Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:15811540rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0033052lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15811540lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704711lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15811540lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0681185lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:dateCreated2005-4-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:abstractTextPrenatal care should improve infant health, yet research frequently finds only weak effects. If there are two kinds of pregnancies, 'complicated' and 'normal' ones, then combining these pregnancies may lead prenatal care to appear ineffective. Data from the National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) offers compelling evidence. The standard 2SLS approach yields obviously bimodal residuals and frequently insignificant prenatal care coefficients. In contrast, estimating birth weights with a finite mixture model yields estimates revealing that prenatal care has a substantial effect on 'normal' pregnancies. Our Monte Carlo experiment confirms that ignoring even a small proportion of 'complicated' pregnancies can lead prenatal care to appear unimportant.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:citationSubsetHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:monthMaylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:issn0167-6296lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DebParthaPlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ConwayKaren...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:volume24lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:pagination489-513lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15811540...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:year2005lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:articleTitleIs prenatal care really ineffective? Or, is the 'devil' in the distribution?lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, 03824, USA.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15811540pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:15811540lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:15811540lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:15811540lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:15811540lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:15811540lld:pubmed