IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19837391042-1049_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalences of anemia and iron deficiency anemia in black and white women in the United States estimated by two methods

Author

Listed:
  • Meyers, L.D.
  • Habicht, J.P.
  • Johnson, C.L.
  • Brownie, C.

Abstract

Prevalences of anemia were estimated by two methods for 742 Black and 3,074 White nonpregnant women of childbearing age drawn from a large probability sample of the United States civilian noninstitutionalized population (NHANES I). One method defines the prevalence of anemia as the proportion of women with hemoglobin levels below a 12 g/dl 'cut-off'. The second method defines the prevalence of anemia as the proportion of women whose hemoglobin values are shifted downwards relative to a distribution of hemoglobin values of non-anemic women. Estimates produced by both methods suggest a higher prevalence of anemia in Black than in White women. Estimates produced by the 'cut-off' method, however, are higher than those from the 'distribution' method for both racial groups, probably because the 'cut-off' method results in large overestimates in populations where anemia prevalence is low. The 'distribution' method is further used to estimate the contribution of iron deficiency to anemia. Essentially all anemia in White women and a high proportion of anemia in Black women is associated with iron deficiency in the US civilian noninstitutionalized population. Iron supplementation trials are needed in order to define the magnitude of the problem accurately and plan appropriate public health programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyers, L.D. & Habicht, J.P. & Johnson, C.L. & Brownie, C., 1983. "Prevalences of anemia and iron deficiency anemia in black and white women in the United States estimated by two methods," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 73(9), pages 1042-1049.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1983:73:9:1042-1049_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1983:73:9:1042-1049_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.