2019
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031986
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive accuracy of perceived baby birth size for birth weight: a cross-sectional study from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey

Abstract: ObjectivesThe study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of maternally perceived baby birth size assessments as a measure of birth weight and examine factors influencing the accuracy of maternal size assessments.Study designCross-sectional study.SettingThe study is based on national data from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey.ParticipantsWe included 1455 children who had both birth size and birth weight data.Main outcome measuresPredictive accuracy of baby birth size for low birth weight. Level… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
11
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with studies from Tanzania [ 83 ], Burundi [ 84 ], Nigeria [ 46 ], India [ 45 ] and Nepal [ 72 ], our study showed that children perceived by their mothers to be smaller than average size at birth had higher odds of stunting. In the absence of measured birth weight data, mother-reported perceived birth size data have been used as a proxy indicator to approximate birthweight [ 45 , 46 , 72 , 83 , 85 ]. The relationship between smaller birth size and stunting could be due to lower sized children at birth having an increased vulnerability to infection (such as diarrhea, ARI, and malaria) [ 86 , 87 , 88 ] with resultant complications that include respiratory distress, jaundice, anemia, fatigue and loss of appetite [ 89 , 90 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with studies from Tanzania [ 83 ], Burundi [ 84 ], Nigeria [ 46 ], India [ 45 ] and Nepal [ 72 ], our study showed that children perceived by their mothers to be smaller than average size at birth had higher odds of stunting. In the absence of measured birth weight data, mother-reported perceived birth size data have been used as a proxy indicator to approximate birthweight [ 45 , 46 , 72 , 83 , 85 ]. The relationship between smaller birth size and stunting could be due to lower sized children at birth having an increased vulnerability to infection (such as diarrhea, ARI, and malaria) [ 86 , 87 , 88 ] with resultant complications that include respiratory distress, jaundice, anemia, fatigue and loss of appetite [ 89 , 90 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lack of association might be because of inaccurate classification of the baby size at birth. The problem of misclassification was addressed in a previous study reporting that maternal assessment of the baby size is an inaccurate proxy indicator of low birth weight in Ethiopia [ 38 ]. This implies the importance of noncriteria-based (i.e., irrespective of birth size) application of SSC at the community level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the results of this study may not be free of recall bias because skin-to-skin care practice was assessed for the index live births taking place in the last five years preceding the survey. Birth weight, a potential predictor variable for SSC practice, was not considered because of a large missing (85%) in the 2016 EDHS data [ 24 , 38 ]. We have considered the baby's birth size which is a proxy indicator of birth weight where there is a lack of data on birth weight [ 39 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observer errors have been reported in birth-weight research (36). Weights ending in multiples of 100 or 500 grams tend to be preferred, resulting in a heaping of birth weight measurements (15,19,20). This affects LBW estimates, particularly in LMICs (22).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Birth weight data may also be inaccurately recorded for various reasons. A common preference for the terminal digit 0 or 5 has been described (19,20) and heaping of birth weight data, which involves rounding birth weights to the closest 100-or 500-gram interval. For example, infants weighing 2,490 grams are recorded as 2,500 grams.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%