Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vital andHealth StatisticsComparability ofthe Death Certificateand the 1986National MortalityFollowback Survey
Series2:Data Evaluation and Methods ResearchNot 118A comparison of information on demographic items on death certificateswith responses obtained in the 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey.This survey included a national sample of person 25 years of age and over
who died in 1986,
U.S, DEPARTMENTOF HEALTHANDHUMANSERVICESPubllcHealthServiceCentersfor Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Health Statistics
Hyattsvllle,MarylandNovember1993DHHSPublicationNo. (PHS]94-1392
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may bereproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, isappreciated.
Suggested citation
Poe GS, Powell-Griner E, McLaughlin JK, et al. Comparability of the deathcertificate and the 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey. National Centerfor Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(1 18). 1993.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Comparability of the death certificate and the 1986 National MortalityFollowback Survey.
p. cm. – (Vital and health statistics, Series 2, Data evaluation andmethods research ; no, 118) (DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 94–1 392)
“November 1993.”“A comparison of information of demographic items on death certificates
with responses obtained in the 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey. Thissurvey included a national sample of persons 25 years of age and over whodied in 1986,” ISBN &8406-0484-X
1. Mortality– United States– Information sewices. 2. Morfali~-UnitedStates – Data processing, 3. Mortality– United States – Statistics. 4.Death– Proof and certification– United States, 1. National Center for HealthStatistics (US.) Il. Series. Ill. Series: DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 93-1392.RA409.U45 no. 118[HB1335]362.1 ‘0723 s–dc20[304.6’4’097309046] 93–1 4607
CIP
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of DocumentsMail Stop: SSOPWashington, DC 20402-9328
National Center for Health Statistics
Manning Feinleib, M.D., Dr. P.H., Director
Jack R. Anderson, Deputy Director
Jacob J. Feldman, Ph.D., Associate DirectorforAnalysisand Epidemiology
Gail F. Fisher, Ph.D., Associate Director for Planning andExtramural Programs
Peter L. Hurley, Associate Director for V2taland HealthStatistics Systems
Robert A. Israel, Associate Director for InternationalStatistics
Stephen E. Nieberding, Associate Director forManagement
Charles J. Rothwell, Associate Director for DataProcessing and Selvices
Monroe G. Sirken, Ph.D., Associate Director for Researchand Methodology
David L. Larson, Assistant Directo~ Atlanta
Office of Vital and Health Statistics
Peter L. Hurley, Associate Director
Division of Vital Statistics
John E. Patterson, Director
James A. Weed, Ph.D., Depuy Director
James A. Weed, Ph.D., Acting Chiejf Followback SurveyBranch
Mabel G. Smith, ChieJ Statistical Resources Branch
Joseph D. Farrell, Chiej Systems and ProgrammingBranch
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”””..”””.””.””””.” “.””””.”””.
Sources and limitations ofdata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......”.”””””
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...””””””.””.”””””””””.””” ““””.”””””.Age ,, .,,,,. ,., .,,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”””” “-”-.”””””.Marital status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Occupation ... ,,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .o.O, .” 0”00.s”oo. .” ”.””oo””””. oo““Veteran statuso . .. o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. OO..OOO... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Place of death . ,., , , ,. . . . . .$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 000.. 0000o.. o”ooo”””o .000Q””””os
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”””.” ““”””””.”””””””.”
List of detailed tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~~. .. 00”o”””OOO”o”””” ““””o””.
Appendixes
L U.S, Standard Certificate ofDeath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IL Instructions for filling death certificate items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111, Selected questionnaire items, 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Texttabies
A.
B,
c,
D.
E,
F,
G.
Registration areas reporting age, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, occupation, industry, placeof death, andveteran status on the death certificate: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Number of death certificates and completed National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaires for reportingStates andresponse rates by selected variables: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to age, byage of decedent on death certificate and by raceon survey questionnaire, interval between death andsumey,and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to race, byrace ofdecedent on death certificate and byage at death, interval between death and survey, and relationshipof informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent ofinformant questionnairesin agreementwith corresponding death certificate with regard to Hispanicorigin, by Hispanic origin of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, internalbetween death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to maritalstatus, by marital status ofdecedent on death certificate and by raceon survey questionnaire, interval betweendeath and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986 . . .Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard tooccupation, by occupation of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, intervalbetween death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...””” ““””””” “
1
2
556788991013
14
15
48
49
52
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Iii
H. Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to industry,by industry of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death andsurvey, and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986, ...,,,,..,,. 10
J. Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to veteranstatus, by veteran status of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval betweendeath and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986 ... 11
K. Number of responses by place of death on death certificate and on National Mortality Followback Surveyquestionnaire: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . ,.. . . . ..$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Symbols
--- Data not available
. . . Category not applicable
Quantity zero
0.0 Quantity more than zero but less than0.05
z Quantity more than zero but less than500 where numbers are rounded tothousands
* Figure does not meet standard ofreliability or precision
# Figure suppressed to comply withconfidentiality requirements
Comparability of the deathcertificate and the 1986National MortalityFollowback Surveyby Gail S, Poe, M. P.H., Division of Vital Statistics; EvePowell-Griner, Ph. D., formerly with the Office of Vitaland Health Statistics; Joseph K. McLaughlin, Ph.D.,National Cancer Institute; Paul J, Placek, Ph.D., Officeof Vital and Health Statistics; Grey B. Thompson, Ph.D.,formerly with the Division of Vital Statistics; and KathyRobinson, formerly with Information ManagementServices
Introduction
The death certificate is the primary source of annualmortality data in the United States (See appendix I). Thevalidity of cause-of-death information has been studiedextensively (1,2), as has the accuracy of the occupationand industry items (3-16). Less information exists on thequality of the remaining information on the death certifi-cate. Two studies have compared Census Bureau Popula-tion Study interview responses with death certificate entries(17-20). In 1986, the National Mortality Followback Sur-vey (NMFS) was conducted by the National Center forHealth Statistics (NCHS) to provide a large amount ofinformation, most of which is not available elsewhere, on a
NOTES: The data collection agent for the survey was the Bureau of theCensus, Cosponsors of the survey included the Health Care FinancingAdministratio~ the National Cancer Institute; the Indian Health Ser-vice; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the NationalInstitute on Agin& the National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment; the National Institute of Mental Healt~ the VeteransAdministration and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planningand Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of the Department ofHealth and Human Services.
This report was prepared in the Division of Vital Statistics of theNational Center for Health Statistics. Isadore Seeman, formerly with theOfficC of Vital and Health Statistics Systems, provided overall projectdirection; Steven Botman, Office of Research and Methodology, pro-vided guidance in the design of the sampling procedur~ Ruth Parsons,Information Management Services, provided guidance on computerprogramming% Betty Smith, Statistical Resources Branch, Division ofVital Statistics, provided content review. This report was edited byIvkrgmt Avery and typeset by Annette F. Gaidurgis, PublicationsBranch, Division of Data Services.
sample of deaths. These data are useful in assessing thereliability of demographic items reported on the deathcertificate.
The purpose of this report is to assess the compara-bility of demographic information obtained from re-sponses on the death certificate with data from the 1986NMFS, which is an independent source using a differentmethod of data collection, for those items common to bothsources. Although it is not possible to discern whichsource of data is valid, the level of agreement sheds lighton the quality of these information systems.
Sources and limitations ofdata
The data presented in this report are based on the1986 NMFS conducted by the National Center for HealthStatistics and on the death certificates filed with Stateregistrars of vital statistics and compiled by NCHS. The1986 NMFS comprised a nationally representative sampleof adults aged 25 years or over who died in 1986. Oregonwas not included in the survey because of the State’srespondent-consent requirements. The data are, there-fore, representative of deaths of adult residents in theUnited States excluding Oregon, A detailed description ofthe methods and procedures used in the NMFS has beenpublished (21).
The universe for the 1986 NMFS was composed of alldeath certificates of decedents 25 years of age or olderfiled in the United States. The sampling frame consistedof death certificates selected from the 1986 Current Mor-tality Sample (CMS). The CMS is a 10-percent systematicsample of death certificates received by the State vitalstatistics offices and transmitted to NCHS about 3 monthsafter the deaths. CMS records were selected for eachmonth of the year. The total sample was 18,733 decedents.This sample included 2,274 deaths selected with certainty(at a sampling rate of 100 percent within the CMS) tomeet specific research needs. The groups for which alldeaths in the CMS were selected included AmericanIndian, Eskimo, and Aleut decedents; all deaths due toAsthma; deaths due to Ischemic heart disease for males25-44 years of age and females 25–54 years of age; anddeaths for selected cancer sites. Black decedents wereoversampled 2.9 times, and decedents under age 55 wereoversampled 3.1 times.
The data presented in this report are not weighted,They reflect what actually occurred in the sample ratherthan estimates of the degree of comparability from anexamination of all death certificates for U.S. residents 25years of age and older dying in 1986.
It is possible, if desired, to prepare weighted estimatesof consistency because the public-use data tape contains aweight for each record (22). Because of the oversamplingof some groups that generally had slightly lower agree-ment rates, weighted estimates would have produced slightlyhigher overall rates of agreement. In the tables, an aster-isk is shown for estimates of percents in which there arefewer than 30 cases in the denominator, because these
figures do not meet standards of reliability or precision,An NMFS questionnaire was mailed to the death
certificate informant, usually the decedent’s next of kin oranother person familiar with the decedent. A followupquestionnaire was mailed for nonresponding cases, Tele-phone and personal interviews were attempted for caseswhere there was no mail response.
Following data collection, the questionnaire data andthe CMS information were matched to the Multiple Causeof Death File. The primary matching criterion was thatState of occurrence and death certificate number wereidentical; the secondary criterion was that demographicitems such as sex, date of death, age, race, and underlyingcause of death matched, The primary criterion could notbe applied to Nebraska, Nevada, or New Mexico, becausethese States renumber the death certificates, Therefore, itis likely that for these three States there were some casesin which an incorrect Multiple Cause of Death File deathcertificate was matched to the questionnaire. Becauseinclusion of these States increases the likelihood thatdifferences in data from the certificate and the question-naire may be due to matching errors, they are excludedfrom this report. The total number of cases excludedbecause they were from Nevada, New Mexico, and Ne-braska is 285,
The overall response rate for the survey was 88.6 per-cent. In addition, there was item nonresponse for both thedeath certificate and the questionnaire, Also, not allStates collect, code, and report all variables. Table Ashows, for each variable included in this report, the Statesthat report that variable. For each variable included in thisreport, table B shows:
. the number of sample cases for the reporting States
. the death certificate item completion rate
. the number of questionnaires completed
. the questionnaire item response rate
. the questionnaire effective item response rate (thepercent of cases in the reporting States for which therewas a questionnaire entry for the item)
. the effective item response rate for both the question-naire and death certificate (the percent of all cases inthe reporting States that have a response for the itemfor both the death certificate and the questionnaire)
2
Table A. Registration areas reporting age, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, occupation, industry, place of death, and veteran statuson the death certificate: UnitedStates, 1986
Areai
PlaceHispenlc Marital of Veteran
Age Race origin status Occupation Industry death status
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connectlout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DlstrictofColumbla , . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illlnols. $ . . . . .. o . . . . . . . . . .Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iowa, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maine, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mlssourl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NewHampshir e . . . . . . . . . . .New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NewYork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RhodeIsland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WestVirglnla . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
xx
xx
xx
xx
x xx xx xx x
xxxx
x xx x
xx xx x
xx x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
xx
x
xx
x
xxx
x xx
xx x
xxx
x xx
x xx x
xx x
x
xxxxxxxx
x xx
xx xx x
xx x
x xx x
xxx
x xx
xxx
xxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxx
xxx
xxxxxxxxx
Ioregon, NObra~ka, Nsvada, and New Me~i~O were exc[uded frOm the comparability analysis in this report because Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded its pa~lcipatfOn in the Igae
NaUonal Mortallty Followback Survey, and the primary matching criteria could not ba applied for tha other thraa States bacause they reiaaue death cartificste numbars after the processing of the
CurrentMorialltySample.
The effectiveresponse rate forboth the questionnaire andthe death certificate was between 82.3 and 86.6percentfor cdlitems except veteran status, which was 75.7.
For all variablesin this report, with the exceptionofveteran status, the responses from the Multiple CauseofDeath File are compared with those from the question-naire. Because veteran status is not included inthe Mul-tiple Cause ofDeath File, thisvariable was takenfrom theCMS,
In presenting the percents of responses agreeing intables C-J, thepercents are based onthe number ofcases
in which there isa responseto both the questionnaire andthe death certificate. Cases in which entries for an itemare blank, illegible, or otherwise unusable for either thequestionnaire or the death certificate are excluded fromboth the numerator and denominator ofthe percents.
In comparing the two data sources, information fromdeath certificates was used as the denominator. That is,agreement levels reflect the degree to which next-of-kininformation on the questionnaire matches that from thedeath certificate. Percent agreements shown are basedon the groupings shown. For example, where percent
3
Table B. Number of death certificates and completed National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaires for reporting States andresponse rates by seiected variables: United States, 1986
QuestlonnlareDeath certificate Completed quest[onnake and certificate
Item item Effective item Effective /ternVariable Total completion Total respons.# responsi# responsd
Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent
Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,448 99.8 16}339 97.9 88.7 86.5
Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,448 599.9 16,339 97.9 86.7 86.6
Hispanic origin , . . . . . . . 8,356 96.0 7,568 94.1 65.2 83.7
Marital status . . . . . . . . . 18,448 99.3 16,339 97.6 86.5 86.0
Occupation . . . . . . . . . . 4,525 96.3 4,177 95.1 87.8 84,7
Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,525 96.3 4,177 92.4 85.3 82,3
Place of death . . . . . . . . 13,580 99.8 11,895 98.1 85.9 85.7
Veteran status . . . . . . , . 14,050 67.9 12,422 96.6 85.4 75.7
NOTES:Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability analyala in this reporl because Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded 11sparflclpation inthe 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matching criteria could not be applied for the other three 8tates because they reissue death certificate numbers after theprocessing of the Current Mortality Sample.
The denominators of these rates exclude the number of cases in those States that did not code or collect this information on the death certificate. Sea table A for apeclfio States.
1Casaafor which a final death certificate was not matched were classified as nOnreaPOnsea.2$ercent of filled questionnaires In the reporting States for which there was a substantive questionnaire entty fOrthe item.3perce”t of aII ~aSeS in the reporting States for which there was a substantive qUaetiOnnaireentry fOrthe item.
4Percent of all caaes in the reporting States for which there was a substantive response for the Item for both the death certificate and the questionnaire.5For 1986, the number of death certificates for which rata waa unknown, not stated, or not classifiable was 0.2 percent of the total daaths (for all States and registration areas), Death certiflcateewith race entry not stated are assigned to a racial designation as followx If the praceding racord is coded “white;’ the code aaaignment ia “’white”; if the code ia “other than whita;’ theassignment is “black,”
agreement is shown for the 25–29-year age group, thismeans the number of cases in which the age on both thedeath certificate and the questionnaire is in the range25-29 divided by the number of cases in which the age onthe death certificate is in the range 25–29.Similarly,wherethe percent agreement is shown for an occupation orindustry category such as “managerial and professional,”this percent is for the group as shown–not for lessaggregated levels.
Sources of error for both the death certificate andquestionnaire include reporting errors, coding errors, andprocessing errors, Except for occupation and industq,conceptually the variables are the same for both sources.The death certificate asked for the “usual” occupationand industry, and the questionnaire requested informationon longest held occupation and industry in which thedecedent worked for pay. “Usual occupation” on thedeath certificate is defined as the kind of work the dece-dent did during most of his or her working life. Inaddition, the place-of-death variables differ somewhatbetween the two sources. For the questionnaire, the re-spondent was simply asked, “Where did the person die?”For the death certificate, the place of death variable is
based on the location of death, which maybe at a hospital,en route to or on arrival at a hospital, or at some otherplace. If a hospital was cited, a distinction is made amongdecedents pronounced dead in the hospital or other insti-tution, those dead on arrival, outpatients or emergeneyroom patients, and inpatients.
With respect to age, Hispanic origin, marital status,occupation, industry, and veteran status, coding instruc-tions are essentially the same for both sources. Occupa-tion and industry were coded according to standardoccupation and industry codes (23). There were differ-ences in coding race: On the death certificate, entries suchas “Mexican,“ “Cuban,” and “other Hispanic” were codedas “white”; on the questionnaire, such entries were codedas “other.” Moreover, responses that were not exactly oneof the four major races were classified by coders in mostcases as one of the four major races on the death certifi-cate, whereas they were left as “other” on the questionnaire,
Copies of the U.S. Standard Death Certificate, theinstructions for completing the certificate, and the respon-dent questionnaire items are included in this report asappendixes.
Findings
Age between the death and the survey: There was 85.5-percentagreement for the shortest interval of 22–25 weeks, and
There was only 77.5-percent agreement on exact age only 67.O-percent agreement for the interval of 52 or moreof decedent (table C). The agreement was highest for weeks. This relationship was observed for most 10-yeardecedents 25-29 years of age (85.9 percent) as reported age groups.on the death certificate, and lowest for decedents 70-79 There was greater agreement in age for white dece-years of age (74,0 percent). dents (81.6 percent) than for black (67.1 percent) or Arner-
There was a strong relationship between percent ican Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut (70.8 percent) decedents.agreeing on exact age in number of years and the interval There was greater agreement for white decedents for each
Table C. Percent of Informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to age, by age of decedenton death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedentiNational Mortality Followback Survey, 1986
Age of decedent on certificate
25 years 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-69 90 yearsCase characteristics and over years years years years years years years and over
All cases, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American lndlan . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intetval between death and survey
22–25weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32 weeke . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-35 waeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-38 weeks, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3941 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-47 weaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48-51 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52weeks or longer . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship
Decedent was death certificateinformant’a–
Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slbllng. ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other relative..,.......,..
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death certificate Informant andsurvey respondent were –
Both decedent’s spouse. . . . . .
Not both decedent’s spouse . . .
77.5
81.6
87.1
70.8
85.5
a4.2
85.0
61.0
75.4
73.9
70.5
70.5
69.5
67.0
83.0
82.9
73.1
66.3
61.1
74.1
84.8
73.7
85.9
87.7
80.9
*76.2
74.4
95.2
96.6
69.6
87.S
84.5
79.5
82.5
81.8
60.9
86.2
87.7
*1 00.0
75.0
*50.O
*e4.6
90.5
85.0
81.0
83.6
75.1
68.2
87.4
87.2
84.3
85.6
80.5
76.6
80.0
77.6
74.3
72.1
84.9
SI .5
*65.O
73.3
53.3
71.0
67.8
77.6
81.0
83.6
73.6
69.S
93.7
e6.2
89.8
83.5
84.0
78.0
71.6
74.8
71.3
68.6
85.9
79.8
75.6
61.9
*6 I .1
73.e
68.3
74.9
77.5
81.9
67.7
73.e
90.5
e4.6
89.4
79.1
76.4
75.4
72.6
67.1
61.5
66.0
83.2
74.6
65.2
55.4
*72.2
76.2
84.6
70.5
77.2
83.4
66.5
67.7
88.0
83.4
85.5
82.7
73.8
72.4
66.9
64.4
68.6
70.1
83.7
*95.2
69.9
72.5
68.3
84.4
e5.7
70.3
74.0 75.4 76.2
78.7
62.5
72.0
64.4
82.9
81.0
75.4
71.5
67.7
64.9
66.4
68.1
85.0
79.2
62.4
75,4
61.5
81.7
83.6
80.9
70.3
72.5
67.6
70.9
68.8
56.7
81.1 79.1
●9I .7 ●85.7
69.2 77.4
59.2 66.7
57.1 59.9
72.5 65.4
82.1 80.4
68.6 74.2
62.1
64.9
●59.3
82.4
S5.1
83.7
81.8
74.2
76.7
71.0
67.2
69.6
62.5
80.0
*83.3
78.0
*90.9
66.3
81.3
82.7
77.9
NOTE Oregon, Nebraaka, Nevada, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability analysis in this report because Oregon’s confidentislii requirements precluded its participation in the1986 Nstlonal Mortalltj Followback Survey, and tha primary matching critsria could not ba applied for the othar thres Statsa because they reissue desth ce~fimte numbers after the Proceasln9of the Current Mortallty Ssmple.
5
10-year age group than for any other racial group, (Here-after in this report the catego~ “American Indian, Es-kimo, and Aleut” will be referred to as “American Indian.”
There was greater agreement (83.0 percent for alldecedents) when the death certificate informant was thespouse, as compared with other relatives or nonrelatives.When the decedent’s spouse was both the death certificateinformant and the respondent to the questionnaire, theagreement was far higher (84.8 percent) than when thiswas not the case (73.7 percent). This greater correspon-dence was observed for all 10-year decedent age groupsexamined.
For 92.7 percent of the cases, the age was either thesame or only 1 year different on the death certificate andquestionnaire (data not shown). There was a slight ten-dency for the questionnaire age response to be older thanthe age on the death certificate. For 10.2percent of thecases, the age was 1 year older on the questionnaire. For
5.0 percent of the cases, the age was 1 year younger on thequestionnaire. Within 2 years there was 95.7-percent agree-ment, and within 5 years there was 98,2-percent agree-ment on decedent’s age.
Mortality data are commonly tabulated by 5-year agegroups for analytic purposes, An error of 1 year on thedeath certificate would result in a difference in the tabu-lations only when the correct age fell within another ageinterval. For 5-year age groups, there was 93.4-percentagreement (table 1). When the death certificate informantwas the spouse, the agreement was 95.3percent for 5-yearage groups. When both the death certificate informantand the questionnaire respondent were the spouse, theagreement for 5-year age groups was 96.0 percent.
Race
Overall, there was a high level of agreement (97,9 per-cent) on race between the death certificate and the ques-
Table D. Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to race, by race of decedenton death certificate and by age at death, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedenk National MortalityFoHowback Survey, 1986
Race of decedent on certir7cate
AmericanCase characteristics All races White Black Indian
All cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age
Under do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30i39years o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40-49 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50-59 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60-89 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70-79 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60-S9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interval between death and survey
22-25 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30-82 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33-35 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38-36 weeks.,...,...,...,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38-41 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42-44 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-47 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4S-51 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52waeke orlonger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship
Decedent was death certificate informant’s–
Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sibling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other relatlve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death certificate informant and survey respondent were–Bothdecedent’aspouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notbothdecadent’sspouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97.9
96.5
96,7
97.397.7
98.3
98.3
98.598.3
99.19s.798,8
98.0
97.7
97,896.7
96,5
96.9
97.9
98.2
97.49s.096.2
97.9
96.6
96.4
97.7
98.2
96.8
9s.7
97.398.1
98.6
98.7
98.898.8
99.099.099.298.5
98.2
97.596.7
96.7
97.3
98.0
98.6
97.098.198.3
98.S
97.!
96.7
97.9
98.0
96.2
97.598.5
98.5
96,2
98.1
98.497.0
99.298.698.3
97.7
97.5
98.996.8
97.4
98,198.8
98.1
98.59s.498.8
97.7
96.9
98.2
98.2
92.9
*90.5
95.791.388.9
95.4
92.9
92.6*96.4
*100.O95.0
89.591.7
91.5
96.895.3
*60.8
*86.2*100.0
91.1
*96.496.2
*86.5
*90.9
*66.7
90.4
93.3
NOTE: Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Maxico were excluded from the comparability analysis in this rsport because Oragon’s confidentiality raqulremants precluded Ita particlpstlon in the19S6National Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matching critsrla could not be appllad for the othsr three States because they relasue death certificate numbers after the processingof the Current Mortsli~ Sample.
6
tionnaire (table D). However, for those reported to beAmerican Indian on the death certificate, the level ofagreement was lower (92.9 percent). Of the 7.1 percent ofcases reported as American Indian on the death certificatebut as another race on the questionnaire, most (80.0 per-cent) were identified as being white in the questionnaire(table 2),
Unweighed data indicate that there were 92 more(21,8 percent more) American Indian decedents reportedin the questionnaire than on the death certificate. Of the122 cases identified as American Indian in the question-naire but not as American Indian on the death certificate,70,5 percent were identified on the death certificate aswhite, and 27,9 percent as black.
The increased reporting of American Indian on thequestionnaire occurred for all of the intervals betweendeath and survey find for all relationships examined be-tween the death certificate informant and the decedent.Even when both the informant and the questionnairerespondent were the decedent’s spouse, 21.3 percent moreAmerican Indian decedents were reported in the question-naire than on the death certificate.
Hispanic origin
There was 98.9-percent overall consistency in report-ing Hispanic origin between the death certificate and thequestionnaire (table E), A high level of consistency wasobserved for both Hispanic origin (97.1 percent) and non-Hispanic origin (99.0), as well as for all races, intervalsbetween death and survey, and relationships betweeninformant and decedent examined.
Of the 1.1 percent of cases in which there was disagree-ment, 88.5 percent were cases in which the origin on thedeath certificate was non-Hispanic and the origin in thequestionnaire was Hispanic (table 3). This resulted in19.6 percent more Hispanic decedents being reported inthe survey, based on unweighed data. Higher reporting ofHispanic decedents in the questionnaire occurred for allraces, intervals, and relationships of informant to dece-dent examined. When both the death certificate informantand the questionnaire respondent were the decedent’sspouse, there were 11,8 percent more Hispanic decedentsreported in the questionnaire.
Table E, Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to Hispanic origin, byHispanic origin of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death and survey, and relationshipof informant to decedent National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986
Hispanic origin of decedent on certificate
All Hispanic Non-HispanicCase characterktics origins origin origin
All cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race
White, , .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American lndian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interval between death and survey
22-25 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-29 weeks, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-35 weeks . .,, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38-38 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38-41 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4S-47wesks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48-51 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52weeke or longer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship
Decedent was death certificate informant’s–
Spouse ... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sibling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death certificate Informant and survey respondent were –
Both decedent’s spouse, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not both decedent’s spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98.9
99.0
99.4
94.3
98.8
99.3
99.1
99.8
99.0
9e.7
98.9
98.3
97.4
9e.6
99.2
98.5
9e.8
98.2
99.3
98.2
99.4
98.7
97.1
97.7
*1 00.0
*1 00.0
*90.9
100.0
*1 00.0
*96.6
94.4
100.0
95.1
*1OO.O
*9 I .7
97.7
97.3
100.0
100.0
*96.4
*1 00.0
*94.4
97.6
96.6
99.0
99.1
99.4
94.3
99.0
99.3
99.1
99.7
99.2
96.6
99.1
98.2
97.8
98.7
99.2
9e.4
98.8
98.4
99.3
98.4
99.4
98.8
NOTE& Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability analysls in this report because Oregon’s cenfidentlality requirements precluded its participation inthe 198e National Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matching criteria could not be applied for ths othsr three States bscause thsy reissue death certificate numbere after theprocessing of the Current Mortality Sample.
7
Table F. Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to marital atatua, by maritalstatus of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death and survey, and relationship ofinformant to decedent National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986
Marital status of decedent on certificate
All marfkd NeverCase characteristics statuses Married Widowed Divorced married
Ali casea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.0 98.4 93.1 87.1 92.9
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,
American Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96.6
90.6
92.9
99.0
96.4
96.2
95.6
87.3
92.5
90.7
76.6
63.0
94.0
91,1
67.7
Interval between death and survey
22-25 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30-32 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33-35 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-36 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38-41 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4244weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45-47 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46-51 weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52weeks orlonger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96.197.296.196.5
94.5
93.7
93.092.692.694.0
99.199.4
99.199.3
97.9
97,3
97.097.096.4
96.6
94.195.692.994.2
92.1
92.491.392.390.9
93.3
86,692.290.6
69.7
89.2
69.282.660.779.2
77.4
94,396.1
96.795,6
91.5
87.892.569.069.7
93.0
Relationship
Decedent was death certificate Informant’e–
Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sibling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Otherrelatlve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death certificate informant and surveyrespondent were -F30thdecedent’s apouse. . . . . . . . . . . . .Not both decedent’a spouse. . . . . . . . . .
99.392.1
93.6
91.690.4
88.0
99.4
93.9
95.6
69.6
93.9
93,2
*67.5
87.9
64.6
93.363,3
84.3
.,.80.7
95,6
,..94,8
76.9
94.7
86.0
69.2
86,092.0
66,2
99.692.6
99.7
94.8*50.O
67.4
. . .93.2
. . .93.1
NOTE Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and Naw Mexico ware excluded from the comparability analyalaIn this report becauea Oregon’s confidentlalii requlremanta precluded Its partlclpatlon In the1986 National Mortality Followback .%tvay, and the primary matching criteria could not be applied for the othar three 6tates because Ihay relaaua daath cartifiosdenumbers efter the proceealngof the Current MortalitySample.
Marital status cases, 124 cases (59.9percent) reported questionnairemarital status as’’married,’’ 52 cases (25.1percent) “wid-owed,” and 31 cases (15.0 percent) “never married”(table 4).
There was also a high level of consistency of reportingbetween the death certificate and the questionnaire onmarital status of the decedent (95.Opercent) (table F).There was agreement in 98,4percent of the cases for“married” marital status, but only 87.1 percent agreementfor “divorced” marital status.
The agreement on marital status was 96.6percent forwhite decedents, 90.6percent for black decedents, and92.9percent for American Indian decedents. There was aslight decline in agreement on marital status as the inter-val between death and survey increased.
There was almost total agreement (99.3 percent) whenthe death certificate informant was the decedent’s spouse,When the decedent’s spouse was both the death certificateinformant and the questionnaire respondent, the agree-ment rate was 99.6 percent. When this was not the case,the agreement rate was 92.6percent.
Among the inconsistent cases, 12.9percent had “di-vorced” reported on the death certificate. Of these 207
8
Occupation
The overall percent agreement for occupation basedon the major occupation groups shown was only 71,0 per-cent (table G), As reported on the death certificate, therate was lowest for managerial and professional occupa-tions (57.6percent) and highest for farming occupations(81.9 percent). The consistency of reporting was not ap-preciably affected by race of decedent, interval betweendeath and survey,or relationship of informant to decedent.
For all occupational categories except managerial andprofessional, the percent of decedents in the category wasabout the same or higher for the questionnaire than forthe death certificate. Based on unweighed data, compar-isons showed 6.1 percent more technical, sales, and ad-ministrative; 1.3percent more service; 16,3percent more
Table G. Percent of informant questionnaires in agrsement with corresponding death certificate with regard to occupation, by occupationof decedent on death certificate and by race on SUWSYquestionnaire, Intewal between death and suwey, and relationship of informant todecedenk National Mortality Followback Suwey, 1988
Occupation of decedent on certificate
Precis!on Operators,Managerial Technical, production, fabricators,
All and seles, andCase charaoterist/cs
craft, and and Armedoccupations professional administrative Service Farming repair laborers Forces
All cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race
White .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian , . . . . . . . .
Intarval betweendeath and survey
22-25 weeks, . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeks, . ...,,..,.
30-32 weeks, . . . . . . . . . .
33+15 weeks . . . . . . . . . . .3S-38weeks . . . . . . . . . . .
39-41 weeks, . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks . . . . . . . . . . .
45-47 weeks . . . . . . . . . . .
48-51 weeks . . . . . . . . . . .
52 weeks or longer . . . . . . .
Relationship
Decedent was death certificateinformant’s-
Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81bllng . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other relativa. . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . .Death certificate Informant and
survey respondent were –
Both decedent’e spouse. . .
Not both decedent’sspouse . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71.0 57.6 71.0 75.6 el.9
82.5
79.7
●S6.9
*e7.5
76.3
90.6
*79.3
73.7
*95.2
*8 I .0
●91 .7
*1 00.0
*33.3
63.0
*69.2
*85.7
‘42.9
*90.O●_
83.8
81.6
69.5 74.2 69.4
73.3
*40.O*—
*75.O
*85.7
*80.O
*1OO.O
*66.7
*42.9
*66.7
*50.O
*I 00.0*—
*90.O●-
*25.O*-
*100.O
*1OO.O
●89.5
*53.3
70.4
73.6
65.6
57.4
61.3
*62.5
72.0
69.4
●28,6
69.3
e2.6
●7I .4
70.2 76.7
6&6 70.4
*60.O *89.8
*73.9
78.1
65.1
70.5
84.6
72.2
81.1
*75.O
*94.4
*83.3
69.6
72.5
66.8
73.9
70.4
67.8
77.3
70.7
70.0
60.0
55.6
57.1
58.8
60.5
51.9
53.5
71.0
*53.6
*54.5
‘100.0
65.6
76.6
61.1
75.6
81.7
68.3
69.8
*57. 1
*53.8
●60.O
66.7
81.2
71.7
79.4
66.7
65.8
87.1
‘79.3
*30.O
*50.O
75.5
81.1
67.0
80.6
67.3
68.1
77.6
74.5
7e.9
*55.6
69.6
67.0
67.3
71.8
81.1
*65.5
57.9
43.3
*57.1
*62.5
*66.7
*25.O
67.0
*66.7
75.0
*62.5
*88.9
*60.O
69.3
“69.0
69.4
●7e.9
●100.0
*1 00.0
68.0
68.8
*47.1
*e3.3
*66.7
‘50.0
75.4
75,9
69.7
*75.O
●66.7
*77.8
69.7
72.0
58.2
66.2
66.9
73.5
e7.o
79.5
67.4
71.7
76.8
73.0
NOTES: Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability anaiysis in this report because Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded its partklpatlon in
the 198e Nstlonal Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matchlrm criteria could not be s!xdied for the other thres Statea becsusa they raissue death certificate numbars aftsr thepracewlng of Ihe Curren(Morlallty Sample. - - -
farming 5.2 percent more production, craft, and repair;1,1 percent more operators, fabricator, and laborers; and80.6percent more members of the Armed Forces on thequestionnaire than on the death certificate (table 5). How-ever, there were 26.8 percent fewer decedents recorded as“managerial and professional” on the questionnaire. Whenthe decedent’s spouse was both the death certificateinformant and the questionnaire respondent, there were23.6 percent fewer decedents recorded as “managerialand professional” on the questionnaire.
Industry
The rate of agreement between the death certificateand the questionnaire based on the major groupingsshown was about the same for industry (74.4 percent) asfor occupation (table H). The agreement rate was highest
for the mining industry (79.5 percent) and lowest for thepublic administration industry (62.3percent). There wasno essential difference in consistency of reporting by raceof decedent or by whether the spouse of the decedent wasboth the death certificate informant and the questionnairerespondent. The number of sample cases is too small toassess differences across intervals between death andsurvey, or by relationship of informant to decedent (table 6).
In spite of the overall relatively low level of agreementbetween the questionnaire and the death certificate onindustry, the marginal distributions of industries for thequestionnaire and death certificate were very similar(table 6).
Veteran status
The agreement between the death certificate and thequestionnaire on veteran status was high (96.7 percent)
9
Table H. Percent of informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to industry, by industry ofdecedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant todecedenk National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986
Industry of decedent on certh%ate
Transpor-tation,
Agriculture, commurrlca- Finance,forestry, Con- tions, and insurance, Publlo
All and struc- Manu-Case characteristics
other public and realindustries
admlrrlstra- Armedfisheries Mining tion fscturing utilities Trade estate Services tlon Forces
Allcases . . . . . . . . . .
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian . . . . .
Interval betweendeath and survey
22-25 weeka . . . . . . .
26-29 weeks . . . . . . .
30-32 weeks . . . . . . .
33-35 weeks . . . . . . .
36-38 weeks, . . . . . .
3S-41 weeks . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks . . . . . . .
45-47 weeks, . . . . . .
46-51 weeks . . . . . . .
52 weeks or longer . . .
Relationship
Decedent was deathcertificate informant’s –
Spouse . . . . . . . . .
Parent . . . . . . . . . .
Child . . . . . . . . . . .
Sibling . . . . . . . . . .
Other relative. . . . . .
Nonrelative . . . . . . .
Death certificateInformant and surveyrespondent were –
Both decedent’sspouse . . . . . . . . .
Not bothdecedent’sspouse . . . . . . . . .
74.4
74.3
75.2
72,6
75.6
77.7
75.3
75.1
70.8
73.4
70.7
74.9
76.6
68.3
75.2
66.3
77.3
75.6
80.0
81.5
75.4
74.0
78.4
77.1
80.7
*87.5
*66.4
75.7
86,7
*77X
66.4
*69.5
*77.3
*91 .7
*1 00.0
*26.6
77.7
*70.O
*90.O
*42,9
*86.9*-
77.5
79.7
79.5
78.0
*1 00,0
*1 00.0
*1 00.0
*57. 1
*75.O
*88.9
*87.5
*40.O
*1 00.0
*1OO.O*-
*-
*70.8
‘50.0
*1 00.0
*1OO.O
*1 00.0*-
*71 .4
*85.O
74.3
78.7
64.1
*66.7
*80.O
66.7
*72.4
83.6
62.5
*80.8
*79.3
*94.4
*50.O
*40.O
77.9
*70.4
*66.7
*83.3
*50.O
77.6
72.1
77.0
77,1
76.2
*85.7
75.0
83.3
78.0
82.4
73.6
74,6
62.7
70.3
60.0
*75.O
76,8
72,2
83.3
*75.O
*75.O
*S3.3
78.4
75.8
75.2
76.4
71.7
*66.7
*78.3
73.9
*74.1
75.0
79.4
*68.4
*64.3
*83.3
*66.7
*1 00.0
77.8
*86.7
*75.O
*7 I .4
*60.O
*1OO.O
78.8
73.0
69.8
70.5
65.6
*75.O
*69.O
69.1
77.1
65.2
67.6
77.1
66.8
*52.4
*71 .4
*1 00.0
66.5
*59.3
*77.8
*62.5
*77.8
*1 00.0
66.4
71.7
73.6
77.1
*57.1
*50.O
*75.O
*83.3
●76.9
*76.9
*84.6
*60.O
*83.6
*60.O
*80.O*-
82.4
*60.O
*60.O
*I 00.0
*1 00.0
*1 00.0
84.4
61.5
75.0
71.1
82.7
*75.O
89.8
81.7
72.0
69.4
70.6
72.1
76.8
84.6
90.3
*8 I ,8
74.4
64.4
75.5
*83,3
*85.7
*75.O
72.3
76.4
62.3
64.9
*61 .5
*33.3
*86.7
*79.2
*58.8
*60.O
*52.9
*73.3
*64.3
*40C0
*25.O*-
65.4
*60.O
*62.6
*1OO.O*-
*1 00.0
87.6
51.9
68.4
68.8
*60.O*-
*I 00.0
*83.3
*66.7
*I 00.0
*50.O
*42,9
*86.7
*50.O
*1 00.0*-
*89.5
*33.3
*50.O*-
*1 00,0
*1 00,0
*88.9
*58,6
NOTE: Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability analyals In this report becauee Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded its participation Inthe 1986 National Mortality Followback Suwey, and the r)rimarj matching criteria could not be applied for tha other three 8tatea because they relaauedeath certificate numbers after theproceeding of the CurrentMortality Sample.
(table J). However, the rate of agreement for nonveterans “was higher than for veterans (98.3 percent versus 90.7 per-cent), There was no essential difference in the rate ofagreement by race of decedent, interval between deathand survey, relationship of death certificate informant todecedent, or whether the spouse was both the deathcertificate informant and the questionnaire respondent.
The percent reported as veteran was about the samefor both the death certificate and the questionnaire(20.5percent and 19.9percent, respectively) (table 7). Ofthe 349 cases in disagreement on veteran status, 202(57.9 percent) classified the decedent as a veteran on thedeath certificate but as a nonveteran in the questionnaire,
10
and 147 (42.1 percent) classified the decedent as a nonvet-eran on the death certificate but as a veteran on thequestionnaire.
Place of death
The consistency rate for hospital deaths (includinginpatient, outpatient, and emergency room patient) was88.3 percent (table K). Among those with “hospital inpa-tient” reported on the death certificate as place ofdeath, questionnaire responses reported approximately 87percent died in the hospital exckding the emergencyroom, and 8.5 percent died in the hospital emergeney
Table J. Percent of Informant questionnaires in agreement with corresponding death certificate with regard to veteran status, by veteranstatus of decedent on death certificate and by race on survey questionnaire, interval between death and survey, and relationship ofinformant to decedent: National Mortality Followback Suwey, 1986
Veteran status of decedent on certificate
BothCase characteristics statuses Veteran Nonveteran
Allcases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.7 90.7 98.3
Race
White ..,..,...,..........,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.6 91.2 98.1Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.1 90.0 98.5
American lndlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.9 84.6 99.1
Interval between daath and survey
22-25weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33-36weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38-36weeks, ,,, ...,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39-41 weeks, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44W8eks .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-47weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46-51 weeka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52weeksorlonger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97.8
96.397.096.296.4
96.6
97.2
97.297.194.2
94.690.591.166.492.2
86.3
92.6
93.991.588.1
96.897.898.696.397.4
99.6
98.2
98.098.496.2
Decedent was death certificate informant’a–
Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.9 91.2 97.8
Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.8 91.1 98.3
Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.7 89.5 98.8
Slbllng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.9 91.7 98.1
Otherrelatlve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9e.1 90.3 99.1
Nonrelative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 e4.8 96.2
Death certificate Informant and survey respondent were –
Both decedent’aspouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.8 91.2 97.7
Notbothdecedent’sapouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.3 90.2 9e.5
NOTEOregon,Nebraska, Nevade, and New Mexico were excludad from the comparability analysis m this report because Oregon’s confidentialii requirements precluded its participation In the19LfaNational Mortality Followback 8urvey, and the primary matching criteria could not be applied for the other three States becausa they reissue death certificate numbers after the processingof the Currant Mortality Sample.
Table K. Number ofresponsesby place ofdeathon death certificate and on Nationaf Mortality Followback survey questionnaire:United States, 1986
P/ace of death on death certificate
Hospital
Dead onOutpatient Hospital arrlval–
or status not Other A// other hospitalResponse to cfuestionnake item emergency Dead on Status on care reported name not
“Where did the person die?” Total kwatient room arrival unknown certificate institutions entries 9iven
All places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hospltalemergency room., . . . . . . . .Hospital (excluding emergency room). . .Onwaytohospltal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nurslngorpereonal carahome. . . . . . .Ownhome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Otherplace (undefined) . . . . . . . . . . .Other’s home, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11,639
1,148
5,190235
1,4802,564
794228
5,681
460
4,902ze
11779523
1,101
50364
10111
26710629
800
99167840
368
16239
189
35110
6
417
17
1
—
—
—1
1,367
11
562
1,2705
221
2,519
20222238
1,828433
156
1
1—
NOTE:Oregon,Nebraska,Nevada,andNawMexicowereexcludedfromthecomparabilityenalysisin this report because Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded its participation in the1966 Nationel Mortellty Followback Survey, end the primary matching criteria could not ba applied for the other three States because thay reiaauedeath carflficete numbers afler the processingof tha Current Mortality Sample.
11
room. Among those classified on the death certificate as“hospital outpatient or in the emergency room,” overone-third (36.5 percent) were recorded on the question-naire as having died at their own home, another’s home,or another place,
For those classified according to the death certificateas dead on arrival (DOA) at the hospital, questionnaireresponses showed 46.0 percent as having died in their ownhome, 20.3 percent in another place, and 4.9 percent inanother’s home.
Of those decedents whose death certificates citedtheir dying in another care institution, 92.9 percent died ina nursing or personal-care home according to the question-naire, and 4.9 percent died in the hospital.
Among those classified as “all other entries” on thedeath certificate, 72.6 percent were reported as dying intheir own home, 17.2 percent in another place, and 6.2 per-cent in another’s home.
Discussion
Consistency in reporting between the death certificateand the followup questionnaire was excellent for race,Hispanic origin, marital status, and veteran status. How-ever, in spite of overall high correspondence, there weresome areas of lesser agreement for these variables. Forexample, based on unweighed data, there were 21.8 per-cent more American Indian decedents reported on thequestionnaire than there were on the death certificate.Similarly, while the overall level of agreement on maritalstatus was 95,0 percent, for those classified as divorced onthe death certificate, there was only 87.1-percent agree-ment with the questionnaire. In addition, in spite of anoverall agreement rate of 98.9 percent on Hispanic origin,19,6 percent more Hispanic decedents were reported onthe questionnaire than on the death certificate.
Although the agreement rate for exact age in yearswas only 77,5 percent, the agreement rose to 92,7 percentfor ages within 1 year and to 95.7 percent for ages within 2years, There seems to be a small bias in the direction ofthe questionnaire age being older. This might be due tosome questionnaire respondents reporting what the dece-dent’s age would have been at the time of the surveyrather than what it was at the time of death.
Levels of agreement on age, race, Hispanic origin,marital status, and veteran status were similar to thosefound in two studies in which Census Bureau PopulationStudy interview responses were compared to death certif-icate entries (17-20).
The consistency rates in reporting on occupation andindustry were 71.0 percent and 74.4 percent, respectively.These low levels are consistent with prior research (3-16).The disagreements were not random for occupation: Forall occupational categories except managerial and profes-sional, the percent of decedents in the category was thesame or higher for the questionnaire than for the deathcertificate, However, there were 26.8 percent fewer man-agers and professionals on the questionnaire. In contrastto occupation, marginal distributions for industry werevery similar for the death certificate and the questionnaire.
It is possible that coding differences may have been asignificant factor in the lack of correspondence in occupa-tion and industry between the two sources. Coding manyoccupation and industry entries that were very generalsuch as “telephone” and “farm” was difficult. The sourcedocuments were not reviewed to determine whether dif-ferences were due to respondent reporting or to coding.
There was good correspondence when the death cer-tificate place of death was “hospital inpatient,” but lessconsistency for entries reported on the death certificate as“hospital outpatient” or “emergency room.” There wasvery good correspondence for entries of health care insti-tutions other than hospitals on the death certificate.
Overall, high rates of consistency between the ques-tionnaire and death certificate should add confidence inthe interpretation and use of mortality statistics. However,even when marginal distributions are very similar, lowerrates of agreement raise concern about possible biases inthe mortality data. For example, American Indian dece-dents unidentified as such on the death certificate mayhave different characteristics from those identified asAmerican Indian on the questionnaire. On the otherhand, differences in marginal distributions do not neces-sarily lead to biases in assessing relationships amongspecific variables. If the data were weighted to producenational estimates of the degree of overall comparability,these rates would be slightly higher in general becausethere was oversampling of some groups that had lowerrates of agreement.
Through the use of the 1986 NMFS, it is possible toexplore further the types and possible directions of poten-tial biases in the relationships among variables. Additionalanalyses could also include examining comparability ac-cording to other important control variables including age,sex, and cause of death. The standard death certificatewas revised for use starting in 1989. It will be importantfor the next NMFS, planned for 1993, to investigatewhether there are any changes in the levels of consistencyin reporting.
13
References
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Gittelsohn A, Royston PN. Annotated bibliography of cause-of-death validation studies, 1958-80. National Center forHealth Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(89). 1982.Rosenberg HM, The nature and accuracy of cause-of-deathdata report of the Workshop on Improving Cause-of-DeathStatistics. National Committee on Vital and Health Statis-tics. National Center for Health Statistics. 1989.Buechley R, Dunn JE, Linden G, Breslow L. Death certifi-cate statement of occupation: its usefulness in comparingmortalities. Public Health Rep 71:1101-11.1956.Alderson A. Some sources of error in British occupationalmortality data. Br J Ind Med 29:245-54.1972,Wegman DH, Peters JM. Oat cell lung cancer in selectedoccupations. J Occup Med 20:793-96.1978.Frazier TM, Wegrnan DH. Exploring the use of deathcertificates as a component of an occupational health sur-veillance system. Am J Public Health 69:718-20.1979.Rosenberg HM, Burnham D, Spirtas R, Valdisera V. Infor-mation from the death certificate: assessment of the com-pleteness of reporting. In DelBene L, Scheuren F, eds.Statistical uses of administrative records with emphasis onmortality and disability research, pp. 83-9. Washington:Social Security Administration, Office of Research andStatistics, 1979.Rousch GC, Meigs JW, Kelley J, et al. Sinonasal cancer andoccupation: a case control study. Am J Epidemiol 111:183-93.1980.Swanson GM, Schwartz AG, Burrows RW. An assessmentof occupation and industry data from death certificates andhospital records for population-based cancer surveillance.Am J Public Health 74:464-67, 1984.Balarajan. Comparison of occupations recorded at cancerregistration and death. Public Health 99:169-73.1985.Gute, Fulton JP. Agreement of occupation and indust~data on Rhode Island death certificates with two alternatesources of information. Public Health Rep 100:65-72.1985.Steenland K, Beaumont J. The accuracy of occupation andindustry on death certificates. J Occup Med 26:288-96.1984.
13. Schumacher MC. Comparison of occupation and industryinformation from death certificates and interviews. Am JPublic Health 76:635-37, 1986.
14. Turner DW, Schumacher MC, West DW, Comparison ofoccupational interview data to death certificate data inUtah. Am J Ind Med 12145-51.1987.
15. Davis H. The accuracy of industry data from death certifi-cates for workplace homicide victims. Am J Public Health78(12):1579-81. 1988.
46+%hade WJ, Swanson GM. Comparison of death certificateoccupation and indust~ data with lifetime occupationalhistories obtained by interview variations in the accuracy ofdeath certificate entries. Am J Ind Med 14(2):121-36. 1988.
17. Sorlie PD, Rogot E, Johnson NJ. Validity of demographiccharacteristics on the death certificate. Epidemiology3(2):181-84. 1992.
18. Hambright TZ, Comparability of age on the death certifi-cate and matching census record, United States, May-August 1960. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalHealth Stat 2(29). 1968.
19. Hambright TZ. Comparability of marital status, race, nativ-ity, and country of origin on the death certificate andmatching census record, United States, May-August 1960,National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat2(34). 1969.
20. McCarthy MA. Comparison of the classification of place ofresidence on death certificates and matching census records,United States, May-August 1960, National Center for HealthStatistics. Vital Health Stat 2(30). 1969.
21. Seeman I, Poe GS, Powell-Griner E. Development, meth-ods, and response characteristics of the National MortalityFollowback Survey, 1986. National Center for Health Statis-tics. Vital Health Stat 1(29). 1993.
22. National Center for Health Statistics. Public-use data tapedocumentation: National Mortality Followback Survey, 1986.Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1988,
23. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980 census of population:alphabetical index of industries and occupations. Washing-ton: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1982.
List of detailed tables
1. Number of responses by age of decedent on NationalMortality Followback Survey questionnaire and byrace and age on death certificate, interval betweendeath and survey, and relationship of informant todecedent: United States, 1986 ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2, Number ofresponses byraceof decedent on NationalMortality Followback Survey questionnaire and byrace on death certificate, interval between death andsurvey, and relationship of informant to decedent:United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . !....,,.. . . . . . . .
3, Number of responses by Hkpanic origin of decedenton National Mortality Followback Survey question-naire and by race and Hispanic origin on death certif-icate, interval between death and survey, andrelationship of informant to decedent: United States,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Number ofresponses bymarital status ofdecedentonNational Mortality Followback Survey questionnaireand by race and marital status on death certificate,
interval between death and survey, and relationship ofinformant todecedent: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . 30
5. Number of responses by occupation of decedentonNational Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire
16 and by race and occupation on death certificate, inter-val between death and survey, and relationship ofinformant to decedent: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . 33
6. Number of responses by industry of decedent onNational Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire
25 and by race andindustry ondeath certificate, internalbetween death and survey, and relationship of infor-mant to decedent: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. Number ofresponses byveteran status ofdecedentonNational Mortality Followback Survey questionnaireand by race and veteran status on death certificate,
28 interval between death and survey, and relationship ofinformant to decedent: United States, 1986 . . . . . . . . 45
15
Table 1, Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcertificate, Interval, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 4&44 45-48 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below years yeara yeare years years yeara years years years yeara years years years and over
Race and age
All races:
Allages . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 yeara . . . . . .
30-34 yeara . . . . . . . .
35-39 years . . . . . . . .
15,964
696
756
915
1,141
635
1,096
765
1,124
1,344
1,656
1,743
1,647
1,265
791
370
709
690
17
1—
—
1
515
503
11
—
—
1—
165
159
5
1
—
732
6
703
19
1
2
1—
516
3
503
9
1
—
—
191
3
160
6
1
1
—
922
30
676
15
1
—
—
678
16
651
11
—
203
11
166
3
1
—
—
1,131
1
15
1,095
15
1
1
2
1
863
8
853
1
1
232
1
6
208
13
1
2
1
641
3
27
600
10
1
435
17
414
4
—
177
3
10
157
6
1—
1,070
1
1
17
1,026
23
2
795 1,132
1
3
20
1,053
48
5
2
716
—
1
1
8
676
27
2
1
375
—
1
12
336
20
3
1
—
1,322
1
1
7
41
1,233
29
8
1
1
864
—
1
—
2
20
826
11
2
1
1
421
—
—
4
20
375
17
5
—
1,627—
3
4
42
1,516
50
6
2
1,124
1
14
1,078
25
6
456
3
3
24
396
24
2
2
—
1,735
1
1
4
10
90
1,597
26
3
1
1,224
5
44
1,156
16
2
1
457
1
1
4
5
42
391
12
1
1,629 1,315 798-- .
1--- -
-- .
-- .
-- -
-- -
-- -
1 11
6 41
67 16 1
1,512 65 6
37 1,193 36
406
1
1
4
12
32
358
3
1
4C-44years . . . . . . . .
4549yeara . . . . . . . .
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .
80-84 years,.,..,..
65-69 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
6C-S4years . . . . . . . .
65-S9years . . . . . . . .
9C-94years . . . . . . . .
95 years and over. . . . .White:
Allagas . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
3rX34years . . . . . . . .
35-39 yeara . . . . . . . .
4044years . . . . . . . .
45-49 yeara . . . . . . . .
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .
60-64 years . . . . . . . .
65-69 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
60-S4years . . . . . . . .
85-S9years . . . . . . . .
90-94 years . . . . . . . .
1
53
710
16
7—1
1
3
3
1,217
1
32
1,161
21
1
1
359
—
1
5
30
305
15
1
2
14
1
741
10—
11,303
506
533
870
883
423
801
450
702
674
1,137
1,219
1,226
966
617
276
781 474
2
1
991
1
623
1
14
267
107
1
1
4
11
18
74
8
762
10
1
—33
430
4
2
1
1
2
38
945
4
1
3
16
597
795 years and over. . . . .
Black:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 years . . . . . . . .
36-39 yeara . . . . . . . .
40-44 yeara . . . . . . . .
—
4,117
162
199
203
223
179
250
279
381
432
472
467
373
266
152
79
246
1
1
7
224
12
1
282
1
1
17
246
13
4
292 154
45-49 years . . . . . . . .
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 years . . . . . . . .
60-64 years . . . . . . . .
65-S9years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
8C-84years . . . . . . . .
85-39 years . . . . . . . .
90-94 years . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
4
19
125
3
1
4
14
46
217
10
— —
95 years and over. . . . .
16
Table 1. Number of reponees by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, Interval batween death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedenti United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcertificate, Interval, and 30 yeara 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65W9 70-74 7L%79 60-64 85W9 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below years years years years years yeara years years yeara yeara years yeara years and over
Amarlcan Indian:Alleges, ,, . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .30-34 yeara ..,.,,,.35-39 years . . . . . . . .40-44 years ,. ..,...45-49 years . . . . . . . .50-54 years . . . . . . . .55-59 yaara . . . . . . . .60-64 years . . . . . . . .65-89 yeara . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .76-79 years ,,, ,,, ,,80-84 years, ,o, .,,.8S-89years .,,.....90-94 years . . . . . . . .95 years and over. . . . .
Other:
Alleges, .,,,,,,,,,.Under 30 years . . . . . .30-34 yeara . . . . . . . .35-i39years . . . . . . . .40-44 years,,,.,,,,
45-49 yeara ,, . . . . . .60-54 years . . . . . . . .55-59 years .$ . . . . . .60-84 yeara . . . . . . . .
66-89 yeara . . . . . . . .70-74 years . . . . . . . .76-79 years . . . . . . . .80-84 yeara . . . . . . . .65-89 years ,, .,,,,,
90-94 years .,, . . . . .95 years and ovar. . . . .
Interval and age
22-25 weeks:Aliases . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years , , , , .,
30-34 years . . . . . . . .
35-39 y6ars . . . . . . . .40-44 years ,,3 ..,..4549years . . . . . . . .50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 years . . . . . . . .60-84 years, . . . . . . .65-89 years . . . . . . . .70-74 years . . . . . . . .75-79 years . . . . . . . .80-84 yeara . . . . . . . .65-89 years ..,.....90-94 yeare . . . . . . . .95 yeara and over. . . . .
211826202330313431
364641241611
13676
16151015
5
77
1111
7
9
64
1,07943
45
50593670
4680
95124113118115
6223
2121
—
671
—
4543
2
—
21
164
1
4
4
42
42
—
24
221
1
—
17
116
—
50
1
49
—
—
—
21
119
1—
15
15
56
157
19
19
—
10
—
10
—
39
236
1
——
29
—
226
1
14
—
—
14
—
68
66
—
34—
——
329
11
5
—
5
—
50
——
346
1——————
33
————
321
—
8
—
1—
7
60
—
—
782——————
31
——
111
26
11
6
6
94
1
9111
———
36
——
332
1
—
11
1
10
121
—
1118
2—
——
42
——
339
—
12
111
112—
14
105
2
47
—
541
1
6
—
51
115—
—
—
—
14
1091——
23
23
9
16
119—
15
1112
14
—
113—
7
1
6
63—
22
561
13
211
4
4
25
12
22
17
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decederm United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaka
Race and age on deathcertificate, interval, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-$9 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-89 70-74 75-79 60-64 85-69 9C-94 95 years
relat;onsh;p Total and below yeara yaara yeara years yeara years yaars years years years years years years and over
26-29 weeks:
Al[ages . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,2oo
Under 30 years . . . . . . 63
30-34 years . . . . . . . . 9335-39 years . . . . . . . . 11840-44 years . . . . . . . . 150
45-49 years.....,,. 89
50-54 years . . . . . . . . 136
55-59 years . . . . . . . . 104
60-64 years . . . . . . . . 146
65-69 years . . . . . . . . . 197
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
60-84 years . . . . . . . .85-S9years .,......
90-94 years . . . . . . . .
95 years and over. , . . .30-32 weeks:
Al[ages . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 years . . . . . . . .
35-39 years . . . . . . . .4044years . . . . . . . .
45-49 years . . . . . . . .
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55–59years . . . . . . . .
60-64 years . . . . . . . .
65-89 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
80-84 years . . . . . . . .
85-S9years . . . . . . . .
90-94 years . . . . . . . .
95 yeara and over. . . . .33-35 weeks:Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 years .,,,,.,.
35-39 years . . . . . . . .40-44 yeara . . . . . . . .45-49 years . . . . . . . .
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .
60-64 years . . . . . . . .
65-69 yeara . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 yeara . . . . . . . .80-34 years . . . . . . . .
65-S9years . . . . . . . .90-94 years . . . . . . . .
95 years and over. . . . .
208
276230
196
124
70
1,919
58
77
101134
71
115
93
142
155
220
222
205
154
123
49
2,343
115
66
11516776
149
105
166
222
264
240
239212117
70
63
63
—
——
—
59
58
1—
—
—
115
114
1
——
85
65
—
—
73
71
2
—
—
86
1
84
2
1
—
121
5115
1
102
4
98—
—
115
1
1122
—
150
2146
1
1
132
1
131
167
1164
1
1
—
89
3
88
75
3
71
1—
76
1722
1
139
1
2
133
21
—
—
113
112
1
139
2
137
—
105
2
3
100
94
1—
2
91
—
111
9
100
2
—
143
1
141
1—
—
144
1
140
3
172
—
5
159
7
1
197
1
3
189
31
152—
—
2
148
2
216
5
207
4
204—
———
1
4
197
2
210
—
—
3
4—
255
1
5
242
7
278
—
—
2
6265
3
228
—
—
15
211
2
238
1
1
14
221
1
225
4215
5
1
207
—
—
6
199
2
—
240
2
10220
51
2
200
23
9164
2
153
1
1
3
146
2
216
215
2001
127
1
3
3
119
1
124
5
117
2
121
1
34
ill
2
76
1
4
3
66
53
1
1
4
47
72
24
66
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality FoHowback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of Informant to decedenk United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcer’t/hate, /nterva/, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-84 65-69 70-74 75–79 60-64 85-89 9G94 95 years
relationship Total and below years years years years years years years years years years years years years and over
38-38 weeks:Alleges, ,,, .,.,,.,. 2,061
Under 30 years , , , ., . 9030=34 years ,,, ,, . . . 9835-39 years ,. ..,... 11740-44 years ... ,., ., 15245-49 years,,,.,,,. 7950-54 years ,. .,,.., 123
55-59 years ..,,..,, 10260-84 years ,,, ,,, ,, 16365-59 years ,, .,.,,. 154
70-74 years ,. .,.,,. 22676–79years ,., ,., ,. 245
80-84 years ,, .,.,,. 22265–89yaars ,, .,.... 16290-94 years....,,., 9495 years and over, , , , . 34
39-41 weeks:
Alleges . ., . . . . . . . . . 1,860Under 30 years , , , ., . 8430-34 years . . . . . . . . 101
35-39 years ,. .,.,,, 11340-44 years ,. ..,.., 14045A9years ...,,,,. 7850-54 years ... ..,,, 15965-59 years ,., ,,, .,
60–64years . . . . . . . .66-89 years . . . . . . . .70-74 years .,, ,,, ,,76-79 yeara ,,, ..,,.
t30-84years ,, .,,,,,
65-89 years ... ,, .,.90-94 yeara . . . . . . . .95 years and over, , , , ,
42-44 weeka:Alleges, , .,,....,,.
Under 30 years , . . . . .30-34 years ,, .,,...35-39 years ... .,,,.40-44 years ... ,,, ,,45-49 yaars ,., ..,,.50-54 years . . . . . . . .55-59 years ,,, ,, ...
60-64 years
65-69 years ,,, ,, .,.70-74 years ,. .,...,75-79 years ,,, ,,, ,,80-84 years ., ..,,,.85-89 years ,, ..,,.,90-94 years ,. .,...,95 yeare and over, , ., ,
81
128
162163179
197
1126845
1,635
7873
102
11877
113102
106
136148177168
1267829
9390
2
1
—
8764
3
—
—
79
763
96
924
—
100
936
1
—
—
692
661
—
119
4110
4—
1
—
111
4
105
2
——
108—
499
5
146—
—
3
142
1
—
141
1
2134
4
—
119
1126
1
—
—
el
3
78
—
75
4
70
1
—
—
70
1
1
67
1
121
1
1
114
5
—
156—
2
149
4
1
—
—
116—
4
107
5
—
102—
—
—
7
91
2
1
1—
88
—
1
7
74
3
2—
1
—
100
1
5
89
4
1
—
—
164
1—
1
2
152
8
123
—
—
1
2
115
3
1
1
—
110—
3
97
6
1
1
—
149
—
—
—
—
1
8
136
5
1—
—
171
—
1
8
153
6
3
—
130
4
7
116
3—
—
223
2
1
7
207
4
1
1
179
—
1
4
163
10
1
15e
—
—
7
134
10
4
1
251
—
1
2
1
11
231
4
1—
174—
1
—
—
13
156
3
1
1e9
—
3
9
151
5
1—
217—
——
—
—
15
2047
190——
—
——
7
178
5
168—
—
11
11
1504
1—
165—
—
1
4
11
147
2
122
—
1
14
105
2—
128
—
3
8
116
1
90
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
85—
83—
—
—
—
—
—
1
82
84
—
—
1—
6
75
2
44—
—
1
1
1
7
34
50
—
—
—
1
1
3
45
29—
—
1
2
26
19
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnah’e and by race and age on deathcertificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on quest;onnalre
Race and age on deathcertificate, interval, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 4044 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-64 85-69 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below years years years years yeara years years years years yeara yeara yeara years and over
45-47 weeka:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 yeara . . . . . . . .35-39 yeara . . . . . . . .
40-44 yeara .,......
45-49 years . . . . . . . .50-54 yaara . . . . . . . .
55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .
60-84 yeara . . . . . . . .
65-69 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 yeara . . . . . . . .75-79 yeare . . . . . . . .
60-84 yeare . . . . . . . .
85-39 years ., . . . . . .
90-94 yeare . . . . . . . .
95 yeara and over. . . . .48-51 weaks:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Undar 30 years . . . . . .30-34 years . . . . . . . .
35-89 years, . . . . . . .
40-44 yeara . . . . . . . .
45-49 yeara . . . . . . . .50-54 years . . . . . . . .55–59yeara . . . . . . . .
80-84 yeara . . . . . . . .
65-69 yeare .,......
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 yeara . . . . . . . .60-84 years . . . . . . . .
65-89 years . . . . . . . .
90-94 yeara . . . . . . . .
95 yeara and over. . . . .52 weeks and longer:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 yeara , . . . . .
30-34 yeara . . . . . . . .
35-39 years . . . . . . . .40-44 yeara . . . . . . . .45-49 yeara . . . . . . . .
50-54 yeare . . . . . . . .55-59 yaare . . . . . . . .
60-84 yeara . . . . . . . .
65-89 years . . . . . . . .70-74 yeara . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .e0-34yaara . . . . . . . .
65-89 yeara . . . . . . . .
90-94 yaara . . . . . . . .
95 yeare and over. . . . .
1,182
63828592
5199
53
66
88
110113
103
96
3922
656
5546
81
56
31
7336
53
66
85
100
92
52
34
12
824
47
51
537248
57
43
52
65
68
7771
56
3216
67
633
—
—
1
54
54
47
45
2—
—
78
77
1
47
145
1
52
2
48
31
65
283
60
3
57
51
2
481
91
2
87
2
59
2
56
1
67
165
1
53
5
471
32
1
28
3
50
15
44
94
291
1
65
2
612
59
2
54
3
58
6
49
3
43
831
3
1
44
3
392
66
1
375
7
56
2
47
6
1
54
149
3
1
64
6
75
1
1
1
65
11
3
57
3
62
59
1
2
111
1
5
995
1
64
4
76
4
81
2
77
11
111
1
1
699
2
97
3
903
1
79
1
7
683
108
8
96
1
1
93
1
662
4
66
657
3
92
1
3
86
2
55
1
7
46
1
61
1
10
50
40
6
34
33
1
31
1
33
3
291
26
2
2
22
13
2
11
18
315
20
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of Informant to decedent United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcertificate, Interval, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 8&64 85-89 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below yeara years years years years years years years years yeara years years years and over
M[sslng:Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-34 years, ,, ...,.
36-39 years ,,, ,,, ,,
40-44 years,,,..,..
45-49 years . ...,...
50-54 years ,,, ,,, . .
55-59 years .,, ,,, ,,
60-64 years.....,..65-69 yeara ,. ..,..,70-74 yeera. ti ...,,.
75-79 yeara ,,, ,,, ,,
80-84 years,,,,.,.,
86-S9years ,,, ,,, ,,
Relatlonshlp and ageDecedent was death
certificate Informant’a-
Spouse:Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . , , .
30-34 years,,.,,,,,
35-39 years,,,,,,.,
4W4years . . . . . . . .45-49 years ,. .,,..,5C-54years .,, . . . . .
55-59 years ,,, ,,, .,
60-84 years,,,,,,,,
65-69 years ,,, .,,,.
70-74 years . . . . . . . .75-79 years ,,, ,, ...
80-84 years, ,. .,...
65-69 years ,. . . . . . .
90-94 years .,, ...,.
95 yaare and over. , , . .
Parenk
Allagea, .,, ,, .,,...Under 30 years , , , . . .
30-34 years ,,, ...,,
35-39 years .,, ,., ,,
40-44 years.,,.,,..45-49 yeers ,., .,...
50-54 years ,,, .,,..
55-59 years . . . . . . . .
60-64 years ,. ..,,..
65-69 years ,, .,..,,
70-74 years . . . . . . . .75-79 years ,. .,,,..
80-84 years . . . . . . . .
65-89 yeara .,, ,. .,,90-94 years ,,, ,., ,.
95 years and over, ., . .
152
1
1
2
22
1
2
2
5,997
160
252
362
564
309
599
410
564
645
732
659
438
213
59
11
1,172332
265
211
16660
49
14
16
57
5
6
65
1
—
—
164
156
6
—
—
—
—
335
330
4—
1
—
2
2
245
2
234
7
1
1
257
2
251
4
—
38S
11
370
6
1
214
6
202
4
1——
1
552
3
543
4—
1
1
166
4
1603
1
—
1—
—
1——
—
—
318—
1
14300
3
—
—
—
—
57—
353
1
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
2
—
—
579
4
567
6
2
—
—
51—
1
4
45
1———
—
—
429
1
1——
27
395
3
2
—
16
1
—
2
13—
—
—
———
561
1
17
541
11
16
16
2—
—
2
640—
2
15
613
6
4—
—
6
1
——
5
—
3
—
—
—
2
1—
—
726
—
2
14
693
12
4
1—
—
7
—
—
—
7
—
—
e63
—
4
28
625
5
1
5—
—
—
5
—
2
—
—
2
440
4
18
413
5
6
—
—
6
2
2
218—
15
201
2
8
2
6
56
—
—
—
4
52—
5
—
5
—
18
11
5
11
1
—
—
1
21
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcertificate, Interval, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-64 8$89 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below years years years years years years years years years yeare years years years and over
Child:Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 yeara . . . . . . . .
35-39 years . . . . . . . .
40-44 years . . . . . . . .
45-49 yeare . . . . . . . .50-54 yeara . . . . . . . .55–59years . . . . . . . .
60-64 yeare . . . . . . . .
65-69 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .75–79years . . . . . . . .
80-84 years . . . . . . . .85-89 yeara . . . . . . . .
90-94 years . . . . . . . .
95 yeare and over. . . . .
Sibling:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .Under 30 yeara . . . . . .30-34 years .,......
35-39 yeara . . . . . . . .
40-44 years . . . . . . . .
45-49 years . . . . . . . .50-54 yeara . . . . . . . .55-59 years . . . . . . . .
60-84 years . . . . . . . .
65-89 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .75–79years . . . . . . . .
80-S4years . . . . . . . .
85-39 years . . . . . . . .
90-94 yeara . . . . . . . .
95 years and over. . . . .Othar relative
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .30-34 yeara ..<.....35-39 years . . . . . . . .
40-44 yeara . . . . . ..i4549years .,...,.,
50-54 years .,, . . . . .55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .
60-84 years . . . . . . . .
65-89 yeara . . . . . . . .70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 years . . . . . . . .
80-S4yeara . . . . . . . .
85-S9years . . . . . . . .
90-94 yaars . . . . . . . .
95 years and over. . . . .
1,7592
4
16
39399461
126
150
197228
280
246188
89
32
1—
—
3—
3
——
—
3648
57
61
444133
50
52
5053
46
26
9
2
463
101515
8
10
117
14
27
43
55
65
77
6026
36—
—
11
92
—
45
2
1
—
12
1
11
—
—
16
—
16
—
—
——
—
57
2
53
2
16
214
—
—
—
37
36
1
—
——
—1
3
10
1
6
1
—
—
41
3
371
—
45
—
1
1
394
—
7
7
—
68—
1834
—
—
40
—
1
2343
—
13
—
1
111
67—
—
755
3
2
—
30
1
326
—
—
6
—
1—
5
—
125—
—
21
112
8
2
—
54
—
—
2
48
3
1
—
14
——
1
11
1
1
—
146
1
11
132
4—
—
49
—
—
2
46
1
—
29
—
2
25
2
—
194
5
1799
1
55
1
3
4731
—
—
37
135
1
—
—1
3
9207
3
52
1
2462
1
56
—
1
5
472
1
—
10256
2
49
243
4—
—
80
669
4
1
259
1
12
16233
4
22
1
21
80
1
112
65
1
167
1
1
7174
4
9
9
64
1
6
56
1
100
1
410
65
2
2
26
1
324
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of Informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on questionnaire
Race and age on deathcert/f/cate, /nterva/, and 30 years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-48 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-64 85W9 90-94 95 years
ra/at/errs/r/D Total and below v8ars yaars years years yeak yeara years years years years years years years and over
Nonrelative:Alleges, . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . i i . . .
30-34 years . . . . . . . .
35-39 yeara . . . . . . . .40+4yeara . . . . . . . .
45-49 years . . . . . . . .
60-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 yeara . . . . . . . .60-64 years . . . . . . . .
65-69 years . . . . . . . .
70-74 yeara ,., ,, . . .
75-79 yeara . ...1...
80-84 yeare ,, ..,,,.65-89 years . ...,...
90-94 yeare . . . . . . . .
95 years and over, , , . .Not stated:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .30-34 years
35-S9 years40-44 years45-49 years
60-54 years
55-59 years
60-64 years65-89 yeara
70-74 yeere
75-79 years
80-64 years
65-89 years90-94 years
,. .,.,,,. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..,, .,,,,,., ,. ...,., ,s, ,,
.,, .,,..
.,, ..,..
.. !.,,..
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
., ...,..
,, .!,,..
95 yeara and over. . . . .
Death certificate Informantand survey respondentwere -
Both spouse:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 30 years . . . . . .
30-34 yeare . . . . . . . .35-39 years . . . . . . . .
40-44 years . . . . . . . .
45-49 years . . . . . ..l
50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 years . . . . . . . .
60-64 years ..,,....65-59 yeara ,,, . . . . .
70-74 years . . . . . . . .
75-79 yaare . . . . . . . .eO-84yeara . . . . . . . .
86-69 yeare . . . . . . . .
90-94 years ,, .,..,.
95 yeara and over, , , .,
37813
10
2140
25
19
23
24
21
34
35
47
34
19
13
5,5e7
143162
213
241146
283
217
330444
593
743
6a3451
228
5,063
116
199311
492
246
510
354
563
639
357
163
43
9
1413
i—
146142
4—
—
—
116
115
1
9
8
1
158
1
151
5
1
193
1
1902
22
1
201
209
6
2012
317
7305
4
1
39
39
245
1
6233
3
1
1—
—
—
—
483
3478
1
——
1
24
24
—
—
—
149
1
6
140
1
—
—
—
1
—
252
—
9
241
2——
—
20
—
118
1
—
—
279—
—
4
268
7
—
494—
—
4
484
4
2—
—
—
21
120
226
13
196
123
1
1
372
11—
23
343
22
—
26
2
24
338
—
7
30125
3
505
—
1
5491
8
24—
—
20
1
1
11
428
—
1
2
13392
153
—
578
2
6
559
5
4
—
33
—
1
31
1
575——
———
—
3
1Ie
52625
1
1
—
632
—
—
—
2
10
6oa
93
37
——
—
——
2
32
3—
—
—
699——
—
—
1
2
3
44
635
13
1
559
—
—3
23
5275
1—
—
43
—
—
—
1
401—
1
743—
—
1
2
30
665
213
1
360
—
—
316
337
4
35
331
1
693
1
212
35
6367
167
—
—
11
1542
19
—
——
1
18
456
—
—
—
1—
1
6
18427
5
40
337
12
——
—
—
—
1
11
245——
—
—
1
1
2
613
222
15
—
1
14
9
23
Table 1. Number of reponses by age of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and age on deathcertificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Age at death on auest[onnaire
Race and age on deathcertlkate, Interval, and 30 yeara 30-34 35-39 4044 45-48 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-89 70-74 75-79 80-34 85-69 90-94 95 years
relationship Total and below yeara yeara yeara yeara years years years yeara yeara years yeara years yaara and over
Not both spouse:
Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . .Under 30 years . . . . . .
3R34yeara . . . . . . . .
35-39 years .,..,...4C44yeare .,..,...
45-49 yeara . . . . . . . .50-54 years . . . . . . . .
55-59 years . . . . . . . .
60-64 years, ,., . . . .
65-69 years, ,, . . . . .70-74 years .,, ,,, . .
75-79 years ., .,,,,,
80-84 years, .,,..,,
85-S9years ,,, ,,, ,,90-94 years . . . . . . . .
95 years and over, ., . .Not stated:
Alleges ..,......,,,Under 30 years . . . . . .30-34 years . . . . . . . .
35-S9years . . . . . . . .
40-44 years.,,,,,,.
45-49 yesrs . . . . . . . .5C-54years . . . . . . . .55-59 years ... ,, . . .
60-64 years, . . . . . . .
6.5-69 years .,..,...
70-74 years . . . . . . . .75-79 yeare ,, ..,...
80-S4years . . . . . . . .
65-39 yeare . . . . . . . .
90-94 years ... ,, . . .95 yeara and over. . . . .
10,370567
538
560607
377544
379
556
695945
1,131
1,248
1,104
741
356
5111319
24
42
124232
63
66
72
56
42
18
73
580562
16
1
—
1
1313
5205
495
171
1
1
19
18
1
560
22
547
11
25
1
24
606
1
12575
141
1
2
42
42
377
318
3486
12
11
1
533
1
113
501
17
43
412
392
2
1
29
337
165
1
1
31
1
30
563
3
15
502
36
5
2
64
60
4
682
—
1
1
5
30
61524
4
1
1
62
3
59
921—
3
2
29
84f
39
5
2
74
3
69
2
1,120
11
4
7
65
1,016
23
2
1
56
2
54
1,230
1
3
51
1,136
1,127
1
13
16
72
33 1,022
3
3
39
39
11
1
21
i
2
17
1
751
1
1
1
733
698
10
7
1
6
368
1
1
3
1126
344
3
3
NOTE Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and Nsw Mexico were exoluded from the compsrablllty snslyski in thl.e rsport becau$e Oregon’s confidentiality raqulrementa precluded Its partlclpatlon In the1S86 National MortalityFollowbackSurvey,andthe primarymatchingcriteriacouldnot be applled for the othar three States beoauaa they relasue daath certificate numbars after the proceeelngof the Currant Mortali~ Sampla,
24
Table 2. Number of responses by rece of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race on deathcartlflcate, Interval between death and eurvey, and relationship of Informant to decedent: United States, 1988
Race on questionnaire
Rata on death certlflcate,Interval Americanand rdatbrshb Total White Black Indian Aelan Other
RaceAllraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndlan, . . . . . . . . . .Alan. .o. , . . ..o .$......
Other, . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intervaland race22-25 waeks:All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . ..o. ..oo. ..o..
Black, ,,, ,,, ., .,...,...Amerlcanlndlan. . . . . . . . . . .A81an , , , . . . . . . , ,, , , ,. , ,Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeks:Allraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White, ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndlan. , . . . . . . . . .Asian, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32weeks:Allraces, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White. .. o, . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndlan, . . . . , , . . . .Asian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other. ,,, ,,, .,, .,.,..,.33-35weeks:All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amerlcanlndlan. . . . . . . . . . .Asian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-38weeke:
All races,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,..White, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndlan. ., . . . . . . . .
Asian, ,,, ..,,......,,..
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-41 weeks:All races,.,......,....,.,
White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black, ,,, .,, ,,, . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndian. . . . . . . . . . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeke:Allraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black, . ., . .,, . . . . . . . . . .Amerlcanlndlan. ., . . . . . . . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
!5,97211,3154,101
422131
3
1,084
819
23721
7
2,2461,66e
4986020
1,94e
1,4824123813
1
2,3531,676
5986019
2,0531,409
56759171
1,8321,216
5336320
1,6231,095
476439
11,16711,109
28245
1
812811
1
1,65e1,651
122—
1,4771,470
34
1,6621,651
641
1,3921,364
431
1,1891,166
111
1,0661,059
52
4,06036
4,02121
2361
235
4963
4921
4094
405
—
5664
5e4———
5562
5531
5357
527
1
4709
461
—
5146634
3922
275
121
71112
571
40
33
34
73134
551
72126
54—
—
7711
561
63139
41
1472351
lie
2
92
7
2131
17
195
13
1
23321
17
2141—
15
1
202
18
8
8
84el1337
2
2
1
1
752
127311
1110
1
16141
1
25
Table 2. Number of responses by race of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race on deathcertificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Race on qr.rest;onnake
Race on death certificate, interval Americanand relationship Total White Black Indian AsIan Other
45-47 weeksAll races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black, ..,..,....,...,..
American lndfan. , ..,,.....
1,163782
344
26
11
765
756
4
5
3363
335
33
10
2
21
—
132
1
10
14
11
2
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46-51 weeks:
Allraces ..,,,....,....,..
White, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian. . . . . . . . . . .
1
646
550262
29
5
541
535
3
3
260
3
257
32
52
25
41
3
9
6
1
2Asian. , .,...,..,,,,.,..
Other. , . ., .,, ., .,....,.52 weaks and IongenAll races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. , .,..,.....,..,,.
American Indian . . . . . . . . . . .
811
604
173
2310
1
593
592
1
171
171
26
3
23
9
1—
6
12
6
2
Asian. ..,..,...,....,..
Other. , . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Missing:
Allraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amerlcanlndian. . . . . , . . . . .
Asian. .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
15141—
1414—
1
1
Relationship and race
Decedent waa death certificateInformant’s–
Spouse:
Allraoes ...,..........,..
White, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. , ., . ., . ., .,,.,..,Americanlndian. . . . . , . . . . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parent
6,002
4,661
1,16112453
3
4,614
4,595
10711
1,153
13
1,1391
146
27
6113
62
9
11
49
2
25
17
323
Allraces .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,161
801328
26
4
779777
1
1—
3307
323
40103
27
611
4
66
Amerlcanlndian. . . . . . . . . . .
Asian. ..,..,....,...,..
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child:
—
Allraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. , .,, , . . . . . . . . . . . .American Indian . . . . . . . . . . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sibling:
Allracea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. ..,.,.........,..
American Indian. ., . . . . . . . .
1,746
1,217
4485229
1,199
1,194
221
443
2
441
61
9
250
29
2
1
28
14
102
2
600351
345336
4
3
2172
215
29
4
2
23
2
1
7
6
1222
26
1—
1Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
—
26
Table 2. Number of responses by race of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race on deathcertificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Race on questionnaire
Race on death cerf/flcafe, Interval Americanand relationship Total White Black Indian Asian Other
Other relative:
All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian. . . . . . . . t . .Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelativcx
All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black, , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American lndlan. ,... . . . . . .
A.slan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not stated:
All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amarlcanlndlan. . . . . . . . . . .
Asian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death certificate Informant andsurvey respondent ware -
Both SPOUSW
Allraces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Americanlndian. . . . . . . . . . .
Asian, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not both spouse:
Allraces, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White, ,, .,,......,..,.,
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American lndlan . . . . . . . . . . .
Asian, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not stated:
All races, ,, .,. i ., .,,,....
White, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amerlcanlndlan. ., . . . . . . . .
Asian, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
282
280
11
—
269
268
12—
3,879
3,859
9
8
3
3,951
3,938
7
7
1
8,837
6,798
18
17
3
1
379
375
3
1
170
169
14
1
3
10
3
1—
2
2
2—
471
2e4
!73
11
3
364
274
91
15
4
5,608
3,727
1,676166
37—
5,075
3,968
950
94
43
10,348
6,947
2,999
315
62
3
551
380
152
13
6
1
90 Ie4
13
1
4
2
3
2
90
12
1,657
12
1,644
1
204
31
16
158
1
41
7
2
32
27
18
7
1
1
50
8
1
1
40
17
12
3
943
9
933
1
114
23
6
65— 2
2,972
26
2,944
383
61
26
294
2
89
13
3
65
49
8
3
5
11 71
2
145
1
144
17
2
2
13
8
2
1
5
2
2
—
NOTES:Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, and Nsw Mexico were excluded from the comparabllky analysla in this report because Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded its participation inthe 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matching criteria could not be applled for the other three Statea becauee they reissue death certificate numbers after theprocessing of the Current Mortality Sample.
Multiple entries of race on the queallonnaire were claaaified in the following way to correspond with the coding of similar entries on the death certificate: American Indian and whte (two caaes)were claeaifiedas American Indian. Asian and white (one case) was classified as Asian. Black and white (one case) was classified aa black. There were five cases in which three or more raceswere given on tha questlonnalrw these ware claeslfied as “other.”
27
Table 3. Number of responses by Hispanic origin of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andHispanic origin on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of Informant to decedent United States,1986
Origin on questionnaire
Race and Hispanic origin on death cert#icate, Interval, and relationshipHlspanlc Non.
Total origin Hlspanlc
Race and Hispanic origin
All races
Alloriglns, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,990 366
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,.
6,624
306 297
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
6,664 69
White:
6,615
Alloriglns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,129 338
Hispanicorigln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,791
301 294
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
4,828 44
Blaclc
4,784
Allorigina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,606 11
Hlspanlcorigin. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, ,, .,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,, ,
1,595
1 1
Non-Hispanic, ,,, ,,, ,, ..,,,,, ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1,605 10 1,695
Amerlcanlndlan:Alloriglns, , . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 10
Hispanlcorlgln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,
149
1 1
Non-Hispanic. .,.....,...,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, 158 9
Other:
149
Allorlglns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7
Hlspanicorigln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
693 1
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
93 6 07
Interval and Hispanic origin
22–25 weeks:
Alloriglns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-29 weeks:
Allorigins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanlcorlgin. ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,,,, , .,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,.,,, ,
Non-Hlspanlc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30-32weeka:
Alloriglna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanicorigln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-35weeks:Allorlgins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hlspanlcorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-36 weeksAllorigins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanlcorigln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanic, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,O
38-41weekx
Allorigins, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,OO,.
Hispanlcorlgln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks:
Allorigins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hlspanlcorlgln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanic. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,, .,,,,., . . . . ...! ,., .,.,,
45-47weeks:
Alloriglns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.<.,,,H[spanicorlgin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-51 weeks
Allorigins, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ., . . . . .. c.. .c. .,..ccm . . ..O
Hlspanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Non-Hispenlc. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,..
407 1410
4
393
1392
11396
851
30
821
36 816
615
30
6
76322
761
29 754
764
22
7
943
29
914
31
28
3
912
1
911
892 4134
7
6512
849
36
856
623
40
763
51
4011
772
772
4539 2
694700 6
5402e
511
38299
602
502
425
24
401
31 394
2
392
22
9
28
Table 3. Number of responses by Hispanic origin of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andHispanic origin on death certificate, Interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedenti United States,1986-Con.
H/span/c Non-Race and Hlsparrlc origin on death certlflcate, Irrtewal, and relationship Total orlgln Hispanic
52 weeks and IongenAll orlglns ,,, .,,,., ,,, ,,, ,,. ,. ...,,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 50 530
Hlspanlc origin ,., ,, ..., 0 ...,,,,. ,. ...,0.. ,,, ,,, ,,. . . . . 44 43 1
Non.Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 7 529
Mlsslng:Alloriglns, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —
Non.Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 — 5
Relationship and Hispanic orlgln
Decedent was death certificate Informant’s -
Spouse:
All orlglns . . ,, !,,... !. ..0.,, ,. .,..., . . . . . . . . ,., . . . . . . . 2,625 129 2,496
Hlspanloorlgln, , .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 110 3
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,512 19 2,493
Parent
Allorlglns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 39 503
Hiepanlcorlgln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 31
Non.Hlspanlc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 6 503
Child:
Allorigins, ,,, ,, ., . ., .,,,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,067 56 1,029
Hispanic origin ,,, ,,,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .,,,.. . . . . . . . . 45 45
Non.Hlspanlc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,042 13 1,029
Slbllng:
All orlglns , , ., ,,, ,,,., ,., .$,,. .,, .,,,, ,., ,,.,, . . . . . . . .
Hispanioorlgln. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanlo. ,., .,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ,0!...
Other relative
Alloriglns, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanioorlgln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative:
All origins ,,, ,,,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,, ,..,, ,. . . ...! . . . .
Hispanic origin, !! .,!,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .,,,, . . . . . . .
Non-Hlspanlc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not stated:Allorlglns . ., ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hlspanlcorlgln, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
333
28
305
293
9264
271
18
253
,639
62
32
27
5
11
92
2117
4
76
58
301
1
300
262—
282
250
1
249
1,763
4
Non-Hlspanlo ,,, .,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . ...! . 1,777 16 1,759
Death certificate Informant and survey respondent were-Both apousa
Allorlglns ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,199 95 2,104
Hlspanlc orlgln, , ,,, ,,,,, . . . . . . . . ,. .,,,.. .,, ..,,, . . . . . . 85 83 2
Non.Hlspanio ,,, ,,,,, ,,, ,,,,, ,., ,,,,. ,, .,,,,. . . . . . . . . . 2,114 12 2,102
Not both spouse:
Allorlglns, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,554 253 4,301
Hlspanlo origin ,,, ,,,,, ,., . . . . . ,, .,,,,, ., .,,.,, ,,, ..,.. 208 201 7
Non-Hlspanlc, ,, ..,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, .,.!.. 4,346 52 4,294
Notstated:
All orlglna , , ,,, .,,,,, ,, .,,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 18 219
Hlspanlcorlgln, ,,, .,, ..,,,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13
Non.Hlspanlc, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 5 219
NOTEOregon,Nebraska,Nevsde, and New Mexico were excluded from the comparability analysls In this report because Oregon’s confidentially requlrementa precluded its participation in the1986NatlonaiMortalityFollowbackSurvey,andthe primary matching criteria could not be applied for the other three Statea because they reissue death certificate numbers after the processingof tha Currant Mortallty Sampla,
29
Table 4. Number of responses by marital status of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andmarital status on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decederrk United States,1986
Marital status on quest~onnaire
Race and marital status on death certificate,interval, and relationship Total
NeverMarried Widowed Divorced married
Race and marital status
All races:All marital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,.
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .White:
All marital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15,885
7,592
4,753
1,8001,920
7,776
7,470
125124
57
4,522
29
4,426
5215
1,689
68
183
1,39365
1,676
25
39
311.783
11,280
5,660
3,229
1,144
1,247
5,736
5,602
50
62
22
3,139
17
3,088
28
6
1,196
31
80
1,03847
1,209
10
11
16
1,172
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,
DNorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Blaclc
All marital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,0401,883
1,359
394
604
1,7801,823
72
57
28
1,22912
1,186
22
9
42734
74
302
17
80414
27
13
550
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American Indian:All maritalstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married .,............,.. . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
411
167
134
5357
176
164
1
56
128 56
3
8
441
53
1
250
—124
2Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Othec
Allmaritalstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarriad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134
82
31
9
12
84
81
2—
1
28
28
10
19
12
1
11
Interval and marital status
22–25 weeks
Allmaritalstatuses, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
316
794
1,066
537
336
89122
544
532
38
3
323 117
1
1115
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-29 weeks:
All maritalstatuses. .,,,..... . . . . . . . .
Married, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32weeks:
2318
3
2,235
1,118
682205
232
1,132
1,109
7106
6592
652
4
1
2143
20
169
2
2302
32
223
Allmarital statuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-35weeks
1,937959
589
180209
988950
21134
553
2
5474
1906
18
1833
206
1
3—
202
All maritaletatuses, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,.
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarried .,......,,,.. . . . . . .
2,341
1,144
708203
1,169
1,1361811
6
677
3867
61
211
420
1825
284
154
274266
30
Table 4. Number of responses by marital status of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andmarital status on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent United States,1988-Con.
Marital status on questionnaire
Race and marital status on death certificate, NeverInterval, and relationship Total Married Widowed Divorced married
36-38 weeks
Allmarital atatuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Never married, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39-41 weeks:Allmarltal statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeks:
Allmarital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-47weeks:
Allmarltelstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-51 weeke:
All maritalstatuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62 weeke and Iongen
Allmarltalstatuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Missing:
Allmarltal statuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marrrled, h i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
232
8
22
190
12
238
5
5
2
226
2,043
990
593
213
247
1,013 560
969 8
546
4
2
2017
7
1,819
837
542
203
237
854
814
18
1111
518
4
501
94
222
13
14
18114
225
6
9
2
208
473
2
461
7
3
193
13
21
154
5
190
7
4
7
172
1,605
728
505186188
749
706
19
18
8
3093
144
11
11113
9
146
2
2
4
138
1,152
534
323
140
155
553
518
12
16
7
296
7
1
633
377
243
96117
399
371
8
164
226 95
3
9
767
113
1
5
2105
2
221
2
1
219
1
210
6
2
65
4
1265
4
129
27
120
799
361
225
84
129
366
356
16
3
15
9
5
1
9
9
5
5
1—
1
Relationship and marital status
Decedent was death certificate informant’s –
Spouse:
All marital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed, ,, . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarrled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ParenkAll marital statuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marrlad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed, , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevermarrlad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6,007
5,964
23
8
12
5,939
5,930
5
1
3
26
8
16
29
22
13
4
7
9
307 603
4
12
587
1,146
147
57
323819
185
138
6
2415
51
1
46
31
4
3
28416
31
Table 4. Number of responses by marital status of decedent on National Mortality Followback Suwey questionnaire and by race andmarital status on death certificate, interval between death and suwey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States,1986- Con.
Marital status on questionnaire
Race and marital status on death certlt?cate,Interval, and relationship Total
NeverMarried Widowed D/vorced married
Child:Allmarltal statusee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slbllng:All maritalstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married, ,,, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,,,
Widowed, ,,, ,, .,....,,,,,, .,..Divorced, ,,, ,,, , .,.,,,,,,. . . . . .
Nevermarrled, ,,, ,,, .,.,,,, ..,.,
Other relativeAllmaritalstatueee. .,.,,.,, . . . . . . . . .
Married .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,...,.
Widowed, .,,,,..,,,,.,,, . ...,,
Divorced. , . .,, ,,, ,,, ,,.., .,,,..
Nevermarrled, ,, . . . . . . . . . .,,,...Nonrelative:
Al[maritalstatuses, ,,, ,,... . . . . . . . . .
Married, , .,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,.,,
Widowed ., .,, ,, . .,..,,.,, . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Notstated:
Allmaritaletatuses. .,,.,... . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,,...
Divorced. ., ., . . . ,,, ,,,., ,.,,,,.
Nevermarrled ..,,,,,,,,.,,, ,,,,,
Death certificate informant andsunreyrespondent were–
Both SPOUSEX
All marital statuses. . . . . . .. 4,,,,, ,,,,
Married ..,......,,, .,, ,,,,, ,,,Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,,,,Divorced, , . . . . . . . . . . ... ,,,,, ,.,
Nevermarried, .,,,...,,,,,, ,,,,,
Not both SpOUS&
All maritalstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,,
Notstated:
Allmaritalstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Navermarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,755252
l,19e267
36
594
67
143
120
264
469
49
261
42
117
366
78
13070
93
5,526
1,0402,941
770
777
5,063
5,073
5
2
3
10,2362,0424,721
1,566
1,907
544
477
273010
269
241
2423
1
67
60
10
5
6
6346
10
25
63
66
47
4
1,136
96764
62
23
5,069
5,060
5
1
3
2,217i ,e35
117
114
51
490
475
39
3
1,166
7
1,14516
126
123
1
2
249
240
54
115
112
3
2,767
132,742
24
8
3
3
4,49526
4,402
52
15
24
24
260
3
24226
7
129
4
7112
6
52
3
9
355
76
4
959
6
634
26111
670
25
11
10
1
1,65556
163
1,371
65
23
2
21
36
1
52
30
256
3
3
2
250
105
2
103
90
1
51
63
771
1224
14
721
,8712539
31,776
7
7
NOTE Oragon, Nebraaka,Nevadal and New Mexico were excluded from the oomparebility analyala In this report bacause Oregon’s confidentiality requirements precluded Its pertlclpstlon In the19t36National Mortally Followback 6urvey, and the primary metchlng crlterls couldnot be applled for the other three States becauee they reissue deeth certificate numbers after the processingof the Current Mortality 6ample,
32
Table 5. Number of reeponaes by occupation of decsdent on National Mortality Followback Survey qusstlonnah’e and by race andoccupation on death certificate, Interval between death snd survey, and relationship of Informant to decedenk United States, 1986
Occupation on questionnaire
Operators,Manager/a/ Technical, Production, fabricators,
Race and occupation on death and sales, and orafi, and Armedcertificate, interval, and relatlonahip Total professional administrative SewIce Farming and rapalr laborers Forces
Race and occupation
All races:
Alloccupatlons ...,,.,,..,,.
Managerial and professional . . .
Technlcsl, sales, andadmlnlstratlve. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service o,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Faming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ProductIon, craft, and repair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ArmedForces. . .,, ...,...
White:Allocoupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .
Technical, sales, andadmlnlstralve . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setvlce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces .,, . . . . . . . . .Blaok:
Alloccupatlons .,......,,,.,
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .Technical, sales, and
admlnlstratlve. . , . . . , . . . t .Sewice$ $,, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .Operators, fabricators, and
laborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amerlcsnlndlarx
Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .Managerial andprofesslonal . . .
Technical, sales, andadmlnlstrative, ,., .,, ., ,.,
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farrnlng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .Othec
Alloccupatlona. , . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .
Technical, sales, andadmlnlstrative, . , , , . . , . . . .
Sewlce . ., . .,, ,., .,....Farming. ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft,andrepalr . . .Operators, fabricators, and
laborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces, . . . . . . . . . . .
2,665467
426
393
227
364
730
36
1,923394
372169
154
325
45930
670
62
49195
6448
247
5
648
77
9
10
23
8
3
2
1
11
342
269
37
12
47
12
1
262226
317
2
7
61
51
36
4
5
2
2
8
5
2
1—
1
1
454
91
30473
110
29
6
36682
2668
10
18
59
6
34
5
1
11
2
62
2
2
1
1
396
35
22296
56
30
19222
17131
4
6
12
196
12
5
161
11
16
6
5
1
2
1
1
264
9
815
166
9
37
1728
65
127
6
16
79
8
511
19
11
1
8
2
2
1
1
404
29
20
11
9267
66
2
34028
179
9
228
481
54
1
1
2
33
161
10
2
6
2
738
26
33
38
21
76
542
2
49921
2725
12
60
3522
215
4
5
12
612
174
231
1
1
1
3
16
1
1
65
8
4
6
17
14
25
507
44
6
722
14
1
2
11
7
2
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
33
Table 5. Number of responses by occupation of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andoccupation on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Occupation on questionnaire
Operators,Manager[a/ Technfcal, Production,
Race and occupation on deathfabricators,
and sales, andcertlflcate, interval, and relationship Total
crati, and Armedprofessional administrative Service Farming and repair laborers Forces
Interval and occupation
22-25 weeks:
All occupations..........,..Managerial and professional . . .Technical, sales, and
administrative. . . . . . . , . . . ,
Service ., . ., . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming.. , .,..,.....,..Production, craft, and repair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .26-29 weeks:
Alloccupations . . . . . . . . . . . . .Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair , , .
Operators, fabricators, andIaborera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-82 weeksAl[ occupations, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. , . . . . . . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming ..,........,.,..
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-85 weeksAlloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . . . , . . , . . .
Service, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Production, craft, and repair . . .Operatora, fabricators, andlaborers .,,.........,..
Armed Forces, . . . . . . . . . . .
36=38weeks:
Alloccupationa. . .,, .,,.... ,
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft,andrepair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
21445
32
23
24
33
53
4
46977
77
7138
87
132
7
349
74
54
43
32
53
88
5
426a6
82
61
2963
103
2
366
54
80
52
38
51
110
3
3225
5
1
—
1
6044
622
1
3
47
42
3
2—
6552
6
5
2
40
26
4
1
1
3
3
3710
264
27—
292
563
71
21
2
117—
i
11
21
1
1
1
122
3
2
26
1
1
3
1
3 3 2 40 1
3
8213
654
412
668
1413
143
593—
2
254
31
21
29
2
44—
41
2
54
20
2
14
15 9 107 3
6
55
12
46
6
41
1
60
6
91
4
9
1
33
2
2
7
26
1
2
1
29
3
1
1
38
6
6
2
12
1
5
12 6 11 59 3
4
8819
567
362
633
1132
5i
62
3
—
1
4312
1
323—
3
350
9
72
10 1
4 2 7 4 63 12
7014
57
3
39
1
53
3
96
3
13
2
49
1
2
2
44
1
3
34
2
4
5
7
2
1
1
2
1
28
3
4 8—
6—
12 74
132
34
Table 5, Number of responses by occupation of decedent on Nationai Mortaiity Foiiowback Suwey questionnaire and by race andoccupation on death certificate, intewai between death and suwey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Occupation on questionnarle
Operators,Managerial Technical, Production, fabricators,
Race and occupation on death and sales, and craft, and Armedcertificate, Interval, and relationship Total professional administrative Service Farming and repair laborers Forces
3941 weeks:Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical sales, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces, . . . . . . . . . . .42-44 weekw
Alloccupatlone . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .Technical, sales, and
admlnlstratlve. . . . . . . . . . . .Service ., . . . . . . .. o.....Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .
Operatora, fabricators andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-47 weeks
Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerlai and professional . . .Technical, salee, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Production, craft,andrepair . . .
Operators, fabricator, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .48-51 weeke:Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofeeslonal . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . , , . . . . . . .
Service .,, ,.. .( . . . . . ..(Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and rapair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
52 weeks and Iongec
Alloccupatlons. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional , . .Technical, sales, and
admln[stratlve. . . . . . . . . . . .
Sewlce. .,, . .. o........
Farming, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair ., .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Missing:
Alloccupatlons, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . , , , . . . . . . .
276
43
41
54
21
38
72
7
242
31
43
37
21
31
76
3
187
28
21
28
12
29
47
2
110
22
13
18
e
10
39
2
40
5
5
6
6
8
9
1
4
2
31
23
6—
1
1
28
22
2
1
1
21
15
2
1
1
2
12
12
7
5
1
1
1
1
46
10
28
2—
2
3
1
38
3
30
1
3
1
20
5
12
1—
1
1
14
5
7
2—
4
—
3
1
—
—
—
47
3
3
39—
—
2—
44
3
4
30
1
1
5
23
1
21—
—
1
27
3
1
17
2
4
7
—
5
2
29
2
1
2
20
4
23
1
3
17
1
1—
16
1
2
11
2—
9—
1
6
1
1
3
2
1
—
—
—
45
1
2
3—
25
12
2
40
2
3
1
27
7—
34
3
1
1
23
6—
7
2
3
2
6
1
4
1—
1
1
72
4
1
7—
11
49
69
1
3
3
2
1
59
50
4
4
2
1
4
35
37
2
2
3
30
11
1
3
1
5
1
2
6
1
—
2
3
2
—
—
2
3,
1—
—
1
—
1
4
1—
—
1
2
2
—
—
—
1
1
—
35
Table 5. Number of responses by occupation of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andoccupation on death certificate, intervai between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con,
Occupation on questionnaire
Operators,Managerial Technical, Production,
Race and occupation on deathfabricators,
and sales, andcertificate, Interval, and relationship
craft, and ArmedTotal professional administrative Service Farming and re~air laborers Forces
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair , .,
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship and occupation
Decedent waa death certificateinformant’s–
Spouse:
Allcccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional ., .Technical, sales, and
administrative. . . . . . . . . . , ,
Service .. i, .,, ,. ...,..,
Farming ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
ParentAll occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .
Technical, salee, andadministrative. , . . . . , . , . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft,andrepair , , .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, ., ., .,, ,.....,
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .Child:
Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair . . .
Operatora, fabricators, andIaborera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sibllng:
Alioccupations. , ., .,,.,....
Managerial andprofesslonal ., .Technical, sales, and
administrative. . . . . . , . . . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Production, craft, and repair . , .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces.........,..Other relative:Alloccupations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative, . . , . . . . . , . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming .,.,,,,..,.,.,.,
1 1
1 1
1,222228
20012794
219
334
20
21230
2729
13
32
792
171
28
323821
17
33
4
78
8
8
197
12
24
539
99
10
173
132
21249
11911
108 22018
35812
34
33
19
8
2
4
134
7
1
6
6
88
2A
6
2
78
4
11
4
4
149
21
16
748
3
2
4
8—
14
1
8 15 33
1
252 4
18
16
13
31
6
30
2
12
1
344
76
2
11
2
4 16
2
1
2
20
1
1
2
3
3
6
1
3
1
—1
22
9
1
1 22
4 1 7 60 4
21
16
37
6
36
4
23 16
1
36
1
2
21
1
242
425 .
—.1
22
2
6
418
1
2
i
8
1 2
3
2 4 23 1
1
7
5
6 18
1
6 14
1
27
1
1
1—
5—
1
15
1
1
24
1
—1
3 —10
1 2 3 18
76
112
10 121
2 10 1
1 6—
19
9
36
Table 5. Number of responses by occupation of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andocoupetion on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of Informant to decedent United States, 1986-Con.
Occupation on questionnaire
Operators,Managerial Technical, Product/on, fabricators,
Race and occupation on death and sales, and craft, and Armedcerfiffcate, Interval, and relationship Total professional administrative Service Farming and repair laborers Forces
Production, craft, and repair . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative:
Alloccupatlons .,.,,,,.,.,,.Managerial and professional . . .
Technical, sales, andadministrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Servlca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Production, craft, and repair . . .
Oparators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not atatad:
Alloccupations . . . . . . . . . . . . .Managerial andprofesslonal . . .Tachnlcal, eales, and
admlnlstratlve, , ., , ., , , . . .
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, cratt, andrepalr . . .
Operators, fabricators, andlaborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
Daath certificate informant andsurvey respondent were-
Both spouse:Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .Technical, sales, and
admlnlstratlve. . . . . . . . , . . .
Service, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .Operators, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces, ,,, ,., . . . . .
Not both spousa:
Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .Technical, sales, and
administrative. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, andrepalr . . .
Operatora, fabricators, andlaborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .Not stated:
Alloccupatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managerial andprofesslonal . . .
Technical, sales, andadmlnlstratlva. . . . . . . . . . . .
Service o, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, craft, and repair . . .Operators, fabricators, and
laborers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
121
29
8
5
4
2
91
900156
147
169
8299
2398
1,058208
169
103
80
190
289
19
1,537
249
253
283
141
173
423
15
70
10
6
7
6
21
18
2
4
2
1
1
11295
9
2
2
1
2
1
159
121
17
8
2
4
7
175
140
20
4
2
3
5
1
8
8
—
1—
7
3
4—
—
150
25
111
2—
3
9—
18546
113
7
1
5
12
1
260
44
186
5
4
16
5
9
1
51
1
1—
—
1
7
2
4
1
178
15
9
137
2
1
14
94
9
5
69
2
3
6
298
25
16
225
3
5
24
6
1
1
4
—
2
1
1
102
3
2
6
69
3
17—
93
2
6
1
67
4
13
163
7
2
14
115
4
21
8
4
1
3
2
—
2—
—
—
1
1
116
5
9
4
4
75
16
1
163
15
7
4
3
126
25
1
202
14
13
6
6
124
39
19
—
1—
15
2
1
1
6
7
—
7
226
10
7
15
4
14
174
2
313
12
18
12
5
44
222
407
14
15
25
14
29
309
1
18
1
2
3
11
1
—
—1
1
1
163
—
11
2
54
313
3
2
2
417
325
1
4
14
9
8
2
1
1
NOTEOrsgon,Nebraska,Nsvada,andNswMsxlcowsraexcludedfromthecomparabilityanalyalaIn this reporl bscsuss Oregon’s confldantlality reqrsirementaprecluded Its partlclpatlon In ths19s6 National Mortality Followback Survey, and the primary matching criteria could not ba applied for tha othar three States bacauaa they reissue death csfllfl~te numbara afier the Pr0cessln9of the Current Mortelity Sample.
37
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United Statea, 1986
industry on questionnaire
Trsrrspor-tation,
communi- Finance,Race and industty on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, interval and Agricul- Construc- Manufac- and and real adminls- Armedrelationship Tots\ ture Mining Uon turing utilities Trade estate Services tration Forces
Race and Industry
All racea:
Allindustrlea . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transporktion, communication,and utilities, . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration. . . . . . .Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
White:
All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services< . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadministration. . . . . . .
ArmedForces. . . . . . . . . . .
Black
All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction, . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian:
Allindustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities, . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade ...,....,....,..
Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Publicadministratlon. . . . . . .
Armed Forces...,....,.,
2,602
21844
245
648
234
329
87
629130
38
1,893153
41169
502
178
264
70
367
97
32
83657
2
64
130
5361
14226
26
5
62
8
1
12
14
3
4
2126
233
1712
9
13
5
9
19
5
156118
2
4
10
4
8
9
3
6348
5
2
11
6
10
7
1
11
51
35
1
8
1
3
—
12
48—
32
7
1
3
—
1
2
3—
2
1
—
2
1
1
——
254
71
162
18
7
12
2
158
4
1918
1
133
10
3
12
2
12
8
4
551—
41
6
4—
3
—
6
8
—
——
637
222
21
499
15
32
3
376
49117
2
14
387
1125
2
29
4
1295—
6
99
37
1
7
1
15—
1
12
1
1
234
31
11
15
176
8
2
125
1
1762
1
6
13
136
5
1
8
3
1
54—
5
2
363
13
2
3
1—
—
2
—
349
5
4
44
10
229
7
446
2763
3
36
8166
5
31
4
692
1
8
240
113
2
4
—
3
1
81
4
1
2
648
2
66
—
4
2
547
1
11
1—
81
1
1
—
1
573 124 66
9- 13--
6 5 6
32 7 10
8 4 7
27 3 4
4 4 1472 15 6
10 61 6
2 5 26
346 90 517
3
3 1 5
24 4 7
6 4 5
19 2 2
3 2 1
275 10 5
5 63 4
1 4 22
214 26 142 1
3 2 1
7 2 3
2- 28- 2
1 2-187 3 1
3 16 1
1 1 3
12 7-
2-
l--
1-
9 2-
2 2-
38
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent United States, 1986-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Transpor-tation,
communi- Finance,Race and Industty on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, Interval and Agricul- Construc- Manufac- and and real adminis- Armedre/at/onsh/p Total ture M/nlng tion turing utilities Trade estate Services tratlon Forces
Othe~
All[ndustrles, ., . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlnlng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing , . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutllltles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . .. o.......
Services, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
Intarval and industry
22-25 weeks:All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlnlng, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . .Transportation, communication,
andutlllties . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publloadmlnlstratlon. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
28-29 weeks
Allkrdustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlnlng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportatlon, communication,and utllltles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadmlnlstratlon. . . . . . .
Armed Forces...,...,,..30-32weeks:
Alllndustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportatlon, communication,andutilltles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, Insurance, and real
estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadmlnlstratlon . . . . . . .
Armed Forces,..,...,,..
9—
2
—
1
4
1
1
209
22
3
20
48
23
29
4
46
9
5
452
37
7
36
120
46
55
12
109
24
6
340
30
4
29
91
27
48
13
75
17
6
2
—
—
—
1
1
26
19
1
3
—
1
2
36
28
1
1
2
1
2
—
3
36
26
1
5
1
2
1—
—
5
3
2
—
6
4
1
2
1—
4
3—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
22
1
16
2
—
3
32
1—
24
2
2
2
1—
—
34
1—
21
2
1
1
—
5
2
1
2—
1
1
46
1
2
36
3
3
—
1—
123
3
2
5
100
3
6
4
93
2
4
71
2
3
—
8
3
1—
—
—
1
20—
1
1
18—
42
1
1
4
34
1
—
1
27—
1
1
1
20
1
3
——
——
—
31—
—
3
1
20
1
6—
—
55
2
4
3
38
—
7
1—
47
1
5
—
37
2
2
1—
—
—
1
4
—
1
3—
—
13—
1
—
10
1
1
12—
—
1
10
1—
—
1—
—
1
35
1
—
1
1
32
104
4
2
4
2
2
89
1
64—
—
1
3
1
4
—
54
1
1
—
1
—
11—
—
—
1
1
3
6
24—
—
1
1
1
1
19
1
13—
—
1
—
1—
10
1
1
—
1
9
—
2
1
1
5
13—
1
1
2
1
2
1
5
10
1
1
2—
—
1
1
4
S9
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and Industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationshi~ of Informant to decedent United States, 1966-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Trarrspor-tation,
communi-Race and industry on death
Finance,cation, insurance,
certificate, interval and Agricul-Publlc
Construc- Manufac- and and real admlnls. Armedrelationship Total ture Mining tion turing utilities Trade estate Services tration Forces
33-35 weeksAlllndustries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation, communication,
and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade, ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration . . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
36-38 weeks:All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutiliiies . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public admkristration, . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
39-41 weeks:All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .Tranaportatlon, communication,
andutllitiea . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
Sarvlces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publicadministration . . . . . . ,
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
42-44 weeka:Alllndustriaa . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, [naurance, and realastute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publicadmlnlstration . . . . , . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
41027
9
37
108
40
46
13
106
20
2
359
38
8
3291
34
37
13
85
17
4
267
19
5
26
63
19
35
10
66
15
7
242
224
29
51
14
38
11
56
14
3
3021
—
1
2
—
5
1
34
26
11
—
1
—
3
2
22
171—
1
—
2
1
23
17
2—
1
3
6—
6
—
—
10
7
11
1
5
2
1
1
1
5
T4
—
1
381
311
2
1
1
1
34
1
206
2
3
1
1
32
1
21
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
30
1
23
2
1
2
1
1134
289
1
4
11
2
88
7
467
1
3
1
4
1
62
1
247
2
3
7
41
1
132
1
4
11
441
2
3
30
3
1
31
32
11
27
2
1
16
1
13—
1
1
17—
3
3
9
1
1
50
—
9
2
30
1
6
2
42
2
15
1
25
8—
36
—
4
1
27
1
5
43
1—
7
2
25
2
5
1
15
2
1
10
2—
74
11
3
6
—
6
9——
—
—
7
1
1
88
1
3
2
6
75
1
76
1
1
25
5
60
2
62
11
5
1
1
1
49
1
2
58
2
6
1
5
1
43
19
1
1
1
4
12
16
12
2
1
1
9
19
2
2
3
11
1
14
1
1
2
91
5
1
1
1
2
13
1
13
2
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
3
2
2
40
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on Nationai Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and industryon death certificate, intervai between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedenti United States, 1966-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Transpor-tation,
communi- Finance,Race and industry on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, /nterva/ and Agricul- Construc- Manufsc- and and rea\ admirrls- Armedrelationship Total ture Mining tion turing utilities Trade estate Sem”ces tration Forces
45-47 weeks:
Alllndustries, .,, ,,, ,,, . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction ..,,,,..,,..
Manufacturing . . . . ., , . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services, ,, .,.......,..
Publlc administration. . , . . . .Armed Forces .,, ..,.....
48-51 weeks:
Allindustr[es . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Publlcadmlnistration. . . . . . .Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
62 weeks and Iongen
Aliindustries ., . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture ., i . .,..,...,Mlnlng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing, . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sorvlces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Publicadminlstration. . . . . . .Armed Forces.,,..,,.,,,
IMlsslng:
Allindustries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture, . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing , , , , ., , . . . ,
Transportatlon, communication,and utilities, . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flnanca, Insurance, and realestate. ..,..,,....,,..
Sorvlcesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadministratlon . . . . . .Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
16712
4
18
37
18
21
6
39
10
2
111
4
1230
9
14
5
31
4
2
41
7
5
6
3
6
11—
1
4
—
1
1
1
1
14
11
—
—
1—
2
7
4
2—
1—
3
2
1
—
——
6
4
2
—
—
—
—
19—
—
17—
1
1—
7
—
6
—
1
5
1
21
1
1
1
—
—
36
1—
1
26
16
1—
—
25
—
24
1—
8
2
6
—
—
2
1
1
—
22
1
15
3
1
2
8
1
6—
—
1
—
5
1—
1
3—
———
1
—
—
1
—
17—
—
3
11
—
2
1—
17—
—
14
—
10
—
1
1
9
1—
—
6
—
2——
—
—
—
3—
——
—
——
3—
—
5—
—
—
1—
4
—
——
—
—
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
41
4
1
1
33
2
36
11
1
2
1
282—
9
9——
—
—
—
—
—
6—
—
—
1
4
1
2—
1
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
1
1—
1
4
—
1—
1
——
2
2
11
41
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and Industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1986-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Transpor-tation,
communf- Finance,Race and industry on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, interval and Agricul- Construc- Manufec- and and real adminis- Armedrelationship Total ture Mining tion turing utilities Trade estate Services tration Forces
spouseAll industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .Parenti
All Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public administration. ., . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
Child:Alllndustriee . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Publicadministration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .Sibling:
Allindustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . .
Transporiatlon, communication,and utilities, .,, .,,,,.,,
Trade ...,,...,....,..
Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadministratlon. . . . . . .Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
1,2189424
131332
126
149
51211
81
19
19610
2
2754
18
27
5
45
5
3
163
201
636
12
18
5
538
4
78
7
11218
7
8
224
1
9973
14
7
3
5
—
3
3
97
2
—
—
—
—
23
18
——
1
31
5
3
1
1
20
171
1
—
1
1—
1—
—
—
—
4
1
3
1
1
—
13731
102
9
4
5
2
6
5
27
1—
19
3
1
2
1
5
4
1—
11
10
1
324112
10
255
7
17
—
17
5
50—
—
1
39
3
1
1
5
41
2—
230
2
1
4—
18
4
12
1
1
130—
1
711
98
7
1
3
2
182
21
12
1
10——
9
—
1——
7—
—
2
5—
—
—
1554
226
3
102
313
2
26
2
2
16
—
5
1
23—
2
2
14
1
4
9
—
1
1
5
—
2
52—
3
1
424
2
5
1
3
1
3
—
3
2
2
19432
112
5
9
157
4
i
40
1
24
4
29
44
1
1
402
23
1
11
20
73
14
2
3
27
53
1
6
1
1
1
3
2
7
52
2
1
1
34
34
3
11
5
17
12
1
3
4
3
1
3
1
2
42
Table 6. Number of responses by Induetry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedenk United States, 1986-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Transpor-tation,
communl- Enance,Race and lndustty on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, Interval and Agricul- Construc- Manutic- and and realralatlonshlp
admlnis- ArmedTotal ture Mining Uon turlrrg utilities Trade estate Services tratlon Forces
Other relatlve:
Alllndustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlnlng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction ...,....,,,.Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation, communication,
and utllltles . ., .,,,,...,Trade . .,, , ., ..,....,.
Finance, Insurance, and realestate, ,,, .,, ,. ..,,.,,
Services. , . . . . . . . . . . . . .Publloadmlnlstratlon, . , ., , .
Armed Forces, .,, ,,,,...
Nonrelative:
Alllndustrles, . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conslructlon . . . . . ..o.,..
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation, communication,andutllltles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate, ,,, .,, .,,,,....
Services, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadmlnlstration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces, ,,, ,,,..,,
Not stated:
All industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture, ,,, .,,,,,,,,Mlnlng. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . ., . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing, , ,.., . . . . .Transportation, communication,
and utllltles .,, ,,, ,...,,
Trade, .,.,,,,,,,.,,,.
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services. ,, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publlcadmlnlstratlon. . . . . . .
Armed Forces,....,..,..
IDeath certificate Informant and~ survey respondent were–
Both SPOU!XX
Alllndustrles, ,,, . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlnlng, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction ..,.,.,,,,,,Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transpottatlon, communication,and utllltles ..,,,,,.,,.,
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services, ,, .,, . . . . . . . . .
Publloadmlnlstratlon, . ,.., .Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
50
9
1
2
8
5
9
1
14
1
27
2
6
2
2
1
12
1
1
870
78
15
65
I 9e
64
116
22
270
34
10
1,055
eo
21
116
2e7
112128
45
177
71
18
9
8
—
1—
—
1
—
1
—
67
62
1
2
6
2
3
10
1
e5
62
1
3
7
3
5
—
2
2
2—
1
—
—
1
—
—
—
23
14
4
1
1
1
2
17—
15
1—
1
—
3
1
1
1
—
2
1—
—
—
1
e9
2
45
3
2
4
7
2
4
116
2—
90
7
44
e
3—
e—
6
11
—
—
5—
5
—
—
—
191
5—
6
152
4
10
1
10
1
289
10
2
9
225
6
17
16
4
3
—
—
3—
—
—
4
—
1
1
2—
—
62
1—
1—
47
1
1
7
3
1
8—
—
7
—
1
—
3—
—
—
2
—
1
—
125
1—
2
13
2
e3
3
18
3
117 129— 3
1 —
7 2
9 21
86 2
7 55
1 3
3 11
1 2—
1—
—
—
1
—
1
—
—
1—
——
17
—
2
t2
3
15
—
11
1
12
9
—
9
24e
6
2
13
1
12
4
205
4
1
—
—
—
1
—
1
33
3
2
2
1
7
18
1
—
1
1
—
1
15
1
2
3
3
2
4
46 15e 67 31— 3 — —
2--
1 1 2
3 9 3 3
— 4 2 3— 6 3
3e 2 1
3 128 7 1
2 4 48 5— 1 1 16
43
Table 6. Number of responses by industry of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race and Industryon death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent: United States, 1988-Con.
Industry on questionnaire
Trenspor-tatlon,
communl- Finsnce,Race and Industry on death cation, insurance, Public
certificate, interval and Agricul- Construc- Manufac- and and real adm\n\s- Armadrelationship Total ture Mining tion turirrg utilities Trade estate Servfces tratlon Forces
Not both .FJIOUS.3
Alllndustrles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutilitles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance, Insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public administration. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
Not stated:
All industries, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation, communication,andutilitles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finance, insurance, and realestate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publioadministratlon. . . . . . .
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . .
1,476
13320
122339
115198
39
441
52
17
71
53
722
73
3
11
73
144
106165
24
17
3
4
3
—
1
29
17
7
12
—
2
5
3
1
1
129
51
888
26
2
65
2
9—
4
1
1—
1
2
326
11—
10257
614
3
212
22
1
2
17
11
109
2—
46
641
1
74
8
1—
—
4
2
1
216
2
222
8142
4
333
4
1
2
1
33
—
1
12
24
5
2
2
407
6
15
22
421
4
3376
1
6
1
7
50
44
2
1
827
4
7
1
6
331
37
34
5
10
2
1
1
NOTE Orsgon, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico were sxcluded from ths comparability analysis in this report because Orsgon’s confidsntlality rsqulrements precluded its partlclpalion Inthe le8e National Mortalily Followbsck Survey, snd the primary matching criteria could not be applied for the othsr thres States beceusa they reissue dsath certificate numbere eftar theprocessing of the Currsnt Mortslity Sample.
44
Table 7, Number of responses by veteran status of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andveteran status on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent United States,1986
Veteran status on questionnaire
Race and vateran status on certificate, interval, and relationship Total Veteran Nonveteran
Race and veteran status
All races:Allveteran statuses ., .,.,,,.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White:
Allveteran statuaes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veteran .,.,.,,,.......,.,,., . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran, , . . . . . ...,...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black:Allveteranstatusee, ,, ...,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran, ,, ..,,..,.,...,,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran. .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Americanlndian:Allvoteranstatuses, ,, ..,,,,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10,6372,176
8.461
2,121
1,974
147
8,518202
8,314
7,5091,659
5,850
1,6221,513
109
5,667146
5,741
2,781
461450
415
35
2,331
46
2,2652,320
25739
218
3533
2
2226
216
Veteran ... i . .,, ,., ,..,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OthenAllveteranstatuses, ,...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 11 61
Veteran, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10 3Nonveteran, ,,, ,,, .,,,...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 1
Ming:56
Mveteranatatuses., ..,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3Veteran, ,,, .,,,,.,,..,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
4 3Nonveteran, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
14 — 14
Interval and veteran status
?2-25 weeke:Wveteranatatusea., ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘a-29 weeks:
833
193640
191163
6
642
10
632
illveteranstatuses .,,..,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veteran, ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran. . .,, ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-32 weeks:Nlveteranstatusea .,,,.,.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,616336
1,276
334306
26
1,26232
1,250
1,423
291
1,132
281
265
16
1,14226
1,116
Veteran, ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran, ,,, ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘D-35weeks:!Ilvateranstatuses, ..,,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,656
353
1,303
334
312
22
1,32247
1,281
Veteran .,, .,, ,,, .,, ,., ,..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran, , ., . ., .,..,,.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘C-36 weaks:‘lllveteranstatusee .,,,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran, . .,, ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q-41weeks:dlveteranatatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran, ,,, ,, .,, ,,, ,,,..., . . . . . . . . . . . . .,2-44weeks:
1,416
2e3
1,133
290
261
29
1,126
22
1,104
1,236
256
960
225
221
4
1,011
35
976
!.llveteranstatuses .,,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l Veteran, ,,, ,,, . .,.,...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:Nonvateran, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘“47weeke:]Ilveteranstatuses .,.,..,,.,.. . ...,,,,,....,,.Veteran, , . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonvetaran, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,028
168
640
189
174
15
639
14
e25
720
131
569
135123
12
685
8
577
45
Table 7. Number of responses by veteran status of decedent on National Mortality Followback Survey questionnaire and by race andveteran status on death certificate, interval between death and survey, and relationship of informant to decedent United Statee,1986-Con.
Veteran status on questionnaire
Race and veteran status on certificate, interval, and relat;onshlp Total Veteran Nonveteran
48-51 weeksAllveteran atatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52 weeks and longer:Allveteranstatuaea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mfsaing:Allveteransta.tus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45482
372
8175
6
3737
366
241
59182
59
527
!82
7
175
14
2
12
2
212
12
Relationship
Decedent was death certificate lnformant’s–
Spouse
Allveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,015 1,079 2,936
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,112 1,014 98
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,903 65 2,638
ParentAllveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Child:
Allveteranatatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8iblIng:Allveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran, ., . . . . . . . . . ...’... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other relativeAllveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrelative:Aliveteranatatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notstated:
Aliveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
718
146
572
143
133
10
575
13
562
1,013
114
699
113
102
11
90012
866
60
55
5
266
5
261
326
60
266
265
31
234
30
26
2
235
3
232
21546
169
4239
3
1737
166
654 3,431
64
3,367
4,085
667
3,416
603
51
Death certificate informant and survey respondent were –Both SPOUSG
AIlveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not both spouse:Allveteranstatuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notatated:Allveteranstatuaes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonveteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,417
1,002
2,415
970
914
56
2,447
66
2,359
6,7781,0145,764
999 5,77999
5,660
91564
442
160
282
152
145
7
290
15
275
NOTE Oregon, Nsbraska,Nsvada,andNewMexico were excluded from the comparability analyais in this raporf bscauae Oregon’sconfidentiafii requirements precluded ha paItlCIpeliOn in the19ee National Morfslity Followback Survay, and the primary matching criteria could not be applied for the other thrae States becauae they relssua death certificate mrmbera after the processing
of the Current Mortafity Sample.
46
Appendixes
Contents
I. U.S. Standard Certificate of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...48
H. Instructions for filling death certificate items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...49
31. Selected questionnaire items, 1986 National Mortality Fo110wback Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
47
Appendix IU.S. Standardof Death
Certificate
(PHYSICIAN. MEDICAL EXAMINER OR CORONER) Form AtxrrovedU.S. STANDARD OMB No, 68R 190j
Loca L ,,1.E Nuw.Em CERTIFICATE OF DEATH STATE FILE MUM.ERTYPE
OR ~~lNTDECEDENT-NAME ,,. s7 hl, DOLc LAST SEX OATE OF DEATH (MC.,,Da,. t’.,)
PERMANENTINKFOR
INsqyosls
HAMOBOOK
,*DC AT”OCCURREO IN,.s,,, ”,,0,,
S66 !-4ANDBOOCRE0ARDlNr3
COM*LEIION 0,R@ SIDENCE ITEMS.4
1. 2. I 3.RACE -(,.#.. Whl,*. SIXk. A~,k,. AGE-L”, Bl,chd,y uNDER 1 VEAR I UNDER 1 DAY
1d,.”.,,,.) ,smdr,]DATE OF 81RTH (MO., ti., Y,,] COUNTY OF DEATH
,)’”,, Mo$, ; cm” s “ouRS i wINS.
4 5.. 5b. 1 SC, I 6, 7,.
CITV, TQWN OR LOCATICfU OF DEATH HOSPITAL OR 07 HER IN5TITU710N -N_ (rf.. t,. .Im.r, tfti dm. f . . . .Umtir, IF HOSP, OFi INST. lrdiut, QOA.OP/EW. Rm,, lv,.kn, ,s>,,1{,)
7b, 7C, 76,
STATE OF BIRTH (II not I“ US.A,. C,TIZEN OF WHAT COUNTRY MARR!EO. NEVEB MARRIED. SURVIVING SPOUSE ,1/ I“,(., ,1”< mold.. “.-,,..”U .O.”,ry, WI DDWED, 0! vORCED (S,..(1,)
WAS DECEDENT EVEFl IN u.S.ARMED FORCES?~2~11, Y.... N.)
8. 9. 10, 11,
SNIAL sEcuRITv NUMBER USUAL OCCUPATION (O(W hl”d .!w.,h d.an, d.,,., me,,., KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDuSTRY,UO*I”, 11/., . ..” (/ M,{* I
13. 14,. 14b,
RESIDENCE-STATE COuNTV CITV. TOWN OR LOCATION 5TREET AND NUMBER INSIDE CITY LIMITS(smelt, Y.. ., NeJ
15b. 15,. 15d. I 5*.
FATHER-NAME F8RST M,caoLE LAS, MOTHER-MAIDEN NAME ,,.s, M,00LC LAST
. ..“, I ,,,
INFORMANT-NAME t7>w . . ?,,.,) MAILING ADDRESS STREET OR R.F.0, NO. CITY OR TOWN STATE ZIP
lS.b.
BURIAL. Cremation. REMOVAL, OTHER (w-+>) CEM6TERY OR CREMATORY-NAME LDCATION CITY OR TOWN STATE
19,. 19b. 19t.
FuNERALSERVICE LICENSEE 0, Puan. Aetiq A, Such NAME OF FACILITY,sl..., ”-,
ADDRESS OF FACILITY
20b, 20C,
21*. To ,he ti” 01 m“ kr.awl~, da,,h occurrtd ,, tk On),, d,,, md PIW, ,nd d., to ,h, 228, 0. II!. bsds 01 #xamiru! ion .rd/or inwlcbu$.n, In my O?hion dcalh oc.urmd M lh, tin%tit, DndPI= me O“* 10 the ,.”=(s1 statd,
OATG SIGNEO (M.., -,, Y, I HOUR OF DEATH
22C. M
NAME OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN IF OTHER THAN CERTIFIER (T,B. or Prl”ll PRONWNCED OEAD (H--w]
:: l-g
I : 21d.z
226, ON 22*, AT M
N4ME ANOAODRESS OF CERTIFIER (PHYSICIAN, MEDICAL EXAMINER OR CORONER I mw .wrdw
DATE RECEIVED BY REGISTRAR (Mo.. D.,. Y,.)
CON D, T,0P4S1P AN”
WH, CH 0.” S 25. IMMEDIATE CAUSE fEN TER OWL v ONE CAUSE PER L INE Fon {.). la). AND (.1./ , I.,. W*, b,,ww” c+”, *d AO.,$!
4RISE TO
IMMEOI, TECAUSE
ST.T,NO THEUNDERLYINGCAUSE b.%,
I
IS
PART ,,, I
DUE TO, OR ASA CONS EOUENCE OF, I.,*,.,! b,-” .“”, ●IW d,,,hr I
{
lb)I
WE TO. OR AS A CONSEQUENCE OF: tnt,r”d bctwuo on”t ,nd d,,th
(cl!
PART OTHER SIGNIFICANT CONDITI ON5-C.MIU0., ~nw,b.,iw t.de,th b., W, ,d.me m . ..* ~)wn in PART I m AUTC+SY ,.$,,,,,, Y,, wAs CASE RSPERfIEO TO MEOIcALu ., F/., EXAMINER OR CORONSR
(SD,CIIY Y,, o, No,26, 27,
ACC., SUICIOE, MOM,. UN DET., DATE OF INJURY (.!4... Da,. v?., HOUR OF INJURYOR PENDING INVEST. (SE@f,,
DESCRIBE HOW INJURY OCCURRED
28,, 28b, 2at. M Ztd,
INJURY AT WORK ,ss,,,,. Y,, PLAc E OF INJURY-At hc.nm,Imm, N,”t, f~m,v, .If,ce b.ild ino,., No, ,!.. {s,.,, (,,
LOCATION STREET on R,F, D. No. C,TV OR low STATE
HRA-162-1U9V. If?a 2s,. 2s1. 289.
48
structions for filling death certificate items
-c. Aga
Make an entry in either 5a, 5b, or 5C depending on the age ofe decedent.
LAST BIRTHDAY (YEARSI
Enter the age of the decedent at last birthday.If the decedent was under 1 year of age, leave this item blank.
Rata-Whita, Black, Amarican Indian, Etc. (Spacify)
Enter the race of the decedent as stated by the informant.For groups other than white, black, or American Indian, obtain
e national origin of the decedent, such as Chinese, Japanese,>rean, Filipino, Hawaiian, etc.If the informant indicates that the decedent is of “Mixed race,”ter both races or national origins.
~E: From Furwwl Director’s Handbook on Death Rqqistration and Fe~td Dea[iI R.pming,U.S. Department of Health, Education and W-elfare, Public Health Service,National Center for Health Statistics, DHEW Pub. No (PHS) 78-1109, July 1978.
49
Origin or Descent
& ORIGIN OR DESCENT QUESTION
Origin or descent (e.g., Italian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, English,Cuban, etc.). (Specify.)
B. SPANISH-ORIGIN QUESTION
Was decedent of Spanish origin? (Specify “Yes” or “No.”)If “Yes,” specify Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, etc.These items are not on the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death,
but are recommended by the National Center for Health Statisticsand one or the other of the alternatives shown above has beenadopted by a number of States. It may be in the form of a generalorigin or descent question (A) or a specific Spanish-origin question(B).
For purposes of this item, origin or descent refers to thenationality group of the decedent or his ancestors before theirarrival in the United States (except for American Indian andAlaskan native).
There is no set rule as to how many generations are to be takeninto account in determining ethnic origin. A person’s origin maybe reported based on the origin of a parent, a grandparent, orsome far removed ancestor. The response is to reflect what theperson considered himself or herself to be, and is not based onpercentages of ancestry.
Some persons may not have identified with the foreignbirthplace of their ancestors or with a nationidity group and theinformant may report “American.” If, after clarification of theintent of this item, the informant still feels that the decedent was“American,” enter “American” on the record.
If the respondent reports that the decedent was of multipleorigin, enter the origins as reported (e.g., English-German).
If a religious group is reported (e.g., Jewish, Moslem, Prot-estant), ask for the country of origin or nationality group.
This item is not a part of the race item. Both questions, raceand origin or descent, should be asked independently. This willmean that for certain groups the entry will be the same in bothitems (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Hawaiian). Even if they are thesame the entry should be made in both items.
10. Married, Never Married, Widowed, Divorced (Specify)
Enter the marital status of the decedent at time of death.Specify’ one of the following: married, never married, widowed,divorced. A person is legally married even if separated.
If marital status cannot be determined, enter “Unknown.” Donot leave blank.
50
14s. USUAL OCCUPATION (GIVE KIND OF WORK DONE DURING MOST OF
WORKING LIFE, EVEN IF RETIRED)
Enter the usual occupation of the decedent. This is notnecessarily the lastoccupation of the decedent.
“Usual occupation “ k the kind of work the decedent did dun”ngmost of his or her working life, such as claim adjuster, farmhand,coal miner, housewife, janitor, store manager, college professor,civil engineer, etc. “Retired” is not an acceptable entry.
Ilntcr “Student” if the decedent was a student at the time ofdeath and was never regularly employed.
14b, KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY
Enter the kind of btlsiness or industry to which the occupationIistcd in 14 was related, such as insurance, farming, coal mining,hardware store, retail clothing, university, government, etc. Do notenter firm or organization names.
12. Was Decedent Ever in U.S. Armed Forces? (Specify Yes orNo)
If the decedent was a veteran, enter “Yes.” If the decedent wasnot a veteran, enter “No.” If veteran status cannot be determined,enter “Unknown.” Do not leave blank.
7a-d. Place of Death
7a. COUNTY OF DEATH
1 “.., “. ,
nnter tne name ot the county where death occurrcci.
7b, CITY, TOWN, OR LOCATION OF DEATH
Enter the name of city, town, or location where death occurred.
7C, HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION-NAME (IF NOT IN EITHER, GIVE
STREET AND NUMBER.)
Hocpitd Domhs
If the death occurred in a hospital, enter the full name of thehospital.
If death occurred en route to or on arrival at a hospital, enterthe full name of the hospital.
Nonhospitd Daaths
If the death occ~rred at home, enter the housq number andstreet name of the place where death occurred.
If the death occurred at some place other than those describedabove, enter the number and street name of the place.
7d. IF HOSPITAL OR INSTITUTION, INDICATE 00A, OP/EMERGENCY ROOM,
lNPATiENT (SPECIFY)
If the decedent was pronounced dead in the hospital or otherinstitution, specify whether dead on arrival, outpatient oremergency room patient, or inpatient.
If death occurred on a moving conveyance other than en routeto a hospital, enter as the place of death the address where thebody was first removed from the conveyance.
If death occurred in international waters or airspace, or in aforeign country, contact the State office of vital statistics forinstructions.
51
Appendix IllSelected questionnaireitems, 1986 NationalMortality Followback Survey
Age
1, How old was the person at the time of death? 005 I
Age in years
Race
15. Which category BEST represents I 147
the person’s race? I H American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo
2 ❑ Asian or Pacific IslanderMark (X) only one box. 3 ❑ Black
4 ❑ White
Hispanic origin
16, Was this person of Spanish or Hispanic I 150
origin or descant? I •l Yes
20No
Marital status
19, At the time of his or her death, what was161
the marital status of the person?I ❑ Married – Skip to question 27
2❑ Widowed — Go to next question
30 Divorced
}Skip to question27
4D Separated
5❑ Never married — Skip to question 26 on page
Occupationh , ,
2. Of all the PAID jobs or businesses the person everhad, what KIND OF WORK did he or she do thelongest? (For example, electrical engineer, stockclerk, typist, farmer, in Armed Forces, etc. )
w
industry
4, [n this occupation, what KIND OF BUSINESS OR136A
INDUSTRY did he or she work in the longest?Describe the activity at the location whareemployad. (For example: TV and radiomanufacturing, retail shoe store, State LaborDepartment, farm, Armed Forces, etc.)
52
teran status
<, Was the person wer on activeduty in I 145
the U.S. Armed Forces? I ❑ Yes — Go to next question
NOTE – Mark “No” if all of the active duty service2 ❑ No — Skip to question 15
was related to training in the NationalGuard or military reserve.
ace of death
. Where did the person die? I 093
Mark (X] only one box.I ❑ In a hospital emergency room
2 ❑ In a hospital, not in emergency room
3 H On the way to a hospital
4 ❑ In a nursing home or personal care home
5 ❑ In his or her own home
6 ❑ In some other place — Specify)7
wwmlull PllntingOfllcalWU - sol.61m16 53
Reviews ofNew ReportsFrom the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION/National Center for Health Statistics
The National Mortality Followback Survey:1986 Summary for the United States
Series 20, No. 19;PHS) 92-1856
.uthon Seeman, 1.
~or information contact
(athl BrannanScientific and Technical Information Branch5525 Belcrest Road, Rm. 1064iyattsville, MD 20782
,rel: (301) 436-8500
The National Center for HealthStatistics has just released a reporthat provides national estimates ofhe incidence of significantcharacteristics of adults who died inhe United States in 1986, The‘eport, “National Mortality~ollowback Survey: 19S6 Summary,“Jnited States” presents data on the~se of health services, disabilities,ifestyle practices that may affectwalth and mortality, andsocioeconomic circumstances for theldults that were studied.
Selective information from thisiurvey has been weighted and is,]resented in S1 comprehensive tables.17hedata have been arranged intohree categories: health care in theast year of life, lifestyle and health,md socioeconomic characteristics ofIecedents,
According to the section onhealth care, some institutional care inthe last year of life – in either ahospital or nursing home – wasrequired for 81.1 percent of thedecedents. Medicare covered 72.9percent of all decedents and 92.3percent of those age 65 and over.Even with coverage, about 12 percentof the elderly had somewhat seriousto very serious problems withpayments of medical bills.
In the section on lifestyle, theincidence of heart attacks at sometime during a lifetime was reportedfor 29.2 percent of the decedents;whereas, the incidence of Alzheimer’sdisease and other memoryimpairments was 11.2 percent.According to the study, approximately55.6 percent of the decedents smokedat least 100 cigarettes and 71.9percent drank at least 12 alcoholicdrinks in a lifetime. Approximately16.9 percent of the decedents hadexercised vigorously at least threetimes a week for at least 20 minuteseach time, while 66.4 percent of thedecedents hardly or never exercised.
According to the section onsocioeconomic characteristics, 27.2percent of the decedents lived alone;
for women it was 35.9 percent and formen 19.1 percent. Educationalattainment was at the elementaryschool level for 32.5 percent of thedecedents; the high school level for42.1 percent; and the college level for17.7 percent. Approximately S6.2percent of the decedents worked atsome time during their lifetime, and13.1 percent of the decedents workeduntil the time of death.
The data presented in this reportare from the fifth survey in a series ofNational Mortality FollowbackSurveys (NMFS) conducted byNCHS. The 19S6 NMFS data werecollected from 16,59S informants; S1percent of whom were the next of kinor another close relative of thedecedent. Information about thedecedent secured from informantswas supplemented by data collectedfrom hospitals, nursing homes, andother health care facilities in whichthe decedent spent at least one nightduring the last year of life.
Copies of the report can bepurchased from the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office by completing theorder form on the back of thisrelease.
# SIRWCC*,C@
“+%
~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control and Preventiona%
>National Center for Health Statistics
cm%!! CENTERS FOR DISEASE COM’ROL
%mAND PREVENTION
Mail tcxSuperintendent of DocumentsGovernment Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402
Publication Order Form
❑ YES? please send me copies of
GPO Stock Number 017-022-01170-1 Price $15.00
The total cost of my order is $ . Foreign orders please add an additional 257.,
Prices include regular domestic postage and handling and are good through September 1993. After that date, please call Order and InformationDesk at (202) 783-3238 to verify prices.
Please Type or PrintPlease choose method of t)avment
•1(Company or personal name)
•1
(Additional address/attention line)•1
(Street address)
. .Check payment to the Superintendent of Documents
GPO Deposit AccountUnnn-o
VISA, MasterCard, or Choice Account
Hllllll llllllllllll
(City, State, ZIP Code) (Signature)
()(Daytime phone including area code) (Credit card expiration date)
---.-------------.-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES
Public Health ServiceCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Health Statistics
BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID
PHS/NCHSPERMIT No. G-281
6525 Belcrest Road 1
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782
OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATEUSE, $3OO
Vital and Health Statisticsseries descriptions
SERIES 1.
SERIES 2.
SERIES 3.
SERIES 4.
SERIES 5.
SERIES 6.
SERIES 10.
SERIES 11.
SERIES 12.
SERIES 1X
Programs and Collection Procedures–These reportsdescribe the data collection programs of the National Centerfor Health Statistics. They include descriptions of the
methods used to collect and process the data, definitions,
and other material necessary for understanding the data.
Data Evaluation and Methods Research –These reportsare studies of new statistical methods and include analyticaltechniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected
data, and contributions to statistical theory. These studies
also include experimental tests of new survey methods andcomparisons of U.S. methodology with those of other
countries.
Analytical and Epidemiological Studies–These reportspresent analytical or interpretive studies based on vital andhealth statistics. These reports carry the analyses further than
the expository types of reports in the other series.
Documents and Committee Reports–These are finalreports of major committees concerned with vital and healthstatistics and documents such as recommended model vitalregistration laws and revised birth and death certificates.
International Vital and Health Statistics Reports-Thesereperk are analytical or descriptive reports that compare U.S.
vital and health statistics with those of other countries orpresent other international data of relevance to the health
statistics system of the United States.
Cognition and Survey Measurement–These reports are
from the National Laboratory for Collaborative Research in
Cognition and Survey Measurement. They use methods ofcognitive science to design, evaluate, and test survey
instruments.
Data From the National Health Interview Survey–Thesereports contain statistics on illness; unintentional injuries;
disabili~ use of hospital, medical, and other health services;
and a wide range of special current health topics coveringmany aspects of health behaviors, health status, and healthcare utilization. They are based on data collected in acontinuing national household interview survey.
Data From the National Health Examination Survey, theNational Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, andthe Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey–
Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement on
representative samples of the civilian noninstitutionalizedpopulation provide the basis for (1) medically defined totalprevalence of specific diseases or conditions in the United
States and the distributions of the population with respect tophysical, physiological, and psychological characteristics,
and (2) analyses of trends and relationships among various
measurements and between survey periods.
Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys –Discontinued In 1975. Reports from these surveys are
included In Series 13.
Data From the National Health Care Survey–Thesereports contain statistics on health resources and the public’suse of health care resources including ambulatory, hospital,
and long-term care services based on data collected directlyfrom health care providers and provider records.
SERIES 14.
SERIES 15.
SERIES 16.
SERIES 20.
SERIES 21.
SERIES 22.
SERIES 23.
SERIES 24.
Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities–Dkcontinued in 1990. Reports on the numbers, geographic
distribution, and characteristics of health resources are nowincluded in Series 13.
Data From Special Surveys–These reports containstatistics on health and health-related topics collected inspecial surveys that are not part of the continuing datasystems of the National Center for Health Statistics.
Compilation of Advance Data From Vital and Health
Statistics –Advance Data Reports provide early release ofinformation from the National Center for Health Statistics’
health and demographic surveys. They are compiled in the
order in which they are published. Some of these releasesmay be followed by detailed reports in Series 10–13.
Data on Mortality –These reports contain statistics on
mortality that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly
reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, otherdemographic variables, and geographic and trend analysesare included.
Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce–These reports
contain statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce that arenot included in regular, annual, or monthly reports. Special
analyses by health and demographic variables andgeographic and trend analyses are included.
Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys–Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these sample surveys,
based on vital records, are now published in Series 20 or 21.
Data From the National Survey of Family Growth –Thesereports contain statistics on factors that affect birth rates,including contraception, infertility, cohabitation, marriage,divorce, and remarriage; adoption; use of medical care forfamily planning and infertili~ and related maternal and infant
health topics. These statisticsare based on national surveys
of childbearing age.
Compilations of Data on Natality, Mortality, Marriage,Divorce, and Induced Terminations of Pregnancy–These include advance reports of births, deaths, marriages,
and divorces based on final data from the National Vital
Statistics System that were published as supplements to the
Month/y Vita/ Statistics Repofl (MVSR). These reports provide
highlights and summaries of detailed data subsequentlypublished in Vital Statistics of the United States. Othersupplements to the MVSR published here provide selectedfindings based on final data from the National Vital Statistics
System and may be followed by detailed reports in Series 20or 21.
For answers to questions about this report or for a list of reports publishedin these series, contact
Data Dissemination Branch
National Center for Health Statistics
Centers for Disease Control and PreventionPublic Health Service
6525 Be[crest Road, Room 1064Hyattsville, MD 20782
(301) 436-8500
DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health ServiceCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Health Statistics6525 Belcrest RoadHyattsville, Maryland 20782
OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID
PHS/NCHSPERMIT NO. G-281
DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 94-1392, Series 2, No. 118
