Talk:Infant mortality rate

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dezhadial, Lalalua (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cmdoolittle, Jonesmal, Csamc, Jlovejr. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Comparability section

I see there has already been a lot of discussion on the Berdadine Healy article, By all means these claims are totally wrong. The only reason to keep this paragraph is to warn people against it. The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. US infant mortality is dragged down significantly by the poorer conservative states:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1

Some US states do have "Western European" levels of infant mortality, at least for whites:

New Jersey .......... 3.7
Massachusetts .... 4.0
California ............. 4.6
New York ............ 4.6

The US average is dragged down by the poorer conservative states. The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:

West Virginia ....... 7.5
Oklahoma ........... 7.5
Arkansas ............ 7.2
Louisiana ............ 7.1
Indiana ............... 7.0
Tennessee .......... 7.0
Mississippi ......... 7.0

A similar thing happens in Europe concerning the poorer former soviet-block states. These are however a lot poorer as the US states above in terms of GDP per capita.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00027&plugin=0&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels

The definition of infant mortality is dead before the first year after live birth. Crucial is the definition of live birth, see here for instance for the European Union and the US.
http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_a1_frep_01_en.pdf (see item 8)

(Hans de Vries (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

---

I removed the cite to Berdadine Healy for the claim that the infant mortality numbers aren't comparable b/c other countries count live births differently. The author of the article is wrong. The trained statictians of infant mortality reports use a methodology to account for those differences. e.g., UNICEF writes: "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise, CRING.1 In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD,2 an estimation methodology that minimize the errors embodied on each estimate and harmonize trends along time.3 Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official U5MR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."

It's nice they have a methodology, but it doesn't prove Healy wrong. The WHO and its methodologies are far from infallible and it's pretty clear some countries (e.g. Japan) are cooking the baby books.

see http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=562

Bernadine Healy, on the other hand:

1) was kicked out of the Red Cross after misspending money for 9/11 victims; 2) hasn't actually practiced much medicine recently and instead has run for office as a republican and served in various republican political appointments. 3) was a member of the Advisory board of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an organization later shown to have been founded by a PR firm and funded by Phillip Morris to criticise scientific research that showed cigarettes to be harmful. 4) spends her days now writing (apparently BS) republican op-ed pieces for US News.

She is bogus. Not the statistics from the UN, CDC and World Health Organization.

Although, I agree, that to the extent that other countries measure infant mortality differently, that is relevant; but there is nothing I've seen that shows that that difference isn't properly accounted for in the leading statistics compiled by trained non-political statisticians.

see: http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

I'm not good at wiki formatting, though and would appreciate if someone could tweak the formatting for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.228.47.11 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of ad hominem argument (I don't care about Healy's GOP involvement or what she was kicked out of), that said. Your criticism of her _argument_ stands and is supported by: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/401S and http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/05/22/regarding-the-uss-high-infant-mortality-rate/ (to be clear, I'm agreeing with you; I just wish you ditched the irrelevant attack on her credibility and got directly to your criticism of her argument.) Incidentally, the method of counting does mitigate the differences between some developed countries and the united states, but does not fully explain them. Furthermore, the US was apparently ranked 6th in 1949 and has improved at a rate significantly below the rates of other countries, falling to 23rd in 2001(See the article in the Journal of Nutrition listed above.) 68.247.28.77 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)GMM

I am not sure about the section saying that U.S. registers all births if they show any sign of life. There must be some gestational age limit. If I am not mistaken abortion is legal till 20-22 weeks in U.S. (for medical reasons). Also, I think it should be mentioned (immediately in conjunction with this paragraph) that the numbers in good lists (CIA Factbook, WHO) are adjusted, so the difference in reporting is minimized (I wonder what is the error). --Jirka6 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways to test the theory that Infant Mortality is high in the United States because of a more inclusive definition of "infant." The first is to plot infant mortality for each of the industrialized nations separately. The plot should begin with the date data was first made available (mid 1960's). These plots shows infant mortality in all of the industrialized nations improved at almost exactly the same rate . . . initially steep improvement, then leveling off in more recent years. This can be interpreted as improvement resulting from advances in medicine. The second is to plot the ranking of the United States over the same period of time. This shows a steep increase in infant mortality from the mid to late 60's and then a steep improvement until 1973. 1973 marked the beginning of a steady, albeit, gradual decline in ranking. Reflection on these two sets of data leads to some meaningful conclusions. The first data sets removes any contention that the United States has a more advanced or more inclusive approach to medical care for infants. The second data set makes clear infant mortal is greatly affected by social conditions. The year of 1973 was the year of Roe vs Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. The existential rationale for abortion is that there are acceptable reasons for a potential mother to conclude concern for her own personal well-being and happiness make responsibility for a new child unacceptable. Once that reasoning process is accepted by society it will inevitably be consciously and unconsciously applied to other existential stresses. For example, a new father may abandon the new mother and baby. The mother is left desperately poor and lonely. This can easily lead her to conclude the baby is the reason her husband left . . . she had the option to not have the baby . . . if only she had known how things would turn out. So the baby dies . . . rarely by violent means . . . more likely by neglect, especially neglect of needed medical care.

That's a very poor test. The fact they improved at the same rate proves nothing. The second point is irrelevant to the question of whether "infant" is being defined differently.67.173.73.156 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SanBenito (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that might be an interesting topic for research, but this is an encyclopedia, so no original research should be included.--Jirka6 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedic article to devote a whole paragraph to a quote from popular press (I mean the quote from US News and Report by Dr. Bernadine Healy.) Especially since it is not true. WHO, FBI and other statistics are harmonized and they differ from national statistics. Moreover, if it were true, then the U.S. stillbirth rate would have to be lower than the stillbirth rate in those countries. But this is not the case - both stillbirth rare and IMR in, say, Sweden are lower than in U.S. This is an interesting topic, but I just think we should have more reliable sources than a popular magazine. --Jirka6 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Healy is correct. You can easily verify this in the OECD documents:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/40321504.pdf

"Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates is related to variations in registering practices of premature infants among countries (whether they are reported as live births or fetal deaths). In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada, Japan and the Nordic countries, very premature babies with relatively low odds of survival are registered as live births. This increases mortality rates compared with other countries that register them as fetal deaths instead of live births."

The WHO standard may exist and have been adopted, but as with Kyoto that doesn't mean everyone is complying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.73.156 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the text to remove the extensive quoting of Healy, along with adding information published by the US CDC yesterday which correlates with some of these arguments, that other countries do not report all live births. The report only focused on Europe so does not address Japan. The CDC determined that there was sufficient difference in reporting requirements that they excluded certain ages of infants from their report. I will also remove the tags since they are not specifically addressed on the talk page and seem only to refer to this section.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Add a section for historical trends

I came across this article out of curiosity regarding historical trends in infant mortality e.g. -- rates in antiquity, or in pre industrial Europe, or what have you.

Is this information available anywhere in Wikipedia? If not, then I think that this article could use expansion for a section that deals with trends in such over long historical periods

I too would like such data, presented somewhere. Specifically, what fraction of births reached their majority (18 or 21, or such age that normally allows them to marry and have children) over historical times. I have found that the average death age for the kings of England and Scotland from 1000 to 1600 AD was 49, somewhat better than monks of the period. I presume this was better than the general population; but in both of those 'occupations' you have weeded out those that died by age 20. Given infant and childhood mortality rates in the 1800s and extrapolating to 1500, it appears that at least half of the births did not make it to age 20. However, I would like to see the results of some studies. Please assist.

STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! WE MOST STOP THOSE MURRDERERS!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavaspiderman (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Update with new data?

Many of the points in here need to be updated with the new data by Save the Children. http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/SOWM_2006_final.pdf?stationpub=000000&ArticleID=&NewsID=

Re: New Data?

WHO statistics estimate diarrhea as the 2nd most common cause of deaths (17% of deaths) in children under age 5, the most common cause being acute respiratory infection (19% of deaths).

These WHO statistics can be found in (Lancet 2005; 365: 1147–52). This article also breaks down causes of childhood mortality (<5yrs old) for 6 regions of the world.

A graph representing causes of death among chilldren under 5 years of age, and other useful information can be found at: http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/OVERVIEW/CHILD_HEALTH/child_epidemiology.htm

--65.125.151.253 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no complete list... even the links don't take you to a complete list and start somewhere around 170?--209.248.136.146 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Update Hong Kong to 1.8/1,000 as of 2006. Source: http://www.fhb.gov.hk/statistics/en/statistics/infant_mortality_rate.htm DOR (HK) (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Help Me, Please!

Hi! I did my best, but I really don't know how to cite things properly. In the section "Global infant mortality trends," it said, "World infant mortality rate declined from 198 in 1960 to 83 in 2001." That was actually the under-5 mortality rate, according to the source I... tried to cite, footnote 7 (http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/tables/table1.html). The infant mortality numbers for those years are 126 and 57, respectively, and I made those changes. Please feel free to improve my citation. John Bergan (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Global Data

Using information from the CIA World Fact Book, I think I could produce a statistical map for this page. I'll let you know when I'm done. Black-Velvet 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I made one. But I just realised there's another graph from the Wikimedia Commons. Well, that's a good three hours put to waste. You can find my map . Black-Velvet 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment here about use of CIA fact book. It seems to me that many articles in many sections use this source as definitive (for political, demographic, and other stats). But there are two issues with this.

First, too seldom do those who cite the fact book note the reference year for the DATA. The CIA Fact book is not always up to date, while original sources from WHO or other organizations always are the latest official stats. So may I recommend that if you do a map you indicate the reference year? 1990, 2000, 2005, or what? This way, you or somebody else can update the statistics. Second, I would recommend that with any health or population stats for multiple countries, the UN or other internatioal agency source be given (UN Demographic Yearbook or whatever), because that's where the most recent updates are going to be found, and that, after all, is where the factbook gets its own data (it doesn't do independent evaluation of those data). Thank you.Mack2 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Abortions

Any data on how the cultural preferences on abortion affects IM? For example, some infants born with certain diseases might be outright aborted in certain nations where it's more culturally permissable to do so.--Rotten 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Infant Mortality

The Capitalism states that globalization and capitalism leads to public income growth and that this is the cause of decline in infant mortality. For me this is true in an absulute overview, but not as direct parameters highly correlated. The amount of money spent for public health care is the nummer which counts, normaly rich countries spent more money for this so you get your correlation. Cuba was and is a example for the opposit coorelation, low GDP/head and low infant mortality, because the medical system is well developed. The people on the talk page of capitalism claim that abortion lowers the number of children dieing later. My question: Is ist a good thing to tie Capitalism and Infant mortality closely together? --Stone 12:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your question, but this page does note that the Soviet Union misrepresented its infant mortality rates to appear lower than they really were. Cuba's high abortion rate also causes the infant mortality to be low, which should probably be mentioned in this article. I'll try to add that.--Gloriamarie 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

'…not every health issue is a health care issue' writes Steve Chapman in Health Care and Infant Mortality: The Real Story. 'Like life expectancy (the subject of a previous column), infant mortality is a function of many factors. The more you look at the problem, the less it seems to be correctable by a big new federal role in medical insurance — and, in fact, the less it seems to be mainly a medical issue at all.

'Comparing white Americans to Norwegians in his 1995 book, "The Tyranny of Numbers," [ Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington concluded that "white America's higher rates of infant mortality are explained not by poverty (as conventionally construed) or by medical care but rather by the habits, actions and indeed lifestyles of a critical portion of its parents." Whites are not unique in those types of behavior.

'African-American babies are far more likely to die than white ones, which is often taken as evidence that poverty and lack of health insurance are to blame. That's entirely plausible until you notice another racial/ethnic gap: Hispanics of Mexican or Central or South American ancestry not only do consistently better than blacks on infant mortality, they do better than whites. Social disadvantage doesn't explain very much. Nor does access to prenatal care, as the health care critique implies. It used to be assumed that if you assured that pregnant low-income women could see a physician, their infants would do much better. Not necessarily.' Asteriks (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Two paragraphs plagiarized from 1992 CBO staff memorandum

This change to the article consists of two paragraphs that were copied verbatim from pages 1 and 2 of a 1992 Congressional Budget Office staff memorandum without any credit. While the source is public domain, that's pretty rude. I will remove the offending paragraphs shortly. Eubulides 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Global Trends; Rising Rates and Failed States

Shouldn't some space be devoted to those countries whose rates have risen? The rate of such a rise, and mention of the factors contributing to those rises would be helpful. Iraq is an example of an explosive rise in infant mortality indicative of a failed state. Instead of showing present rates, I think it would be helpful to be able to see how changes have played out in the last 50 years. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515 Mentions that the rise in ranking for mortality rates in the United States as compared to the rest of the world were attributable to the improvement of health care in the average country, as opposed to no significant improvement in the US. Rawkcuf 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Redirect?

Is it a joke or necessary to redirect from "dead babies"? It's relevant, sure - but it looks like it's more of a joke if you ask me... RWBronco (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone - and bad numbers in the article

Sierra Leone gets two seperate IMR numbers within the article (284 vs. 184) Probably from different years? There is also no link to the 2007 world fact book, which would make checking this out much easier.

And if anyone wants to do a break-down by continent, that'd be cool. Because UNICEF does not do that.

~ender 2008-02-21 11:42:AM MST

USA data

I have added statistics from Census Bureau - Do you think that it is worthwhile to create an infant mortality in the USA article?

Check US Data

I've just spotted that the US Data from [1] is being reported incorrectly, with values transposed along by one state at the time (the original includes a top value for the US overall. Not sure of ways to easily edit WikiTables - so just flagging that up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.218 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is USA data needed in this article?

I could be wrong, but I fail to see the relevance of USA data on this article. I believe that table should belong in the USA article, not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killcomic (talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Totally agree, Wikipedia is a worldwide website, but certain Americans seem to think that they can put data correlating to USA in any and every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.83.112 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Which "certain Americans" are you referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

---I took the liberty of removing the US states data. It really is unnecessary information, can someone please find some data of more nations? That would reflect a more worldwide view.--143.238.64.164 (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove the USA Data section and put it on the Demographics of the United States page

The USA Data section should be removed from this article. It's natural home is the Demographics of the United States page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliability

In reliability engineering, the term infant mortality is used to refer to a particular pattern of failures (often seen in electronics). Perhaps is would be appropriate to creat an article infant mortality (reliability), and include a disambig hatnote? 70.250.239.119 (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, see bathtub curve. 70.250.239.119 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

comparability section:perinatal mortality definition

The article states: 'Many countries ... only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." If this was happening it may lower IMR but it would not affect perinatal mortality since perinatal mortality is the sum of stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life. If babies showing signs of life but not breathing at birth are moved from the 'live born but died' category to the 'stillborn' category, then the perinatal mortality rate stays the same. It is not raised. Adrian Murray (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge from perinatal mortality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Infant mortality. Non-admin close. -- Karl.brown (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The article perinatal mortality isn't long enough to motivate having it separate, especially since the causes are largely overlapping. Let's make it easier to have an overview.Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perinatal mortality is completely different from infant mortality. Infant mortality is the death of a live born child before the age of one. Perinatal mortality is the death of unborn + born child upto the age of 40 days. No merging should be attempted. Thank You!--Hmsvagus (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no merger is appropriate. Perinatal deaths are not a subset of infant deaths. Many perinatal deaths are PRE-natal, whereas by definition all infant deaths are POST-natal. These are distinct concepts and phenomena.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extension and Revision

My name is Allyssa, a senior undergraduate student from Rice University. I would like to extend and revise this Wikipedia article. I intend on rearranging the sections to make the article flow better. I will also expand on existing sections. Also, I will create sections titled, 'Top causes for infant mortality,' 'Medical disparities,' 'Knowledge disparities,' and 'Policies addressing infant mortality.'

I hope to contribute salient knowledge on this issue. I also intend on editing this article to meet Wikipedia standard.

If there are any suggestions on ways to go about doing this, please let me know.

Allyssa.abacan (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the see also section, there is a list of "related statistical categories". They seem like they should be incorporated into prose, into a "Classification" or "Background" section, and sourced. Biosthmors (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of "Medical disparities" and "Knowledge disparities", how about a "Causes" section with level 3 subsections for medical and knowledge (or lack of knowledge)? Causes is a WP:MEDMOS section. Top causes could go in the causes section too. And another section for "Policy"? We don't need to put the title of the article in the section title. That's unnecessarily wordy, per WP:MOSHEAD. Biosthmors (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Per this, consider adding/reorganizing into Epidemiology, Prevention, History, Society and culture, and Research directions section headings. Biosthmors (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Further changes

I will be focusing on south east asian countries since disparities can be seen on a bigger level (Singapore and the Philippines). I will narrow down my focus to elaborate on causes (dengue fever, polio, etc) and medical infrastructure within each South East Nation I talk about. I will mainly focus on the top 5 causes of infant mortality. Information on medical infrastructure would hopefully allow readers to gain an understanding of how political structure can influence infant mortality. Also, I plan on writing about successful and failed political policies that aim(ed) to ameliorate infant mortality. Hopefully this will allow readers to grasp the root causes for high infant mortality in various countries that have varying SES status. Right now, the article is not holistically explaining infant mortality.

During my research, I will garner more academically viable resources to make this article more reliable.

I will see what I can do when considering adding/reorganizing into Epidemiology, Prevention, History, Society and culture.

Allyssa.abacan (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information

Is there any additional information that will make this Wiki article better? What other changes need to be made to meet Wikipedia's quality standards?

I'm expanding and revising this Wikipedia page for a class, Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. Any suggestions are welcomed!

Thanks.

Allyssa.abacan (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Graph does not explain units

The image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infant_Mortality_Rate_by_Region_1950-2050.png

Has the label "Infant mortality rate" on its vertical axis but this unit is not explained. i.e. An infant mortality rate of 120. 120 what? 120 per 1000 births? 120 per 1000000 births? This graph is therefore of questionable value as it is impossible to derive any meaningful information from it. 82.2.100.205 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article says "Infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of children less than one year of age per 1000 live births." So, I guess it's per 1000 births. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Graph caption is confusing

I have a problem with the world map that is currently in second position. The caption says: "World infant mortality rates, under age 5, in 2012". But the definition of infant mortality is under 1 year of age; whereas under 5 years of age is child mortality. So I guess the caption is wrong. I tried to trace it back to that UNICEF report but that map is not in there, I guess someone created it from scratch based on the tables in the UNICEF report? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it contains an error. Corrected the caption. Not sure how to correct the picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infant mortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

History Section warranted

As noted above, at #Add_a_section_for_historical_trends, there's no history section. It's well documented (one of many sources) that unpasteurized milk was the leading cause of infant mortality at one time. Pasteurization of milk cut infant mortality by around 3/4; estimates vary. A history section should cover what have been the leading causes that have been addresses over time. (Maybe I'll start one, covering at least the milk angle, to start, if no one steps in within a week or so.)--Elvey^(t•c) 04:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

yes please! Consult the manual of style for Wikiproject Medicine, but from memory, the history section should be just before "Society and culture". EvMsmile (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Environment Section: more detail about institutional racism

(fifth paragraph)

How does institutional racism impact infant mortality rates in African Americans--specifically in regards to environmental disadvantage? The paragraph touches on the issue but doesn't go into detail. A link to the "Environmental Racism" page would be helpful here.

Mwtoston (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Medicine and biology" Section

Information regarding vaccines should have separate section-- with more information about relation to IMR declination. Also phrasing in last sentence ("extremely important") could be replaced with stronger references regarding documented safety of vaccines and correlation to IMR reduction.

Mwtoston (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Lots of citations missing and add information to the medical sectionGqueen123 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Goka

"Medical treatments" section - peer edit

    In the 'Medical treatments' section, you mention that technological advancements and more efficient medical treatments are needed to decrease ethnic and racial disparities in terms of infant mortality worldwide. As a reader I would be interested in learning what specific technological advancements you are talking about that will lead to groundbreaking medical techniques. Also, if possible, you should add a bit about how these technological advancements would help infants and whether or not people of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds would be granted equal access to these new treatments.Michaelguerena (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)