Author:
Khan Jahidur Rahman,Bakar K. Shuvo,Awan Nabil,Muurlink Olav,Homaira Nusrat
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The prevalence of low birth weight (LBW) is an important indicator of child health and wellbeing. However, in many countries, decisions regarding care and treatment are often based on mothers’ perceptions of their children’s birth size due to a lack of objective birth weight data. Additionally, birth weight data that is self-reported or recorded often encounters the issue of heaping. This study assesses the concordance between the perceived birth size and the reported or recorded birth weight. We also investigate how the presence of heaped birth weight data affects this concordance, as well as the relationship between concordance and various sociodemographic factors.
Methods
We examined 4,641 birth records reported in the 2019 Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. The sensitivity-specificity analysis was performed to assess perceived birth size’s ability to predict LBW, while Cohen’s Kappa statistic assessed reliability. We used the kernel smoothing technique to correct heaping of birth weight data, as well as a multivariable multinomial logistic model to assess factors associated with concordance.
Results
Maternally-perceived birth size exhibited a low sensitivity (63.5%) and positive predictive value (52.6%) for predicting LBW, but a high specificity (90.1%) and negative predictive value (93.4%). There was 86.1% agreement between birth size and birth weight-based classifications (Kappa = 0.49, indicating moderate agreement). Smoothed birth weight data did not improve agreement (83.4%, Kappa = 0.45). Of the sociodemographic factors, early marriage was positively associated with discordance (i.e., overestimation).
Conclusions
An important consideration when calculating the LBW prevalence is that maternally perceived birth size is not an optimal proxy for birth weight. Focus should be placed on encouraging institutional births and educating community health workers and young mothers about the significance of measuring and recording birth weight.
Funder
University of New South Wales
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference18 articles.
1. Acharya, P., Adhikari, S., & Adhikari, T. B. (2023). Mother’s perception of size at birth is a weak predictor of low birth weight: Evidence from Nepal demographic and Health Survey. PLOS ONE, 18(1), e0280788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280788
2. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) and UNICEF Bangladesh. (2019). Progotir Pathey, Bangladesh multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2019, Survey findings Report. Issue December).
3. Belachew, A., & Tewabe, T. (2020). Neonatal sepsis and its association with birth weight and gestational age among admitted neonates in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatrics, 20(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-1949-x
4. Blanc, A. K., & Wardlaw, T. (2005). Monitoring low birth weight: An evaluation of international estimates and an updated estimation procedure. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83(3), 178–185. https://doi.org//S0042-96862005000300010
5. Bohnert, K. M., & Breslau, N. (2008). Stability of Psychiatric outcomes of Low Birth Weight: A longitudinal investigation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(9), 1080. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.9.1080