Birthweight data completeness and quality in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study

Gashaw Andargie Biks, Hannah Blencowe, Victoria Ponce Hardy, Bisrat Misganaw Geremew, Dessie Abebaw Angaw, Alemakef Wagnew, Solomon Mekonnen Abebe, Tadesse Guadu, Justiniano S.D. Martins, Ane B. Fisker, Md Ali Imam, Obed Ernest A. Nettey, Simon Kasasa, Lydia Di Stefano, Joseph Akuze, Doris Kwesiga, Joy Lawn, The Every Newborn-INDEPTH Study Collaborative Group, Sanne M. Thysen (Member of author group)

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

58 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Low birthweight (< 2500 g) is an important marker of maternal health and is associated with neonatal mortality, long-term development and chronic diseases. Household surveys remain an important source of population-based birthweight information, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS); however, data quality concerns remain. Few studies have addressed how to close these gaps in surveys. Methods: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of 69,176 women was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites (Matlab-Bangladesh, Dabat-Ethiopia, Kintampo-Ghana, Bandim-Guinea-Bissau, IgangaMayuge-Uganda). Responses to existing DHS/MICS birthweight questions on 14,411 livebirths were analysed and estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) associated with reporting weighing, birthweight and heaping reported. Twenty-eight focus group discussions with women and interviewers explored barriers and enablers to reporting birthweight. Results: Almost all women provided responses to birthweight survey questions, taking on average 0.2 min to answer. Of all babies, 62.4% were weighed at birth, 53.8% reported birthweight and 21.1% provided health cards with recorded birthweight. High levels of heterogeneity were observed between sites. Home births and neonatal deaths were less likely to be weighed at birth (home births aOR 0.03(95%CI 0.02–0.03), neonatal deaths (aOR 0.19(95%CI 0.16–0.24)), and when weighed, actual birthweight was less likely to be known (aOR 0.44(95%CI 0.33–0.58), aOR 0.30(95%CI 0.22–0.41)) compared to facility births and post-neonatal survivors. Increased levels of maternal education were associated with increases in reporting weighing and knowing birthweight. Half of recorded birthweights were heaped on multiples of 500 g. Heaping was more common in IgangaMayuge (aOR 14.91(95%CI 11.37–19.55) and Dabat (aOR 14.25(95%CI 10.13–20.3) compared to Bandim. Recalled birthweights were more heaped than those recorded by card (aOR 2.59(95%CI 2.11–3.19)). A gap analysis showed large missed opportunity between facility birth and known birthweight, especially for neonatal deaths. Qualitative data suggested that knowing their baby’s weight was perceived as valuable by women in all sites, but lack of measurement and poor communication, alongside social perceptions and spiritual beliefs surrounding birthweight, impacted women’s ability to report birthweight. Conclusions: Substantial data gaps remain for birthweight data in household surveys, even amongst facility births. Improving the accuracy and recording of birthweights, and better communication with women, for example using health cards, could improve survey birthweight data availability and quality.

Original languageEnglish
Article number17
JournalPopulation Health Metrics
Volume19
Issue numberSuppl. 1
Number of pages16
ISSN1478-7954
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8. Feb 2021

Keywords

  • Birthweight
  • Data quality
  • Heaping
  • Household survey
  • Measurement

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Birthweight data completeness and quality in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this