Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Infant mortality rate by state, 1999. Source of data: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2002 Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Well-Being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation; 2002.
- Fig 2.
Low birth weight rate by state, 1999. Source of data: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2002 Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Well-Being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation; 2002.
- Fig 3.
Composite health score by state. Source of data: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2002 Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Well-Being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation; 2002.
- Fig 4.
ANOM decision chart for deviation of regional means from overall the mean (0). Level of significance: .001. Adapted from SAS ANOM chart using SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). - - - indicates the decision limit (defines statistical significance, similar to the function of confidence interval; limits vary for each region because of the number of states in each region [minimum n: 9; maximum n: 16]).
- Fig 5.
Standardized scores by health indicator. Source of data: 2002 Kids Count Report. Prepared by the Institute for Health, Policy and Evaluation Research, Duval County Health Department, January 2004.
Tables
Rank State Score* 1 New Hampshire 1.62 2 Massachusetts 1.61 3 Vermont 1.35 4 Maine 1.25 5 Washington 1.20 6 Minnesota 1.10 7 Rhode Island 1.10 8 Connecticut 1.08 9 Utah 1.06 10 Oregon 1.05 11 Hawaii 1.02 12 Iowa 1.02 13 California 0.91 14 New Jersey 0.87 15 North Dakota 0.74 16 New York 0.70 17 Alaska 0.54 18 Wisconsin 0.54 19 Nebraska 0.40 20 Virginia 0.33 21 Pennsylvania 0.22 22 Ohio 0.10 23 Michigan 0.09 24 Kansas 0.03 25 Montana −0.05 26 Colorado −0.06 27 Idaho −0.17 28 Delaware −0.21 29 South Dakota −0.23 30 Arizona −0.24 31 Nevada −0.25 32 West Virginia −0.30 33 Texas −0.31 34 Illinois −0.32 35 Florida −0.34 36 Kentucky −0.35 37 Missouri −0.39 38 Maryland −0.44 39 Indiana −0.45 40 Oklahoma −0.87 41 North Carolina −0.94 42 Wyoming −0.96 43 New Mexico −1.01 44 Georgia −1.05 45 Tennessee −1.19 46 Arkansas −1.35 47 South Carolina −1.76 48 Louisiana −1.85 49 Alabama −2.12 50 Mississippi −2.69 ↵* Standard scores range from −3 to 3, 3 SD below and above the mean of 0.
- TABLE 2.
Comparison of Composite Health Index Scores of Deep South to the Remaining States in the Census Bureau–Defined South
Region No. of States Health Score Mean 95% CI t Score P Deep South 9 −1.4774 −1.9378, −1.0170 −3.991 .0001 Rest of South 7 −0.3089 −.5714, −.0464 Control Mean Difference SE Significance Upper Bound Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Deep South 2.2669* 0.2988 2.1626 × 10−5 2.8910 Midwest Deep South 1.5267* 0.2824 2.4315 × 10−5 2.1164 West Deep South 1.7108* 0.2939 2.2233 × 10−5 2.3245 Dunnett t tests treat 1 group as a control and compare all other groups against it.
↵* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
- TABLE 4.
Variables With Statistical Association to CHI Through Multiple-Regression Analysis
Term β Coefficient* SE P 95% CI of Coefficient Intercept 0.4541 0.1005 <.0001 0.2515, 0.6566 Not attending school or working −0.6053 0.0900 <.0001 −0.7865, −0.4240 No parent working full-time 0.2376 0.0822 .0059 0.0720, 0.4032 Deep South −1.0299 0.2624 .0003 −1.5586, −0.5011 New Midwest −0.7903 0.1538 <.0001 −1.1002, −0.4804 Percent black −0.3358 0.0968 .0012 −0.5310, −0.1407 ↵* Positive β scores equal relative good health, and negative β scores equal relative poor health.
- TABLE 5.
Variables With Statistical Associations Revealed Through Independent Bivariate Analysis
Variables R Adjusted R2 Significance Living in the South 0.6914 0.478 .0001 Percent of population who are black 0.6870 0.461 .0001 Percent of teens not attending school and not working 0.5771 0.333 .0001 Percent of children living with parents who do not have full-time, year-round employment 0.1414 0.020 .164 Living in the New Midwest 0.0316 −.020 .828 Sources of data: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2002 Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Well-Being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation; 2002; and US Census Data, 2000.
In this issue
