51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Low birthweight (LBW) of less than 2500 g is an important marker of maternal and fetal health, predicting mortality, stunting, and adult-onset chronic conditions. Global nutrition targets set at the World Health Assembly in 2012 include an ambitious 30% reduction in LBW prevalence between 2012 and 2025. Estimates to track progress towards this target are lacking; with this analysis, we aim to assist in setting a baseline against which to assess progress towards the achievement of the World Health Assembly targets.

          Methods

          We sought to identify all available LBW input data for livebirths for the years 2000–16. We considered population-based national or nationally representative datasets for inclusion if they contained information on birthweight or LBW prevalence for livebirths. A new method for survey adjustment was developed and used. For 57 countries with higher quality time-series data, we smoothed country-reported trends in birthweight data by use of B-spline regression. For all other countries, we estimated LBW prevalence and trends by use of a restricted maximum likelihood approach with country-level random effects. Uncertainty ranges were obtained through bootstrapping. Results were summed at the regional and worldwide level.

          Findings

          We collated 1447 country-years of birthweight data (281 million births) for 148 countries of 195 UN member states (47 countries had no data meeting inclusion criteria). The estimated worldwide LBW prevalence in 2015 was 14·6% (uncertainty range [UR] 12·4–17·1) compared with 17·5% (14·1–21·3) in 2000 (average annual reduction rate [AARR] 1·23%). In 2015, an estimated 20·5 million (UR 17·4–24·0 million) livebirths were LBW, 91% from low-and-middle income countries, mainly southern Asia (48%) and sub-Saharan Africa (24%).

          Interpretation

          Although these estimates suggest some progress in reducing LBW between 2000 and 2015, achieving the 2·74% AARR required between 2012 and 2025 to meet the global nutrition target will require more than doubling progress, involving both improved measurement and programme investments to address the causes of LBW throughout the lifecycle.

          Funding

          Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and WHO.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.

          Fetal growth is associated with long-term health yet no appropriate standards exist for the early identification of undergrown or overgrown fetuses. We sought to develop contemporary fetal growth standards for 4 self-identified US racial/ethnic groups.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in adolescent pregnancies: The Global Network’s Maternal Newborn Health Registry study

            Background Adolescent girls between 15 and 19 years give birth to around 16 million babies each year, around 11% of births worldwide. We sought to determine whether adolescent mothers are at higher risk of maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes compared with mothers aged 20–24 years in a prospective, population-based observational study of newborn outcomes in low resource settings. Methods We undertook a prospective, population-based multi-country research study of all pregnant women in defined geographic areas across 7 sites in six low-middle income countries (Kenya, Zambia, India, Pakistan, Guatemala and Argentina). The study population for this analysis was restricted to women aged 24 years or less, who gave birth to infants of at least 20 weeks’ gestation and 500g or more. We compared adverse pregnancy maternal and perinatal outcomes among pregnant adolescents 15-19 years, <15 years, and adults 20-24 years. Results A total of 269,273 women were enrolled from January 2010 to December 2013. Of all pregnancies 11.9% (32,097/269,273) were in adolescents 15-19 years, while 0.14% (370/269,273) occurred among girls <15 years. Pregnancy among adolescents 15-19 years ranged from 2% in Pakistan to 26% in Argentina, and adolescent pregnancies <15 year were only observed in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Compared to adults, adolescents did not show increased risk of maternal adverse outcomes. Risks of preterm birth and LBW were significantly higher among both early and older adolescents, with the highest risks observed in the <15 years group. Neonatal and perinatal mortality followed a similar trend in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, with the highest risk in early adolescents, although the differences in this age group were not significant. However, in South Asia the risks of neonatal and perinatal death were not different among adolescents 15-19 years compared to adults. Conclusions This study suggests that pregnancy among adolescents is not associated with worse maternal outcomes, but is associated with worse perinatal outcomes, particularly in younger adolescents. However, this may not be the case in regions like South Asia where there are decreasing rates of adolescent pregnancies, concentrated among older adolescents. The increased risks observed among adolescents seems more likely to be associated with biological immaturity, than with socio-economic factors, inadequate antenatal or delivery care. Trial registration number NCT01073475
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              2500-g Low Birth Weight Cutoff: History and Implications for Future Research and Policy

              Purpose To research the origins of the 2500 g cutoff for low birth weight and the evolution of indicators to identify newborns at high mortality risk. Description Early research concluded “prematurity”, measured mainly through birth weight, was responsible for increased health risks. The World Health Organization’s original prematurity definition was birth weight ≤2500 g. 1960s research clarified the difference between gestational age and birth weight leading to questions of the causal role of birth weight for health outcomes. Focus turned to two etiologies of low birth weight, preterm births and intrauterine growth restriction, which were both causally associated with morbidity and mortality but through different pathways; a standard cutoff based on gestational age or customized cutoff was debated. Assessment While low birth weight can be due to preterm or intrauterine growth restriction (or both), the historic 2500 g cutoff remains the standard by which the majority of policy makers define low birth weight and use it to predict perinatal and infant adverse outcomes. Conclusion Current efforts to refocus research on preterm births and poor intrauterine growth are important to understanding the direct causes of mortality rather than low birth weight as a convenient surrogate. Such distinctions also allow researchers and practitioners to test and target interventions outcomes more effectively.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                15 May 2019
                July 2019
                15 May 2019
                : 7
                : 7
                : e849-e860
                Affiliations
                [a ]Maternal Adolescent Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [b ]Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy
                [c ]Local Health Unit N2, Public Health Department Treviso, Italy
                [d ]Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [e ]Department of Information Evidence and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [f ]Data and Analytics, Division of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, NY, USA
                [g ]Institute for International Programs, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Hannah Blencowe, Maternal Adolescent Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK Hannah.Blencowe@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                [†]

                Joint senior authors

                Article
                S2214-109X(18)30565-5
                10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30565-5
                6560046
                31103470
                feaffaf3-765d-4a53-9872-36165c8d51aa
                © 2019 UNICEF and World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article