gonorrhea incidence rate |
RPST015 |
Primary and secondary syphilis incidence rate |
RPST016 |
Prenatal hospitalization ratio |
RPST017 |
% preterm low birthweight |
RPST018 |
% term low birthweight |
Category: History
RPST019 |
% of children with family history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder |
RPST020 |
% children with parental history of child abuse or neglect |
RPST021 |
% children with family history of drug and/or alcohol abuse |
RPST022 |
% children with history of depression in primary caretaker |
Category: Nutrition and exercise
RPST023 |
% children regularly using vitamin/iron supplements |
RPST024 |
% infants breast fed |
RPST025 |
% children with inadequate dietary intake |
RPST026 |
% children who exercise 3 times per week |
Category: Perinatal risk factors
RPST027 |
% of pregnant women with vaginal infections |
RPST028 |
% pregnant women who smoke |
RPST029 |
% of pregnant women with adequate weight gain |
RPST030 |
% of live births with birth defects |
RPST031 |
Rate of maternal infections in the perinatal period |
RPST032 |
Maternal substance abuse rate |
RPST033 |
Rate of live births and fetal deaths in older mothers |
RPST034 |
% women with knowledge about use of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects |
RPST035 |
% alcohol abuse during pregnancy |
RPST036 |
% providers with knowledge about use of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects |
Category: Safety
RPST037 |
% children with access to firearms |
RPST038 |
% children routinely exposed to gang behavior |
RPST039 |
% children using age-appropriate restraints in automobiles (infant seats, seat belts) |
RPST040 |
% homes with smoke alarms |
RPST041 |
% children using reflective clothing |
RPST042 |
% children using crosswalks/following traffic rules |
RPST043 |
% children using bicycle helmets consistently |
Category: Sexual practices
RPST044 |
% unintended pregnancies |
RPST045 |
% condom use |
RPST046 |
% women with more than one sexual partner in the past six months |
Category: Social situation
RPST047 |
% children living with domestic violence among adult partners |
RPST048 |
% of children living with adults who use drugs or abuse alcohol |
RPST049 |
% women and children with inadequate social support |
Domain: Health and related services
Category: Health-related services
HSV001 |
% pregnant smokers who participated in a smoking cessation program |
HSV002 |
% pregnant women who received WIC |
HSV003 |
% pregnant women who were treated for substance abuse |
HSV004 |
% pregnant alcohol users who received alcohol control interventions |
HSV005 |
% children with anemia enrolled in WIC |
HSV006 |
% of failure to thrive children enrolled in WIC |
HSV007 |
% of underweight children enrolled in WIC |
HSV008 |
% children who participate in physical education programs at school |
HSV009 |
% children receiving early intervention services |
HSV010 |
EMS and 911 Response time |
HSV011 |
% assault victims who received case management |
HSV012 |
Poison control center use ratio |
HSV013 |
% children using water safety classes and/or swimming lessons |
HSV014 |
% adolescents receiving formal driver training |
HSV015 |
% parents receiving training in CPR and management of choking |
HSV016 |
% adolescents treated for alcohol/drug abuse |
HSV017 |
% children receiving regular care from allied health professionals |
HSV018 |
% children using assistive devices |
HSV019 |
% families at risk receiving home visiting services |
HSV020 |
% children receiving special education services |
Category: Preventive services
HSV021 |
% pregnant women who received parenting education |
HSV022 |
% pregnant women who received education/counseling about prevention of SIDS |
HSV023 |
% maternal deaths reviewed by a designated maternal mortality review team |
HSV024 |
% of women > 35 years who received counseling about prevention of Down Syndrome |
HSV025 |
% new mothers who received education about breastfeeding during pregnancy |
HSV026 |
% 2 year olds with up-to-date immunizations |
HSV027 |
% adolescents and women counseled about STDs |
HSV028 |
% adolescents and women counseled for HIV |
HSV029 |
% children receiving topical fluoride |
HSV030 |
% children with dental sealants |
HSV031 |
% parents of young children who received education about child safety |
HSV032 |
% children who received education about safety |
HSV033 |
% children receiving training in conflict resolution in school |
Category: Primary care
HSV034 |
% pregnant women who had a preconceptional risk assessment |
HSV035 |
% pregnant women with adequate prenatal care |
HSV036 |
% pregnant women screened for vaginal infections |
HSV037 |
% pregnant women who received a pregnancy test in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy |
HSV038 |
% pregnant women with complications who received appropriate diagnosis and management |
HSV039 |
% low income women in need of family planning services who received them |
HSV040 |
% pregnant women >35 years who received prenatal screening for Down Syndrome |
HSV041 |
% women using preconceptional folate therapy |
HSV042 |
% pregnant women screened for syphilis |
HSV043 |
% pregnant women screened for HIV |
HSV044 |
% STD-positive pregnant women who received CDC treatment to prevent in utero transmission |
HSV045 |
% newborns screened for metabolic disorders |
HSV046 |
% children screened for TB |
HSV047 |
% women and children screened for STDs |
HSV048 |
% women and children at risk for HIV screened for HIV |
HSV049 |
% children who have a medical home |
HSV050 |
% adolescents with anorexia receiving treatment |
HSV051 |
% overweight children who received nutrition counseling |
HSV052 |
% children screened for blood lead level |
HSV053 |
% children with asthma who have a medical home |
HSV054 |
% children with diabetes who have a medical home |
HSV055 |
% children with sickle cell disease who have a medical home |
HSV056 |
% children with sickle cell disease using a preventive regimen |
HSV057 |
% women who received a Pap test in the past year |
HSV058 |
% adolescents receiving counseling on substance abuse |
HSV059 |
% children screened for visual impairment |
HSV060 |
% newborns screened for hearing impairment |
HSV061 |
% newborns with potential hearing impairment identified through screening and referred |
HSV062 |
% children hearing impaired who have a medical home |
HSV063 |
% children with special health care needs who have a medical home |
Category: Specialty care
HSV064 |
% live births < 1500 grams who were delivered at a risk-appropriate facility |
HSV065 |
% live births with antenatal or intrapartal complications managed by an obstetrician-gynecologist |
HSV066 |
% women and children using mental health services |
HSV067 |
% children receiving services of the state CSHCN program |
HSV068 |
% children under the regular care of a medical specialist |
Using the Indicators
Data Sources
Descriptions of most of the data sources recommended for health status, health system and contextual indicators are in Appendix B. Some of these data sources will also support generation of risk/protective indicators and of a few health services indicators. Most of the health services indicators, however, depend on local data sources. Since the availability of data varies across indicators and geographic areas, users are encouraged to work with vital and health statistics staff at state or local levels to identify which data sources are available to them.
Injury morbidity data are especially difficult to locate at the present time. However, efforts are underway to address this shortcoming. See Appendix C for a description of current initiatives to improve the availability of data on injuries.
Many of the indicators require denominators derived from census data. Since census data are collected every ten years, they become increasingly inaccurate as each decade progresses. States vary in the frequency, complexity, and methodology of their incensal population updates, often based on data from the Current Population Survey. The best method for obtaining good quality population estimates in the age/gender/racial groups required for the MCH Model Indicators would be through continual estimation of the census. A bill to support continual estimation is currently under consideration by Congress.
Rates Based on Small Numbers of Events
Several of the MCH Model Indicators represent rare events, which present unique problems when they are used to calculate rates or proportions. This is a particularly prevalent problem in sparsely populated geographic areas and in age, gender or race-specific population groups. In the MCH MI, rare event indicators are stated as rates, percentages or frequency counts, depending on which of these modalities is conventionally used. When the indicators of rare events are stated as rates or percentages, users should take the following precautions, as recommended by the National Center for Health Statistics: The rate or percentage should not be calculated if the numerator is based on fewer than 20 cases. If the numerator is between 20 and 100 cases, the rate or percentage can be calculated but it should be accompanied by a cautionary statement regarding interpretation (Ventura, et. al., 1994). Another approach to dealing with small numerator frequencies is to combine data across time periods and geographic areas. For more information on these topics, see Appendix D of this report, Problems with Rates Based on Small Numbers (Buescher, 1997), and the Technical Appendix of the annual report, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume I, Natality.
Model-Based (Synthetic) Estimation
For a number of the health status and risk/protective indicators, the only available data sources are national or state surveys. To use data from these sources to calculate rates or percentages in smaller geographic areas, model-based (synthetic) estimation techniques must be applied. Model-based (synthetic) estimation is a process of applying the rate or percentage of a condition or risk/protective factor derived from a survey to the population in a geographic area of interest, thus producing an estimate of the number of cases of the condition or risk factor within the area. The estimate can be refined by estimating the number of cases with the condition for relevant strata (e.g., age/gender/racial groups) of the population. The resulting estimates for each stratum are then summed to produce an estimate of total cases in a larger segment of the population. An estimated rate or percentage is generated by dividing the synthetic estimate of the number of cases for the population by the true number of people in the population and applying the appropriate multiplier in the formula (e.g., 100, 1000).
The key to using this process correctly is to select strata that are relevant to the condition or risk and available within the local population data base (usually census data for MCH Model Indicators). Model-based (synthetic) estimates should be used with care. It is always better to use data derived from the population of concern. Synthetic estimation is only appropriate when no other option is available, as is the case for some important child health indicators (e.g., anemia, overweight).
Additional guidance and examples of model-based estimation are in Synthetic Estimation Process (PA Department of Health, 1994) and Standardization of Rates and Synthetic Estimation (Rosenberg, 1997) both of which are reproduced in Appendix E. For a more technical discussion, see Small Area Estimation: An Empirical Comparison of Conventional and Synthetic Estimators for States (NCHS, 1979)
Using the Conceptual Model
The MCH Model Indicators were developed within the framework of a conceptual model (Figure 1) that also serves as a guide to interpretation. To use the model effectively, the core health status indicators should be monitored on a routine schedule, such as annually or semi-annually. If possible, the remaining health status indicators, especially the ones that can be calculated from the same data sources as the core indicators, should also be under surveillance on a routine basis. Also recommended for routine surveillance, if circumstances permit, are the contextual and health systems indicators. To carry out these surveillance activities, users may wish to obtain two other products developed through the MCH Information Resource Center. Indicator Templates developed by the Family Health Outcomes Project provide for easy data entry and straightforward analysis of trends in rates and proportions (FHOP, 1996). Methods for trend analysis and a discussion of related issues are in Trend Analysis and Interpretation: Key Concepts and Methods for Maternal and Child Health Professionals (Rosenberg, 1997).
When any of the routinely monitored indicators achieve levels of concern*, the associated risk/protective and health services indicators should be reviewed. That review may, in turn, lead to a broader examination of other factors that influence the health status indicator.
Figures 2 through 7 demonstrate how Model Indicators fit together within the conceptual models for six of the core health status indicators. The relationships can be interpreted as follows, using Figure 3 as an example. The neural tube defects (NTDs) prevalence rate is a core Model Indicator that should be monitored on a regular basis. An unacceptably high rate would trigger assessment of indicators of risk/protection for NTDs (e.g., knowledge about folate therapy on the part of women of childbearing ages and providers of primary care) and use of appropriate interventions or services (e.g., periconceptional folate therapy, preconceptional risk assessment). Results of this assessment may lead to questions about the health system in which services are offered (e.g., use of MCH/CSHCN standards of care, mortality reviews, provider availability) and the larger context in which the problem exists (e.g., levels of poverty and educational achievement). With this understanding of several dimensions of the problem of NTDs, decisions can be made about what to investigate further (e.g., why women are not aware of the importance of periconceptional folate therapy) and which specific interventions to implement or modify in order to address the NTD problem.
The close relationships between health status indicators and the risk/protective and health service indicators associated with them are apparent in Figures 2 through 7. These figures also show that indicators of contextual characteristics and health systems capacity and adequacy have broader applications, as demonstrated by the extent to which these indicators are repeated across the figures. Unacceptable levels of these indicators, therefore, may be associated with many risk factors, health service deficiencies and, ultimately, health conditions. For example, a shortage of primary care providers, detected through monitoring indicators of health systems, could affect use of such services as preconceptional risk assessments, folate therapy, smoking cessation, immunizations, primary care for children, and counseling and screening for STDs. Poor utilization of these services may, in turn, influence levels of risk for a variety of health status conditions (e.g., knowledge about folate therapy, smoking during pregnancy, use of condoms) and the extent of the health conditions themselves (e.g., low birth weight at term, NTDs, measles, gonorrhea, asthma hospitalization). This type of review of the influence of a shortcoming in the health system (e.g., shortage of primary care providers) on risks, services, and health status can be used to generate support for addressing the system level deficiency.
Using the MCH Model Indicators in
Conjunction with Other Sets of MCH Indicators
The MCH Model Indicators were developed to satisfy needs for measures that are not met by other sets of indicators. Thus they are intended to complement the other sets and, when appropriate, to be used in conjunction with them. Four highly related sets of indicators were considered carefully in the MCH MI development process. When using the MCH Model Indicators, an understanding of how they complement the other sets of indicators will be useful.
MCHB Performance and Outcome Measures. The Performance and Outcome Measures were under development during the last year of the MCH MI Project. The goals of the two development efforts were different but there is a great deal of consistency between the results of the two projects. Indicators of newborn metabolic screening, up-to-date immunizations at age 2, protective sealants, CSHCN with a medical home, uninsured children, infant mortality, neonatal mortality, and perinatal mortality are essentially the same in the MCH MI and the MCHB Performance and Outcome Indicators. Three other indicators measure the same concepts but use slightly different formulas:
There are many more indicators in the MCH MI than there are MCHB Performance and Outcome Measures. From the MCH MI, states may choose to select additional ("negotiated") indicators for routine surveillance and reporting. Also, by using the conceptual model as a framework, MCH Model Indicators can be used to explain values on Performance or Outcome Measures.
MCHB Systems Indicators. An MCHB Working Group was developing indicators of health systems relevant to MCH prior to December, 1995. This group produced two documents on System Indicators. One of those documents, System Indicators: Development of Community Performance Measures, recommended development of systems indicators within five categories (called primary measures). The MCH Model Indicators, while not satisfying every concept identified in that document, are very responsive to the following four of the five categories: 1) early identification and referral system, 2) primary and specialized health service network, 3) family satisfaction and quality of care, and 4) assessment, development, and coordination of primary, specialized, and related services. In the MCH MI, indicators in these categories are found in both the health systems and health services domains. The fifth category identified by the Systems Indicator Working Group, family participation, is not addressed in the MCH Model Indicators. The Model Indicators that correspond with the community performance measures may be used as leading indicators of system performance. When problems are identified by monitoring these leading indicators, additional community performance measures should be examined.
Healthy People 2000 and OBRA’89. Many of the indicators in the MCH MI also correspond with indicators in Healthy People 2000 and in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. Other Model Indicators are similar but reflect new developments in conceptualization, measurement and/or data source availability. Correspondence between MCH MI and these sets of indicators is coded in the Filemaker Pro database. Tables showing correspondence between the indicator sets are included in Appendix A.
Part 3
Process of Indicator Development
Background
In October, 1994, identification of the components of the MCH MI began under the leadership of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau through a contract with the Public Health Foundation, the Maternal and Child Health Information Resource Center (MCHIRC), and subcontracts with selected universities and organizations represented by the MCH MI Working Group. The first issue addressed by the Working Group was whether to focus on: 1) identification of specific data elements to be collected or 2) indicators to be reported. Either approach would satisfy the broad language in the Overall Strategic Plan for Data Utilization and Enhancement. While there were good reasons to go in either direction, resources were available to pursue only one. To resolve this issue, initial work on the project involved three activities:
The results of these three activities suggested that the Working Group should focus on indicators. Other projects like the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics’ Core Health Data Elements Project (NCHS, 1996), were focusing on data elements. The focus of that committee was not specific to MCH. However, it was clear that before specific data elements in MCH areas could be identified, it was necessary to specify the concepts to be measured and to determine whether the elements required to construct measures of them were available in existing data sources. This could be done while developing indicators. Also, a national level comprehensive effort to develop MCH indicators, had not been conducted for more than a decade (Miller, et. al., 1986). No nationally-accepted set of MCH indicators that was broad enough to characterize the MCH population and could be used to guide development of data bases while also providing a frame of reference for interpretation of maternal and child health data was found.
In January, 1996, during an MCHIRC subcontractors meeting, the decision to proceed with development of indicators for reporting data rather than elements for collecting data was reached (Appendix I). The MCH Model Indicators are the result of this decision. They are a collection of measures that taken together give an indication of the health of mothers and children, and corresponding needs for specific actions. The measures in the MI are primarily rates and proportions, supplemented by sentinel indicators for important but rare events.
General Approach
The process for development of the MCH Model Indicators had five major components:
Concept: The underlying condition or factor to be represented by the indicator.
Measure: The formula that best represents the concept, including definitions of key terms.
Population group: Age/gender population group(s) to which the indicator applies.
Data source(s): Existing data bases with data elements necessary to construct the formula.
Importance: Relative priority (core, recommended or optional) for routine surveillance placed on the indicator.
As development of the indicators proceeded, it became apparent that each component could not be fully developed for each indicator because of the time-consuming nature of the development process which was complicated by the different functions of the domains in the conceptual model. Identifying concepts in all domains involved a significant amount of time, partly because identification of some concepts was dependent upon identification of others (e.g., risk/protective concepts were derived from health status concepts). Once identified, another investment of time was required to select appropriate measures of the concept, especially if there were many options, and then locate a data source, if one existed. As a result, it was necessary to establish priorities for time and other resource allocation within the limits of the project. Since health status indicators are the foundation of the entire set of indicators, they were accorded highest priority; that is, they were developed first and all of the associated components were completed.
Risk/protective and health service indicators presented a different set of challenges. The conceptual model calls for them to have very close links to the health status indicators. As a result, at least one indicator in each of these domains was identified for each health status indicator, thus producing a large number even though some are associated with more than one health status condition. Also, because of the close linkages with specific health conditions, the extent to which risk/protective and health service indicators need to be monitored regularly as part of a routine surveillance system depends to some extent upon whether the associated health status indicator reaches a level of concern. Finally, the data for indicators in these two domains is, in general, dependent on local data bases which vary greatly across the country. These peculiar circumstances of risk/protective and health service indicators led to a decision to develop them last and to focus greatest attention within these domains on identifying concepts.
The indicators of contextual characteristics and health systems capacity and adequacy are intended to have broader application than the risk/protective and health services indicators. Each of them affects many risk/protective and health service factors and, in turn, health conditions. Moreover, many of them can be constructed from existing, widely available, data bases and should be monitored on a routine basis to assure an acceptable health system infrastructure and to assess demographic changes in population groups that may affect needs for services. Indicators in these two domains were developed after the health status indicators. All of the components were addressed, although additional work in some areas is still warranted.
All of the indicators were coded according to importance using the following scale:
Core: Indicators that should definitely be monitored on a routine basis in order to provide a current snapshot of critical aspects of the health of mothers and children.
Recommended: Indicators that provide a more detailed view of the health of mothers and children and should be monitored on a routine basis, if possible.
Optional: Indicators that should be examined when related indicators in the other domains reach unacceptable levels.
Only indicators with fully developed components were considered for inclusion in the core set of MCH Model Indicators. Thus, the core group consists exclusively of health status indicators. Health status indicators that are not core are recommended. Also in the recommended category are the contextual and health systems indicators. The optional category includes risk/protective and health service indicators. With further development, some of the indicators in the latter four domains would probably be reclassified as core. For example, a risk/protective indicator like unintended pregnancy and a health service indicator like immunization status of 2 year olds may be considered essential for routine surveillance. Thus, continued development of indicators in the latter four domains would lead to some expansion of the core set of 20. However, expansion of the core set beyond a reasonable number (30-40 total) is not recommended.
Stratification by Race and Ethnicity
As indicated above, the indicator development plan included specification of age/gender categories for each of the indicators. However, race and ethnic categories are not specified for each indicator. The indicators should be reported by race and ethnicity: 1) when there is evidence that they would provide information on current or emerging disparities across racial/ethnic groups; 2) if they are being used to monitor potential discriminatory practices; or 3) if there is another good reason to stratify.
To be able to construct indicators by race and ethnic groups, data must be collected in the appropriate categories. In support of the Public Health Service Task Force on Minority Health Data’s recommendation to include the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard item on race and ethnicity in all uniform health data sets developed or sponsored by the Public Health Service, the MCH MI Working Group recommends that at a minimum, the racial and ethnic categories soon to be promulgated in the revised OMB Directive 15, be included in all data sets needed to produce the model indicators. A final version should be available in October, 1997. Users who need more refined racial or ethnic groupings are encouraged to collect them in a way that will allow aggregation up to the categories in the revised OMB Directive 15.
This recommendation is made to serve the interests of public health for monitoring population differences in health and related indicators, including emerging and changing disparities, as well as facilitating resource allocation and targeted interventions. It supports, for example, measurement of the disparity between black and white infant mortality rates, one of the MCHB outcome measures. At the same time, the Working Group is mindful of the problems with using race and ethnic-specific indicators. Since racial and ethnic categories are social constructs which have no scientific or anthropological meaning, interpretation of disparities and health differentials by race and/or ethnic groups requires the simultaneous analysis of additional socio-economic indicators (e.g., income, education, social status and class) to further elucidate the meaning of race and ethnicity in society.
Generating Concepts
One of the major components of an indicator is its underlying concept. Several steps were required to produce the initial set of concepts for the MCH Model Indicators. The first draft of concepts in all five domains was developed by the working group to correspond with key questions identified by MCH directors and other staff members through the Spring, 1995 survey (Appendix G). These concepts were modified with input from MCHB and other MCH leaders who participated in the Model Data Set Consensus Conference in October, 1995 (Appendix H). From these early concepts, working formulas were constructed.
In the Spring, 1996, a series of comparisons were made in order to assure that the concepts and formulas were consistent with key reporting requirements and previous work. First, comparisons were made with indicators derived from OBRA ‘89 and Healthy People 2000 to promote consistency of content and measurement, when appropriate. Subsequent comparisons were made with the following sets of indicators that are currently in use:
This step illuminated a number of concepts that were not previously identified and it highlighted differences in measurement of similar concepts. Based on these comparisons, revisions were made and a very large pool of preliminary indicators (>500) was completed. Using a large group of preliminary indicators minimized the probability of omitting a critical concept in any domain. These indicators served as the basis for subsequent refinements and revisions.
Health Status Indicators
The preliminary health status indicators were critically reviewed in September, 1996 by a select group of stakeholders. The reviews were conducted in large part by mail, but some were completed by telephone, and responses from many MCHB staff were obtained during a meeting at the Bureau in October, 1996. Stakeholders were asked to consider the severity and modifiability of each condition, and the likely reliability of the proposed indicator over time and place, as well as to comment on proposed age categories. The original 100 participants in this process included representatives of federal, state, and local health agencies, relevant professional organizations, and selected committees with data development as a primary goal and MCH data as a component of that activity. Participants were encouraged to solicit input from colleagues who were more familiar with some of the concepts and/or formulas than the selected participant. Ninety-nine (99) written responses to the request for review and comment were received. A copy of the request for input and a list of respondents is in Appendix J. Responses to this solicitation played a major role in shaping the final set of health status indicators.
Health status indicators are intended to represent actual health conditions, as measured by incidence or prevalence in a population. For a number of concepts, this intention was not realized. In some cases, no data base with the necessary incidence or prevalence elements could be located. Sometimes, this led to a decision to measure the concept for a subset of the population for which data were available usually representing the most serious form of the condition (e.g., hospitalizations for prenatal complications instead of prevalence of prenatal complications). In other situations, this approach was not feasible, but the indicator of incidence or prevalence was considered sufficiently important that it is recommended without a source of data (e.g., several indicators of childhood nutrition).
A few of the indicators in the health status domain are actually health behaviors. These are behaviors (e.g., smoking, drug and alcohol use in adolescence) that are clearly associated with numerous health conditions, many of which may not appear until later in life (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease). These behaviors represent such important aspects of adolescent health that the working group decided to include them among health status indicators in the MCH MI. If they were excluded, key risk factors and service-based interventions for adolescents could also have been omitted from the MCH MI.
In addition to formula and data sources, age and gender population groups are specified for each indicator. Most of the indicators are recommended for one or more of the following groups: children <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19 and women 15-17, 18-19, 20-34, 35-44. Variations from these standard age groups are recommended if justified from recent data (presented for each indicator) or from research studies. Gender stratification is only recommended if justified in the literature.
The final set includes 75 model indicators of health status. Of these, some are related conditions that can be drawn from the same data source (e.g., 8 vaccine preventable diseases and 9 injury-related hospitalization rates). This feature limits the number of data sources required to calculate the indicators while allowing a full range of MCH conditions to be included.
From the large set of 75 indicators, 20 were chosen for the core set. Indicators in the core set represent important conditions of each MCH age/gender population group. All of these indicators can be calculated from existing data sources and most from sources available at the state or local level. Users are encouraged to calculate and monitor all indicators that can be constructed from readily available data (e.g., all indicators based on vital record data).
Risk/Protective and
Health Services Indicators
The process for refining and revising indicators of risk/protective status and health services differed from the one described above for health status. The preliminary indicators in these domains were generated from questions posed by MCH leaders and reviews of MCH indicators used for other purposes, as described above for health status indicators. However, the preliminary indicators were not linked to specific health status indicators, as prescribed by the conceptual model.
Identifying indicators in these two domains was the focus of one of the two days of the MCH MI Stakeholders meeting in June, 1997. The participants in this meeting were carefully selected to represent a variety of MCH population groups and service modalities and they came from all geographic areas of the country. Local, state and federal levels were represented. A participant list, meeting materials, and summaries of the products of the meeting are in Appendix K.
On the first day of the meeting, participants were divided into four groups, each of which was assigned 15-20 health status indicators. For each of their assigned indicators, participants were asked to identify no more than one indicator of risk or protection and one of health and related services which exerted the greatest influence on the health condition, and was potentially modifiable and measurable. The resulting indicators were reviewed by the full group of participants and a few suggestions for additional indicators were made. Some of the additional indicators do not link directly to a health status indicator but were considered important enough to stand on their own (e.g., newborn metabolic screening).
Following the meeting, these indicators were compared to the preliminary indicators in the same domains. As necessary, relationships identified at the meeting were verified in the literature. Many of the indicators in these domains relate to more than one health status indicator. However, no systematic efforts were made to identify additional relationships between risk/protective or health service indicators and health status indicators, beyond those identified by meeting participants.
Since some risk/protective and health service indicators are associated with more than one health status indicator, developing recommendations for age/gender strata was complicated. As a result, these indicators are currently linked to broad categories of women (15-44), children (including infants and children) and/or adolescents.
While participants in the June, 1997 meeting were charged with developing formulas for the risk/protective and health service concepts they recommended, most time was devoted to debating the value of the concepts. Many of the formulas were developed later, with input from the preliminary indicators. For some, the concept was too vague to develop any further. In all cases, data sources were not specified and, in many cases, more specific definitions of terms in numerator, denominator, or both remain to be defined. As indicated, many of the risk/protective and health services indicators will require local data sources which vary greatly in content and availability In the absence of further development, indicators in these two domains are considered optional in the MCH MI.
Health Systems and Contextual Indicators
Indicators in the health systems and contextual domains are also related to the health status indicators but they do not have the close one-to-one relationships that many of the risk/protective and health service indicators have. The approach to refining these indicators took yet another turn. Preliminary indicators in these domains were examined to identify a small number that would represent population demographics and five characteristics of the health system: availability, acceptability, accessibility, scope, and coordination. Other criteria that were used in selection of these indicators were: 1) relationships with more than one indicator in the other domains and 2) data availability. In addition to the preliminary indicators developed by the Working Group, two other sets of indicators, the Kids Count Data Book (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1997) and State-Level Data Book of Health Care Access and Financing (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1995) were reviewed to identify indicators in these two domains. Finally, experts in specific areas (e.g., rural health) were consulted when existing resources were not sufficient.
Selecting preliminary indicators in these two domains was challenging. The contextual domain was intended to include both demographic indicators and indicators of environmental conditions that affect risk, health services and health status. However, indicators in the latter category, with fairly available data sources, were not included in the preliminary group. As a result, no indicators of environmental conditions are currently in the MCH MI. With regard to health system indicators, there were many options but all of the categories were not well-represented. In some cases, surrogate indicators were selected to represent a category. For example, the percent of the population who reside in a primary health care professional shortage area is an indicator of availability of health services. It is included in the MCH MI as a surrogate indicator of accessibility because professional shortage areas can exist within geographic areas with acceptable population to provider ratios. In these cases (e.g., low income areas of inner cities), the indicator reflects access as well as availability. The coordination category under health systems presented a different challenge. Coordination of services can be represented by documented agreements among agencies or by the utilization patterns of mothers and children. The latter approach was considered more consistent with the overall MCH MI. Indicators selected to represent service coordination in the health systems domain are also included in the health services domain.
On the second day of the MCH MI Stakeholders meeting in June, 1997 (Appendix K), the proposed contextual and health systems indicators were examined by participants. Again, participants worked in small groups focusing on a few (5-10) indicators. They recommended that each indicator be accepted as written, revised, or rejected. Participants were also invited to recommend indicators that were not already under consideration.
Most, but not all, of the contextual and health system indicators have working definitions and existing data sources. Since some developmental work remains to be done on them, however, none of the indicators in these domains are currently included in the core set of indicators. However, all of the contextual and health systems indicators are recommended for routine surveillance.
Recommendations for
Further Development and Ongoing Revisions
The process used to develop the set of model indicators involved a great deal of participation from vested and knowledgeable individuals. It is important to acknowledge, however, that there were many defensible paths the Working Group could have taken and that any of those paths would have led to different decisions about the indicators in the MCH MI. Nevertheless, the indicators recommended are representative of the conditions faced by MCH populations in 1997 and factors that contribute to those conditions. Many of the model indicators can be calculated from existing data sources. Yet some require new data sources or changes in existing ones. By including indicators that cannot at present be constructed from available data sources, the MCH MI offers direction for the future.
The Model Indicators in this report represent a major step forward in the long-term process of MCH data utilization and enhancement. As such, they can and should be disseminated and implemented extensively by health and related units with interests in maternal and child health. At the same time, however, the next steps in improving the MCH MI should be undertaken so that while the field gains experience
with a model set of indicators, the set itself is being improved. The following recommendations would accomplish both of these ends.
The MCH Model Indicators are intended to be responsive to the information needs of the MCH community. To this end, two additional recommendations are offered:
References
Adams, M. M. (1995). The continuing challenge of preterm delivery. JAMA, 273, (9), 739-740.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991). Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 30, (3), I-III.
American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1988). Standard terminology for reporting of reproductive health statistics. Public Health Reports, 103, (5), 464-471.
American Cancer Society (1997, March 12). Some cancer statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cancer.org/castats.htm.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Baker, S. P., Fingerhut, L. A., Higgins, L., Chen, L., Braver, E. R. (1996). Injury to children and teenagers: State-by-state mortality facts. The Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy.
Batshaw, M. L. & Perret, Y. M. (Eds.) (1992). Children with Disabilitites: A Medical Primer- 3rd Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Co..
Biglan, A., Metzler, C., Wirt, R., Ary, D., Noell, J., Ochs, L., French, C. and Hood, D. (1990). Social and behavioral factors associated with high risk sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 13(3), 245-261.
Blackmore, C. A. & Rowley, D. L. (1994). Preterm birth. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From Data to Action: CDC’s Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children (CDC Monograph, pp.179-183). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Boyle, C. A., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Doernberg, N. S., Holmgreen, P., Murphy, C. C. & Schendel, D. E. (1996, April 19). Prevalence of selected developmental disabilities in children 3-10 years of age: the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program, 1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (SS-2), 1-14.
Brody, D. J., Pirkle, J. L., Kramer, R. A., Flegal, K. M., Matte, T. D., Gunter, E. W. & Paschal, D. C. (1994). Blood lead levels in the U.S. population: Phase 1 of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988 to 1991). JAMA, 272, 277-283.
Burt, C. W. (1995, February 1). Injury-related visits to hospital emergency departments: United States, 1992. Advanced Data - National Center for Health Statistics, 261.
Buescher, P.A. (1997, April). Problems with Rates Based on Small Numbers. NC State Center for Health Statistics: Statistical Primer, 12
Cantwell, M. F., Snider, D. E., Cauthen, G. M. & Onorato, I. M. (1994). Epidemiology of tuberculosis in the United States, 1985-1992. JAMA, 272 (7), 535-539.
Casey (Annie E.) Foundation (1997). Kids Count Data Book.
Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control (1990). Childhood Injuries in the United States, Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service. US Department of Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1989, June 9). CDC Criteria for anemia in children and childbearing-aged women. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 38 (22), 400-404.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1992, April 17). Prevention and control of tuberculosis in U.S. communities with at-risk minority populations. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - Recommendations and Reports, 41(RR-5), 1-11.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1992, August 28). Surveillance of children’s blood lead levels - United States, 1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 41 (34), 620-622.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1994, August 26). Down syndrome prevalence at birth - United States, 1983-1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43 (33), 617-622.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996, May 3). Asthma mortality and hospitalization among children and young adults - United States, 1980-1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (17), 350-353.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996, October 25). Summary of notifiable diseases, United States, 1995. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 44 (S-53).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997, March 7). Update: Prevalence of overweight among children, adolescents, and adults - United States, 1988-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46 (9), 199-202.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997, March 7). Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections - United States, 1995. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46 (9), 193-198.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997, May 23). Inventory of Federal Data Systems in the United States for Injury Surveillance, Research and Prevention Activities. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/bup-res/federal.pdf.
Child and Adolescent Health Policy Center (1995). Quality, Quality Assessment, and Quality Assurance Considerations for Maternal and Child Health Populations and Practitioners. MCH Policy Research Brief. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.
Chomitz, V.R., Cheung, L.W.Y., Lieberman, E. (1995, Spring). The Role of Lifestyle in Preventing Low Birth Weight. The Future of Children, 5 (1), 121-138.
Christiansen, S.C., Martin, S.B., Schleicher, M.C., et. al. (1996). Exposure and Sensitization to Environmental Allergens of Predominantly Hispanic Children with Asthma in San Diego’s Inner City. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 98 (2), 288-94.
Cohen, P., Provet, A. G. & Jones, M. (1996). Prevalence of emotional behavior and behavioral disorders during childhood and adolescence. In Lubotsky-Levin, B. & Petrila, J. (Eds.), Mental Health Services: A Public Health Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cunningham, J., Dockery, D.W., Speizer, P.E. (1996). Race, Asthma, and Persistent Wheeze in Philadelphia Schoolchildren. Am J Public Health, 86 (10), 1406-09.
Czeizel, A.E., Dudas, I. (1992). Prevention of the First Occurrence of Neural Tube Defects by Periconceptional Vitamin Supplementation. New England Journal of Medicine. 327:1832-35.
Deane, M. (1993). Child accident data: accessible and available? Journal of Public Health Medicine, 15, (3), 226-228.
Drury, T. F., Winn, D. M., Snowden, C. B., Kingman, A., Kleinman, D. V. & Lewis, B. (1996). An overview of the oral health component of the 1988-1991 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III-Phase1). Journal of Dental Research, 75, (Spec Iss), 620-630.
Edwards, A. G. K., Halse, P. C., Parkin, J. M. & Waterston, A. J. R. (1990). Recognising failure to thrive in early childhood. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 65, 1263-1265.
Erickson, J.D. (Ed.). (1993). Birth defects monitoring program. [Special issue]. Teratology, 48, (6).
Ettner, S.L. (1996) The Timing of Preventive Services for Women and Children: the Effect of Having a Usual Source of Care. Am J Public Health, 86 (12), 1748-54.
Family Health Outcomes Project (1996). Indicator Templates. Diskette.
Fife, D., Barancik, J. I. & Chatterjee, B. F. (1984). Northeastern Ohio Trauma Study II: Injury rates by age, sex and cause. American Journal Public Health, 74, (5), 473-478.
Floyd, R. L., Davis, M. K., Martin, M. L., Hungerford, D. & Hymbaugh (1994). Fetal alcohol syndrome. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From Data to Action: CDC’s Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children (CDC Monograph, pp.343-350). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Franks, A. L., Kendrick, J. S., Olson, D. R., Atrash, H. K., Saftlas, A. F., & Moien, M. (1992). Hospitalization for pregnancy complications, United States, 1986 and 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166, 1339-1344.
Gaudino, J. A., Hoyert, D. L., MacDorman, M. F., Gazmararian, J. A., Adams, M. M. & Kiely, J. L. (1994). Fetal deaths. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From Data to Action: CDC’s Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children (CDC Monograph, pp.163-178). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Geiss, L. S., Herman, W. H., Goldschmid, M. G., DeStefano, F., Eberhardt, M. S., Ford, E. S., German, R. R., Newman, J. M., Olson, D. R., Sepe, S. J., Stevenson, J. M., Vinicor, F., Wetterhall, S. F. & Will, J. C. (1993, June 4). Surveillance for diabetes mellitus - United States, 1980-1989. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - Surveillance Summaries, 42, (2), 1-20.
Gergen, P. (1996). Social Class and Asthma - Distinguishing Between the Disease and the Diagnosis. Am J Public Health 86 (10), 1361-62.
Gorwitz, R. J., Webster, L. A., Nakashima, A. K. & Greenspan, J. R. (1994). Sexually transmitted diseases. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From Data to Action: CDC’s Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children (CDC Monograph, pp.39-48). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Graves, E. J. & Gillum, B. S. (1996, October 3). 1994 Summary: National Hospital Discharge Survey. Advance Data- National Center for Health Statistics, 252.
Gyorkos, et. al.(1994). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Immunization Delivery Models. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 85, 514-530.
Hall M. J. & Owings, M. F. (1994, October 7). Hospitalizations for injury and poisoning in the United States, 1991. Advance Data- National Center for Health Statistics, 278.
Health Systems Research, Inc. (1996). Creating a Population-Based Maternal and Child Health Surveillance System for Arizona. Prepared by Greg R. Alexander. Washington, DC: Health Systems Research, Inc.
Hobbs, N. & Perrin, J. M. (Eds.) (1985). Issues in the Care of Children with Chronic Illness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Horton, J. A. (Ed.) (1995). The Women’s Health Data Book: A Profile of Women’s Health in the United States - 2nd Edition.
Hoyert, D. L. (1995, August). Perinatal mortality in the United States: 1985-91. Vital and Health Statistics (Series 20: Data from the National Vital Statistics System No. 26, DHHS Publication No. PHS 95-1854). Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hughes, D., Simpson, L. (1995, Spring) The Role of Social Change in Preventing Low Birth Weight. The Future of Children, 5 (1), 87-102.
Ingram, D.L. (1994). Neisseria Gonorrhea in Children. Pediatric Annals 23(7) 341-45.
Jencks, C. and Mayer, S. (1990) The Social Consequences of Growing up in a Poor Neighborhood. In Inner-city Poverty in the United States. Edited by L. Lynn and M. McGeary. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Jenson, J., Howard, M. & Yaffe, J. (1995). Treatment of adolescent substance abusers: Issues for practice and research. Social Work in Health Care, 21, (2), 1-18.
Johnson (Robert Wood) Foundation (1995). State-Level Data Book of Health Care Access and Financing.
Kandel, D. & Logan, J. (1984). Patterns of drug use from adolescence to young adulthood. Am J Pub Health, 74, 660-666.
Kann, L., Warren, C. W., Harris, W. A., Collins, J. L., Douglas, K.A., Collins, M. E., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G. & Kolbe, L. J. (1995). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - Surveillance Summaries, 44, (SS-1), 1-56.
Kaste, L. M., Selwitz, R. H., Oldakowski, R. J., Brunell, J. A., Winn, D. M. & Brown, L. J. (1996). Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1-17 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. Journal of Dental Research, 75, (Spec Iss), 631-641.
Kiely, J.L., Brett, K.M., Yu, S., Rowley, D.L. (1995). Low Birth Weight and Intrauterine Growth Retardation. In Wilcox, L.S., and Marks, J.S. From Data to Action. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, 185-202.
Kirby, R. S. (1993). Neonatal and postneonatal mortality: Useful constructs or outdated concepts? J Perinatology, 13, (6), 433-441.
Kramer, M.S. (1987). Intrauterine Growth and Gestational Duration Determinants. Pediatrics 80, 502-511.
Lary, J. M. & Edmonds, L. D. (1996, April 19). Prevalence of spina bifida at birth - United States, 1983-1990: a comparison of two surveillance systems. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (SS-2), 15-26.
Little, J. Elwood, J.M. (1991). Epidemiology of Neural Tube Defects. Chapter 13 in Kiely, M. ed. Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology. Boston: CRC Press..
Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1989). Family Factors as Correlates and Predictors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency. In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (1995, November). System Indicators: Development of Community Performance Measures, draft.
Miller, C. A., Fine, A., Adams-Taylor, S. & Schorr, L. B. (1986). Monitoring Children’s Health: Key Indicators. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association.
Molock, S.D. (1994). Psychosocial Factors Associated with Asthma Morbidity in the Inner City. Pediatric Asthma Allergy and Immunology, 8 (3), 143-48.
Montgomery, L.E., Kiely. J.L., Pappas, G. (1996). The Effects of Poverty, Race, and Family Structure on US Children’s Health: Data from the NHIS, 1978-1980 and 1989-1991. Am J Public Health, 86 (10), 1401-1405.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (1996, May 3). Asthma Mortality and Hospitalization Among Children and Young Adults - United States, 1980-1993.
MRC Vitamin Study Research Group (1991). Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: Results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study. Lancet, 2,131-37.
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (1997, March 12). Cancer Facts (from SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1991). [On-line]. Available: http://www-seer.ims.nci.nih.gov.
National Center for Health Statistics (1979, December). Small Area Estimation: An Empirical Comparison of Conventional and Synthetic Estimators for States. Vital and Health Statistics: Data, Evaluation and Methods Research Series 2-Number 82. DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 80-1356.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1995, June 9). Infant mortality rates by birhtweight and gestational age, U.S., Birth cohort of 1991 [On-line]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/data/lk91_46.pdf.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1995, June 8). Infant mortality rates by age of mother and age of infant, U.S., Birth cohort of 1991 [On-line]. Available http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/data/lk91_37.pdf.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services (1996, August), Report of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Core Health Data Elements.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997, May 22). United States Injury Mortality Statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/usmort.htm.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997, February 12). Proposed external cause-of-injury (E-code) groupings for reporting injury mortality and morbidity data. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/whatsnew/matrtxt.htm.
Newacheck, P. & Starfield, B. (1995). Monitoring Changes in Health Care for Children and Families. In National Research Council. Integrating Federal Statistics for Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newacheck, P. W. & Taylor, W. R. (1992). Childhood chronic illness: Prevalence, severity, and impact. Am J Pub Health, 82 (3), 364-371.
O’Malley, P., Johnston, L., & Bachman, J. (1995). Adolescent substance use: Epidemiology and implications for public policy. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 42, (2), 241-260.
Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA (1996, September). Mental health data from the 1994 Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Advance Report No. 15; SMA 96-3085). Rockville, MD: author.
Office of Management and Budget.(1978) Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. In: Statistical Policy Handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, US Department of Commerce, 37-38.
Paneth, N.S. (1995, Spring). The Problem of Low Birth Weight. The Future of Children, 5(1), 19-34.
Pennsylvania Department of Health. (1994). Behavioral Health Risks of Pennsylvania Adults, 1994. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Division of Health Statistics and Research.
Phillips, K., Kennelly, J., Xu, W. C., & Morris, N. (1996). Child Injury Mortality Report, 1986-1992 (The Midwest Maternal and Child Health Data Improvement Project). Public Health Service Regions V and VII.
Poston, D. L. & Rogers, R. G. (1985). Toward reformulation of the neonatal mortality rate. Social Biology, 32 (1-2), 1-12.
Rawstron, S.A.; Bromberg, K.; Hammerschlag, M.R. (1993). STD in Children: Syphilis and Gonorrhea. Genitourin Med, 69:66-75.
Region IV Network for Data Management and Utilization (1997). Consensus in Region IV: Maternal and Infant Health and Family Planning Indicators for Planning and Assessment. Chapel Hill, NC: author.
Rivara, F.P. & Barber, M. (1985). Demographic analysis of childhood pedestrian injuries. Pediatrics, 76, (3), 375-381.
Rosenberg, D. (1997). Standardization of Rates and Synthetic Estimation. Training module of the Enhanced Analytic Skills Training Program (EASP).
Rosenberg, D. (1997). Trend Analysis and Interpretation: Key Concepts and Methods for Maternal and Child Health Professionals. Analytic Paper of the Maternal and Child Health Information Resource Center, Public Health Foundation.
Saftlas, A. F., Lawson, H. W., & Atrash, H. K. (1994). Pregnancy-related morbidity. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From Data to Action: CDC’s Public Health Surveillance for Women, Infants, and Children (CDC Monograph, pp.129-139). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Schydlower, M. & Rogers, P. (Eds.) (1993, June). Adolescent substance abuse and addictions. Adolescent Medicine State of the Art Reviews, 4, (2).
Sedlak, A. J. & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Executive summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Seller, M.J. (1994). Risks in Spina Bifida. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,36,1021-25.
Sherrard, J.S.; Bingham, J.S. (1995) Gonorrhea Now. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 6,162-66.
Shurtleff, D.B., Lemire, R.J. (1995). Epidemiology, Etiologic Factors, and Prenatal Diagnosis of Open Spinal Dyeraphism. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 6, 183-193.
Steegers-Theunissen, R.P. (1995). Folate metabolism and neural tube defects: a review. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 61,39-48.
Stein, R. E. K., Westbrook, L. E. & Bauman, L. J. (1997). The Questionnaire for Identifying Children with Chronic Conditions: A measure based on a noncategorical approach. Pediatrics, 99, (4), 513-521.
Taylor, B. M. (1997, April). Changes in criminal victimization, 1994-95. (National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ-162032). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control. (1989). Injury Prevention: Meeting the Challenge.
Toomey, K.E.; Moran, J.S.; Rafferty, M.P.; Beckett, G.A. (1993). Epidemiological Considerations of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Underserved Populations. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, 7(4), 739-52.
U.S. Deparment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service (1991). Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives [DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91-50212]. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Resources and Service Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (1992). Healthy Children 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives Related to Mothers, Infants, Children, Adolescents and Youth. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service (1995, June). Healthy People 2000: Midcourse Review and 1995 Revisions [DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 5-1308]. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Ventura, S. J., Martin, J. A., Taffel, S. M., Mathews, T. J., & Clarke, S. C. (1995, September 21). Advance report of final natality statistics, 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 44, 3(S).
Ventura, SJ, Martin JA, Matthews TJ, Clarke SC. (1996, June 24). Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1994. Monthly Vital Statistics Report. 44:11(Supplement).
Walker, D. K. & Richmond, J. B. (1984). Monitoring Child Health in the United States: Selected Issues and Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waller, A. E., Baker, S. P. & Szocka, A. (1989). Childhood injury deaths: National analysis and geographic variations. American Journal of Public Health, 79, (3), 310-315.
Wasilewski, Y., Clark, N.M., Evans, D. (1996). Factors Associated with Emergency Department Visits by Children with Asthma: Implications for Health Education. Am J Public Health, 86 (10), 1410-15.
Wen, S.W.; Goldenberg, R.L.; Cutter, G.R.; Hoffman, H.J.; Chiver, S.P. (1990). Intrauterine Growth and Retardation and Preterm Delivery: Prenatal Risk Factors in an Indigent Population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 162, 213-8.