COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY RATES FROM INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN THE REPUBLIC OF BASHKORTOSTAN IN 2015 AND 2019
Résumé fourni par la source
Significance. Increasing life expectancy at birth as a result of the reduced mortality, in particular, among children and people of working age, is one of the main objectives of demographic policy. In this regard, the analysis of mortality rates, in particular from infectious diseases, is a current direction of scientific research. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the level, structure and dynamics in mortality from infectious diseases in the Republic of Bashkortostan in 2015 and 2019. Material and methods. Data of the statistical form C-51 «Distribution of deaths from infectious diseases by gender, age and causes of death» in the Republic of Bashkortostan for 2015 and 2019 have been analyzed. Results. In working ages, the main cause of death from infectious diseases is HIV infection with the mortality rates adding up to 19.4 per 100 000 population in 2015, and 27.5 – in 2019. ( a 41.8% increase). The mortality rates from tuberculosis decreased by 45.9% – from 10.9 per 100 000 population to 5.9. Among children, sepsis accounts for the highest mortality rates - 5.5 and 2.3 per 100 000 children aged 0-17, respectively. Conclusion. Mortality from infectious diseases in the Republic of Bashkortostan in 2019 compared to 2015 decreased by 2.2% from 22.7 to 22.2 per 100 000 population; in the structure of death causes HIV infection accounted for 51.0% and 70.8%, respectively.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY RATES FROM INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN THE REPUBLIC OF BASHKORTOSTAN IN 2015 AND 2019
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2021
- Éditeur
- Federal Research Institute for Health Organization and Informatics
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.