Death certificates, birth certificates; rules governing physicians and coroners.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Birth Certificates↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Birth Certificates”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The revised standard certificate of live birth: analysis of medical risk factor data from birth certificates in Alabama, 1988-92.
The latest revision of the birth certificate features a new checkbox format designed to collect more effectively information for public health research. One of the new checkbox items, medical risk factors for this pregnancy, is designed to collect information on risk factors which result in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Data from 308,573 birth certificates filed in Alabama between 1988 and 1992 were analyzed. Although problems exist with the data collected for this item, useful information can be obtained to investigate important public health issues. First, the data can be used to determine the prevalence of medical risk factors in the population. Second, differences between subpopulations with these conditions can be examined. For example, some differences between racial groups in adverse pregnancy outcomes may be explained by the fact that black mothers are more likely to have a medical risk factor than whites. Third, some medical factors are associated with elevated risks for low birth weight, while others are associated with reduced probability of low birth weight. Although useful data can be obtained from the medical risk factor item, it and other checkbox items would be more useful if efforts were made to improve reporting. Improvements in training persons who complete the birth certificate are especially needed. Reporting of checkbox items also needs to be validated by comparing results with other sources. In future revisions of the birth certificate, new items need to be examined carefully to determine if that instrument is the appropriate medium for collecting the information.
Alabama↗
Birth certificate completion procedures and the accuracy of Missouri birth certificate data.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Birth Certificates↗
Practice forum--"new" birth certificates.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Birth Certificates↗
Doll birth certificates.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Birth Certificates↗
Evaluation of the hospital discharge diagnoses index and the birth certificate as sources of information on birth defects.
The hospital discharge diagnoses index (DI) for newborns and the birth certificate were evaluated as sources of information about birth defects by comparing them with the same births in the case registry of the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program (CBDMP). The CBDMP is an active surveillance system; the staff visit hospitals to identify children with birth defects diagnosed in the first year of life. The study population comprised 66,481 live births to residents of five counties in the San Francisco Bay area in 1983. Of these infants, 2,543 had at least one birth defect noted on the DI, and 1,623 were in the CBDMP registry; 1,020 with defects noted on the DI were also in the CBDMP registry. For this same population, 399 infants had one or more defects noted on the birth certificate; 304 of these were also in the CBDMP registry. Reporting of birth defects on the birth certificate was poor for every condition. Reporting on the DI was most reliable for oral clefts and chromosomal defects; for these defects, the DI omitted one-third of the cases but had identified only about 10 percent false-positive (that is, unverified) cases. Major central nervous system malformations were less well reported, with about one-third of them false-positive. For all other birth defects, the DI either omitted more than half of the cases, or more than half of the cases reported were false-positive cases. These findings raise questions about the validity of analytic studies of birth defects if the data are obtained only from the DI or the birth certificate.
Birth Certificates↗
Are we underestimating rates of vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth? The validity of delivery methods from birth certificates.
Previous studies of birth certificates have not fully evaluated how accurately they identify delivery methods that have a historical component, such as repeat cesarean and vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC). The authors used linked Georgia birth certificates for first and second deliveries to examine the accuracy of four reported delivery methods in the second pregnancy: vaginal (without previous cesarean), VBAC, primary cesarean, and repeat cesarean, as well as an indicator of a previous cesarean. From the immediate birth certificates, the delivery method for each of the two births was classified as vaginal (V) or cesarean section (CS), which produced possible sequences of V-V, CS-V, V-CS, and CS-CS. The delivery method for the second births to 106,049 women from 1989 through 1992 was reviewed, taking into account the historical information from the linked certificates regarding the first births. Only 42.0% of women with a CS-V sequence were correctly designated on the second birth certificate as a VBAC; 79.3% of women with a V- CS sequence were correctly designated as primary cesarean. From 1980 through 1988, birth certificates contained a check box indicating a previous cesarean (but no VBAC box). During this period, only 75.5% of 25,491 women with a previous cesarean were so designated on the birth certificate. These findings suggest that cross-sectional vital records data substantially underestimate VBAC and primary cesarean rates.
Birth Certificates↗
Completeness of ascertainment of prenatal smoking using birth certificates and confidential questionnaires: variations by maternal attributes and infant birth weight. PRAMS Working Group. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
Birth certificate data frequently are used to monitor the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy. The authors used a two-sample capture-recapture method to estimate the completeness of ascertainment of prenatal smoking on birth certificates and on confidential questionnaires in six US states. Completeness of ascertainment was also examined according to maternal attributes and infant birth weight. The samples included white women who delivered a live infant between 1993 and 1995 in one of six states (Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Maine, South Carolina, or West Virginia) and who responded to a questionnaire mailed to them 2-6 months postpartum as part of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. State-specific sample sizes ranged from 2,647 to 4,795. The completeness of ascertainment ranged from 70.6% to 82.0% using birth certificates and from 86.2% to 90.3% using confidential questionnaires. In all six states, the birth certificates' completeness of ascertainment varied by maternal education and infant birth weight, and the questionnaires' completeness varied by maternal age. Both birth certificates and questionnaires underestimated the true extent of smoking during pregnancy among these white women. Differential reporting by birth weights recorded on birth certificates would result in an overestimated association between low birth weight and prenatal smoking.
Adolescent↗
Do birth certificate data accurately reflect the number of CNM-attended births? An exploratory study.
The number of midwife-attended births is increasing as reported on birth certificates in the United States. However, there is some evidence that births attended by certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) may not be accurately recorded. In this exploratory study, data on birth attendants for those clients giving birth during the study period were compared by using four sources: the client's hospital chart, the CNM birth log, hospital birth certificate records, and state vital statistics records. Researchers sought to determine the accuracy of birth attendant data as reflected in these four sources and whether other providers were listed as the birth attendant for actual CNM-attended births. During the study period, the CNM birth log showed that CNMs attended 97 vaginal births, whereas the client hospital charts for these same births noted 92 births as attended by CNMs (the other five were operative vaginal births). Hospital birth certificate and state vital statistics data during the study time period credited 88 and 82 of the client's births, respectively, to the CNMs. Exploration of the inaccurately reported birth attendant data, implications for practice, and recommendations for accurately recording birth certificate data are discussed.
Adult↗
Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies.
Birth certificates comprise an important source of data on the prevalence of genetic conditions and for monitoring possible teratogens in the population. Investigators have found wide variability (12 to 100%) in the accuracy of reporting. In a large public hospital, of those congenital anomalies detected at birth, only 5.4% were recorded on the birth certificate. This is one of the lowest rates ever reported. An underreporting correction factor may be applied if congenital anomalies are distributed randomly with respect to reporting status, and the rate of reporting is sufficient to comprise a valid sample for estimating a correction factor (that is, 20% or more reported). In this study, factors such as numbers or types of anomalies, race, infant birthweight, or estimated gestational age did not significantly influence the rate of birth certificate reporting. Thus, our data satisfied the first but not the second criterion for derivation of a correction factor. In conducting epidemiologic studies, birth certificate data should be used with: (1) great caution; (2) a system of validation with the medical record to estimate the degree of underreporting and to derive a correction factor; and (3) a priori knowledge that underreporting of congenital anomalies on this document is highly prevalent.
Bias↗
The surveillance of birth defects: the usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate.
To assess the sensitivity and positive predictive value of birth defects reported on the 1989 revision of the US Standard Birth Certificate, a population of 76,862 Atlanta-area births during 1989 and 1990 was used as the basis for comparing 771 birth certificates that reported birth defects with 2428 live-born infant records in a birth defects registry that uses multiple sources of case ascertainment. Only 14% of birth defects in the registry records were reported on birth certificates. After the analysis was restricted to defects recognizable at birth, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the birth certificates were 28% and 77%, respectively. Birth certificates underestimate birth defect rates and should be used cautiously for birth defect surveillance and epidemiological studies.
Birth Certificates↗
The reliability and validity of birth certificates.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the reliability and validity of birth certificate variables and encourage nurses to spearhead data improvement. DATA SOURCES: A Medline key word search of reliability and validity of birth certificate, and a reference review of more than 60 articles were done. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-four primary research studies of U.S. birth certificates that involved validity or reliability assessment. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were reviewed, critiqued, and organized as either a reliability or a validity study and then grouped by birth certificate variable. DATA SYNTHESIS: The reliability and validity of birth certificate data vary considerably by item. Insurance, birthweight, Apgar score, and delivery method are more reliable than prenatal visits, care, and maternal complications. Tobacco and alcohol use, obstetric procedures, and delivery events are unreliable. Birth certificates are not valid sources of information on tobacco and alcohol use, prenatal care, maternal risk, pregnancy complications, labor, and delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Birth certificates are a key data source for identifying causes of increasing U.S. infant mortality but have serious reliability and validity problems. Nurses are with mothers and infants at birth, so they are in a unique position to improve data quality and spread the word about the importance of reliable and valid data. Recommendations to improve data are presented.
Alcohol Drinking↗
Validation of birth certificate data in New York State.
Vital statistics birth certificate data are an important source of information for researchers, policy makers, and state officials to evaluate the quality of care delivered to pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of data elements being reported by the hospitals on the birth certificate record when compared to the medical record. This study used a random sample of birth certificates from two upstate and two downstate counties, in New York State, comprising a total of 100 records per county. The review assessed data elements from seven major categories: prenatal care, maternal medical risk factors, risk factors related to pregnancy, lifestyle risk factors, method of delivery, complications of labor and delivery, and infant information. Sensitivity, specificity, the positive predictive value and the negative predictive value assessed level of agreement between the birth certificate and the medical record. Overall, the birth certificate data reflected high specificity, because most conditions are rare. The sensitivity of the data was more varied, ranging from 0 to 100%, reflecting that if a rare condition was present it often was not documented on the birth certificate. Many of the data elements are reported accurately. However, caution should be used for data elements that are poorly reported.
Birth Certificates↗
Bias in congenital malformations information from the birth certificate.
An analysis of 1983 data from California birth certificates, and from the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program case registry, showed that there is a bias in reporting of congenital malformations on the birth certificate. Hospitals with many births erroneously report lower malformation rates than do hospitals with few births. The bias is partly due to the source of information; larger hospitals are more likely to get their information about malformations from the obstetrician than from the pediatrician. Since malformation data recorded on the birth certificate is both incomplete and biased, at present it is advisable to use these data for epidemiologic analyses with great caution.
Bias↗
The validity of information on "race" and "Hispanic ethnicity" in California birth certificate data.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of racial/ethnic information in California birth certificate data. DATA SOURCES: Computerized birth certificate data and postpartum interviews with California mothers. STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION: Birth certificates were matched with face-to-face structured postpartum interviews with 7,428 mothers to compare racial/ethnic information between the two data sources. Interviews were conducted in Spanish or English during delivery stays at 16 California hospitals, 1994-1995. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The sensitivity of racial/ethnic classification in birth certificate data was very high (94 percent to 99 percent) for African Americans, Asians/Pacific Islanders, Europeans/Middle Easterners, and Latinas (Hispanics). For Native Americans, however, the sensitivity was only 54 percent. The positive predictive value of birth certificate classification of race/ethnicity was high for all racial/ethnic groups (96 percent to 97 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited training of birth clerks, the maternal racial/ethnic information in California birth certificate data appears to be a valid measure of self-identified race and Hispanic ethnicity for groups other than Native Americans.
Adolescent↗
Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records.
In 1989, the state of Tennessee adopted a new birth certificate which incorporates changes recommended by the National Center for Health Statistics in the revised US Standard Certificate of Live Birth. The data now being collected are intended to provide improved information for understanding maternal and infant health issues. To assess data quality, the authors compared information reported on the 1989 Tennessee birth certificates with the same data obtained from an ongoing case-control study in which the delivery hospital medical records of mothers and infants were reviewed by trained nurse abstractors using a structured data collection instrument. Cases (n = 1,016) were all infants born in Tennessee in 1989 with birth weights less than 1,500 g or other infants who died during the first 28 days of life. The infants were identified from linked birth-death certificate files. Control infants (n = 634) were randomly selected from the noncase population. The most reliable information obtained from birth certificates was descriptive demographic data and birth weight. The quality of information obtained from the new birth certificate checkboxes varied. Routine medical procedures were better reported on the birth certificates than relatively uncommon conditions and occurrences, even serious ones. Caution is needed in using birth certificate data for assessment of maternal medical risk factors, complications of labor and delivery, abnormal conditions of the newborn, and congenital anomalies, since sensitivity is low.
Birth Certificates↗
False-positive reporting of Down syndrome on Ohio and New York birth certificates.
Although correction for underreporting of congenital malformations on birth certificates is included in most studies, inaccuracy of reporting has not been widely examined. Two separate investigations were conducted on the inaccuracy of Down syndrome (DS) reporting on birth certificates; ie, false-positive cases in which an individual coded as DS did not in fact have DS. In Ohio, 824 individuals were coded as DS on their birth certificate during 1970-1981. Of these, a definitive determination as to whether or not they had DS was made on 778 by using cytogenetic data, medical records, the state's birth defects registry, school records, and by questioning physicians. Fifty-seven false-positives were found, indicating a 7.8% level of coding inaccuracy for all races and 6.9% for whites only. Nine of these arose from miscodings during data processing; 48 were misdiagnosed as DS. This can be contrasted with false-negatives also studied in Ohio, where 66.1% of DS cases were not reported on the birth certificate. No statistical differences were observed between false-positives and true DS in the distribution of sexes, in population size of county of birth, or in year of birth (although there was a declining false-positive rate over the 12 year period). The percentage of DS false-positives, however, was significantly higher for younger maternal ages (greater than or equal to 30 years) than older ones (greater than or equal to 30 years) and for nonwhites compared to whites. Further, there was a strong negative correlation between the percentage of false-positives and the degree of certainty expressed in reporting DS on the birth certificate.
Adolescent↗
Birth certificate methods in five hospitals.
This study evaluated the methods of data collection of birth certificate information by five high-delivery hospitals in northern Texas. Research purposes were to identify sources and methods of birth certificate data collection and identify the most-reliable methods. This descriptive study involved interviews of each hospital's data collectors and review of 1999 Texas birth certificate data. Medical record clerks, whose training varied, but usually consisted of orientation by another medical record clerk, collected birth certificate data within 24 hours of birth. There was no standard method for training, nor was there a minimum level of education required. In four of the five hospitals studied, a birth certificate clerk collected most of the information with limited input from other medical sources. The information obtained on birth certificates therefore varied according to the collector and the priority placed upon the accuracy of information. Birth certificate data contain questionable reliability, which undermines data use in research, funding, and policy decisions.
Bias↗