Comparisons of Mortality and Pre-discharge Respiratory Outcomes in Small-for-gestational-age and Appropriate-for-gestational-age Premature Infants.

BACKGROUND: There are differences in the literature regarding outcomes of premature small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and appropriate-for gestational-age (AGA) infants, possibly due to failure to take into account gestational age at birth. OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality and respiratory morbidity of SGA and AGA premature newborn infants. DESIGN/METHODS: A retrospective study was done of the 2,487 infants born without congenital anomalies at RESULTS: Controlling for GA, premature SGA infants were at a higher risk for mortality (Odds ratio 3.1, P = 0.001) and at lower risk of respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 0.71, p = 0.02) than AGA infants. However multivariate logistic regression modeling found that the odds of having respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) varied between SGA and AGA infants by GA. There was no change in RDS risk in SGA infants at GA 32 wk (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.63; p < 0.01). After controlling for GA, SGA infants were observed to be at a significantly higher risk for developing chronic lung disease as compared to AGA infants (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.2 - 3.9, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between SGA and AGA infants in total days on ventilator. Among infants who survived, mean length of hospital stay was significantly higher in SGA infants born between 26-36 wks GA than AGA infants. CONCLUSIONS: Premature SGA infants have significantly higher mortality, significantly higher risk of developing chronic lung disease and longer hospital stay as compared to premature AGA infants. Even the reduced risk of RDS in infants born at >/=32 wk GA, (conferred possibly by intra-uterine stress leading to accelerated lung maturation) appears to be of transient effect and is counterbalanced by adverse effects of poor intrauterine growth on long term pulmonary outcomes such as chronic lung disease.

Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan America: Findings from the Latest National Paired Testing Study

During the summer and fall of 2000, local fair housing organizations in twenty major metropolitan areas nationwide conducted a total of 4,600 paired tests, directly comparing the treatment that African Americans and Hispanics receive to the treatment that whites receive when they visit real estate or rental offices to inquire about available housing. This study, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted by the Urban Institute, provides the most complete and up-to-date information available about the persistence of housing market discrimination against African American and Hispanic homeseekers in large urban areas of the United States today and about the progress we have made in combating discrimination over the last decade.

Mortgage Lending in Chicago and Los Angeles: A Paired Testing Study of the Pre-Application Process

This paper analyzes data from a recently completed study of discrimination against African-American and Hispanic homebuyers when they visit mortgage lending institutions in two major metropolitan markets to make pre-application inquiries. It represents the first application of paired testing to rigorously measure discrimination in the mortgage lending process. The paired tests isolated significant levels of differential treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity in Chicago with African Americans and Hispanics receiving less information and assistance than comparable whites. Adverse treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics is also observed in Los Angeles for specific treatments, but the overall pattern of treatment observed did not differ statistically from equal treatment. Multivariate analyses for Chicago indicate that large lenders treat minorities more favorably than small lenders and that lenders with substantial numbers of applications from African-Americans treat African Americans more favorably than lenders with predominantly white application pools.

Other Things Being Equal: A Paired Testing Study of Discrimination in Mortgage Lending

This article summarizes a recently completed study, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and conducted by the Urban Institute, of discrimination against black and Hispanic homebuyers when they visit mortgage lending institutions in two major metropolitan markets to make pre-application inquiries. It represents the first application of paired testing to rigorously measure discrimination in the mortgage lending process. The paired tests disclosed significant levels of adverse treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity, with African Americans and Hispanics receiving less information and assistance than comparable whites, even at this very early stage in the application process.