Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33299927›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2020

Rising inequality of infant health in the U.S.

Emily Rauscher, David E Rangel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prediction of Cyanotic Congenital Heart Disease Risk in U.S. Births.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Unequal Effects of Wildfire Exposure on Infant Health by Maternal Education, 1995-2020.The Russell Sage Foundation journal of the social sciences : RSF · 2024
    Article
  7. State Approaches to Simplify Medicaid Eligibility and Implications for Inequality of Infant Health.The Russell Sage Foundation journal of the social sciences : RSF · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emily RauscherDepartment of Sociology, Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
David E RangelDepartment of Education, Brown University, Box 1938, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Funding

Science/Technical CoreP2CHD041020 · NICHD · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI ZHENCHAO QIAN · 2016 to 2026
$7.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Has infant health inequality narrowed or grown in recent decades? Inequality may have narrowed due to expanded medical insurance coverage and greater knowledge about fetal health. However, greater income inequality may have reduced health for births to the most economically disadvantaged mothers, leading to growing infant health inequality. We use administrative birth certificate data for over 22 million births to examine trends in inequality of infant health from 1989 to 2018 in the U.S. This period allows us to consider how contextual factors - such as passage of the Affordable Care Act, changing demographics, the Great Recession, or delayed impacts of rising income inequality - may have altered infant health inequality. We assess gaps in infant health by maternal race, marital status, and education. Following previous research, we also examine gaps between the most economically advantaged mothers - married, white mothers with a college degree - and the most economically disadvantaged mothers - single, Black mothers without a high school degree. Results reveal that inequality of infant health has increased since 2010.

Indexed as

EducationInequalityInfant healthMarital statusRaceSocioeconomic statusVital statistics

Identifiers

PMID33299927
PMCPMC7702186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.