| Course | HLTH 2110 Behavioral and Cultural Issues in Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Disparity analysis |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 2110 Week 3
Black Women's Pregnancy-Related Mortality Ratio of 40.8 Against 12.7 for White Women, 2007-2016: The Number as Published and Four Explanations, None Allowed to Become the Default
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 2110: Behavioral and Cultural Issues in Healthcare
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Black Women's Pregnancy-Related Mortality Ratio of 40.8 Against 12.7 for White Women, 2007-2016: The Number as Published and Four Explanations, None Allowed to Become the Default
The Measured Difference
Between 2007 and 2016, the pregnancy-related mortality ratio (PRMR) in the United States was 40.8 deaths per 100,000 live births among non-Hispanic Black women and 12.7 among non-Hispanic white women, a ratio of 3.2 to 1 (Petersen et al., 2019). The PRMR for non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native women was 29.7, 2.3 times the white rate. These figures come from CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, which collected 6,765 pregnancy-related deaths over the decade. The overall PRMR was 16.7.
How the populations were counted matters for what the number means. A pregnancy-related death is a death during pregnancy or within one year of its end, from a cause related to the pregnancy or aggravated by it; deaths from unrelated causes, such as an accident, are excluded. States send CDC death certificates for women who died during or within a year of pregnancy, with linked birth or fetal death certificates, and medically trained epidemiologists review each case to decide whether it was pregnancy-related. Rates are expressed per live birth rather than per pregnancy, and race and Hispanic origin come from vital records. Categories are mutually exclusive: Black and white refer to non-Hispanic women, and Hispanic women of any race form a separate group. This analysis concerns the Black-white difference only.
What the Report Itself Rules In and Out
The report's own data limit some explanations before any outside evidence is considered. The disparity did not change significantly over the decade. It appeared in every age group, and among women aged 30 and older the Black rate was roughly four to five times the white rate. It appeared at every level of education. Black women who had finished college died of pregnancy-related causes at 1.6 times the rate of white women without a high school diploma, and among college-educated women the Black rate was 5.2 times the white rate. The disparity also appeared in states with low, middle and high overall rates.
Citing review committees in 13 states, the report adds that roughly three in five of these deaths could have been prevented, and that the share did not differ significantly between racial and ethnic groups (Petersen et al., 2019).
Explanation 1: Socioeconomic Position
A common explanation is that Black women have, on average, lower incomes and less education, and that these, not race, drive the difference. The report's education data weigh heavily against this explanation as a complete account. If education explained the gap, college-educated Black women would have rates close to college-educated white women. Instead, the ratio was larger among college graduates than overall. Socioeconomic position may contribute to the overall rates, but it cannot explain why the gap persists, and widens, at the top of the education scale.
Explanation 2: Differences in Chronic Conditions and Causes of Death
A second explanation is that Black women enter pregnancy with more chronic conditions, such as hypertension, and die of different causes. The report found significant differences in the share of deaths from particular causes: cardiomyopathy, thrombotic pulmonary embolism and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy accounted for significantly larger proportions of deaths among Black women than among white women (Petersen et al., 2019). This explanation has support. But it moves the question rather than answering it: if chronic conditions are more common before pregnancy, the next question is why, and the answer leads back to conditions and care across a lifetime. It also does not explain the equal share of preventable deaths, which suggests that care during and after pregnancy matters regardless of prior conditions.
Explanation 3: Where Women Receive Care
A third explanation concerns the hospitals where women deliver. Howell et al. (2016) studied severe maternal morbidity, life-threatening complications at delivery, in a national sample of hospital discharges for 2010 and 2011. They found that 74% of deliveries to Black women occurred in a relatively small group of hospitals where Black patients made up a large share of deliveries, and that these hospitals had higher rates of severe maternal morbidity for both Black and white women after adjusting for patient characteristics. This points to quality differences between hospitals as part of the explanation. The study concerned morbidity rather than death, so it supports this explanation for deaths only indirectly.
Explanation 4: Racism in Care and in Conditions
A fourth explanation holds that racism, both in the conditions women live in and in how they are treated by health care systems, contributes to the gap. Jones (2000) describes racism operating at institutional, interpersonal and internalized levels; institutional racism could shape where hospitals are and how they are funded, while interpersonal bias could shape whether symptoms are taken seriously. A systematic review found that most studies measuring implicit bias among health care professionals found evidence of pro-white or anti-Black bias, and some linked it to differences in care and communication (Hall et al., 2015). This explanation is consistent with the education finding and with the hospital finding. It is also harder to measure directly than the others, and the report does not test it.
Weighing the Explanations
The evidence rules out socioeconomic position as a complete explanation and supports partial roles for chronic conditions and site of care. The racism explanation fits the pattern of the evidence but rests on studies other than the one that produced the number. None of the four should become the default, because each points to different action: the first to income support, the second to care before pregnancy, the third to hospital quality and the fourth to how institutions and clinicians treat Black women.
Table 1
Four Explanations Against the Report's Evidence
| Explanation | Consistent with the evidence | Not consistent with the evidence | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic position | Overall rates differ by education | Gap persists and widens among college graduates | Insufficient alone | |
| Chronic conditions and causes | Larger share of deaths from cardiomyopathy, embolism and hypertensive disorders | Equal preventability across groups | Partial; shifts the question to why conditions differ | |
| Site of care | Concentration of Black deliveries in hospitals with higher morbidity | Study measures morbidity, not death | Partial; indirect for deaths | |
| Racism in care and conditions | Gap at all education levels; hospital concentration; evidence of bias among clinicians | Not directly measured in the report | Plausible; not tested here | |
No single row accounts for the whole difference, and the strongest evidence rules out only the first explanation as complete.
Conclusion
The published figure, a pregnancy-related mortality ratio of 40.8 for Black women against 12.7 for white women, is a measured difference with a clear definition and a known counting method. The report's own data show that the gap survives education, age and state. What produced it is not settled by the number, and an analysis that settles it by assumption would mistake the strongest explanation for the proven one.
References
Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., Eng, E., Day, S. H., & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12), e60-e76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903
Howell, E. A., Egorova, N., Balbierz, A., Zeitlin, J., & Hebert, P. L. (2016). Black-white differences in severe maternal morbidity and site of care. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 214(1), 122.e1-122.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.019
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener's tale. American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
Petersen, E. E., Davis, N. L., Goodman, D., Cox, S., Syverson, C., Seed, K., Shapiro-Mendoza, C., Callaghan, W. M., & Barfield, W. (2019). Racial/ethnic disparities in pregnancy-related deaths: United States, 2007-2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(35), 762-765. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6835a3
The Walden HLTH 2110 Week 3 instructions
A disparity analysis asks you to start from a published difference and reason carefully about its causes. Report the number exactly as your source gives it, including the measure, the period and the groups compared. Explain how the populations were defined and counted, since that shapes what the number means. Note what the source's own data rule in or out. Then present competing explanations one at a time, with evidence for and against each. Avoid letting any single explanation become the assumed answer. A table summarizing the evidence can help. Conclude by stating what the number establishes and what remains unsettled. Use the source's own subgroup tables before turning to outside studies, since they often rule explanations in or out more directly than any later paper.
How this HLTH 2110 Week 3 example is built
The paper opens with the published mortality ratios and explains the surveillance system, the one-year definition, the live-birth denominator and the race categories. A section reports what the source itself shows: a gap that persisted over time, across ages, states and education levels. Four sections weigh explanations: socioeconomic position, which the education data weaken; chronic conditions and causes of death; site of care, from Howell and colleagues; and racism, from Jones and Hall and colleagues. Table 1 sets each explanation against the evidence. The conclusion separates the measured difference from its unsettled causes.
HLTH 2110 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Faculty assess a disparity analysis on accuracy and restraint. The number must be reported exactly, with its source, period and definitions. Explaining how the populations were counted earns credit, since how people were counted limits what any number can say. Using the source's own data to test explanations is valued. Each explanation should receive fair treatment, with evidence for and against. Faculty often reward analyses that refuse to settle on one cause without support. Accurate citation is checked closely, since disparity figures are often misquoted. Papers that state a cause as fact, or that report a number without its definitions, earn less.
HLTH 2110 Week 3 help from the desk
Choose a disparity from a published report you can read in full, not from a news story. Copy the number exactly and write down how it was measured. Before reading explanations, look at what the report itself shows by age, education or place. Then list the explanations you have heard and look for evidence on each. Be willing to say that an explanation is partial or untested. Resist the urge to name one cause in your conclusion. We can help you build an analysis around a disparity you choose. Check your numbers against the source one final time before you submit. If the source defines terms differently from other reports, use the source's definitions throughout so your comparisons stay fair.
Get a HLTH 2110 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the prompt, the rubric and the data source the section assigned; a finished analysis returns in 24-48 hours, the first without charge. Every figure is reported as its publisher states it, with year and units intact, and no explanation appears in the paper unless a citation stands behind it.
More HLTH 2110 papers and BS in Public Health samples
- HLTH 2110 Week 1: Discussion Post
- HLTH 2110 Week 2: Concept Paper
- HLTH 2110 Week 4: Case Study
- HLTH 2110 Week 5: Evidence Critique
- HLTH 2110 Week 6: Midterm Discussion Post
- HLTH 2110 Week 7: Community Profile
- HLTH 2110 Week 8: Communication Analysis
- HLTH 2110 Week 9: Intervention Critique
- HLTH 2110 Week 10: Practice Proposal
- HLTH 2110 Week 11: Course Reflection
- HLTH 1000 Week 3: Determinants Analysis
HLTH 2110 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 2110 Week 3 sample paper?
The analysis of the Black-white gap in pregnancy-related deaths, with its evidence table and references, is free to read on this page.
What number does the HLTH 2110 Week 3 example analyze?
Pregnancy-related mortality ratios of 40.8 for Black women and 12.7 for white women per 100,000 live births, 2007 to 2016.
How does the report rule out education as a full explanation?
The gap was larger among college-educated women than overall.
What explanations are weighed?
Socioeconomic position, chronic conditions and causes of death, site of care and racism in care and conditions.
Which explanation does the paper adopt?
None as the default; it finds partial support for several and treats racism as plausible but not tested by the report.