You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Infant mortality is not an adequate summary measure of population health
  1. C D Mathers,
  2. J A Salomon,
  3. C J L Murray
  1. Evidence and Information for Policy, World Health Organisation, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr C D Mathers;
 mathersc{at}who.int

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.5.319

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Measuring the quantity of interest

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) annually reports infant mortality rates (IMR), child mortality rates, adult mortality rates, average life expectancies, and healthy life expectancies for all 191 member states.1,2 IMR correlates highly with HALE across these 191 member states in 2000 (r=0.93). Reidpath and Allotey argue that IMR is an acceptable proxy measure of population health because of this high correlation.3

    Inspection of the country specific estimates of HALE and IMR reveals that, despite the high correlation, there are substantial variations both in adult mortality and in the average loss of full health at any given level of IMR. In the nine countries with an IMR in the range of 6–7 per 1000, for example, there is a range of 71 to 80 in life expectancy at birth and a range of 10% to 15% in the proportion of total life expectancy …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • The acronym for healthy life expectancy was changed from DALE to HALE in the World Health Report 2001.1

    Linked Articles

    • In this issue
      “ALE/HALE/DALE OR IMR”
      John R Ashton Carlos Alvarez-Dardet
      Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2003; 57 313-313 Published Online First: 01 May 2003. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.5.313