SEARCHCROSS-SECTIONALepidemiology, public health

cross-sectional·epidemiology, public health, obstetrics and gynecology, hematology, nutrition·PMC10201259

Anaemia among lactating and non-lactating women in low-income and middle-income countries: a comparative cross-sectional study

BMJ Open · 6 authors, 8 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

Anaemia prevalence was 50.95% in lactating and 49.33% in non-lactating women, with multiple individual-level and community-level factors significantly associated with anaemia in both groups.

Full summary

685 CHARS

Anaemia was defined by altitude-adjusted haemoglobin levels below 12 g/dL. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to identify associated factors. The prevalence of anaemia was 50.95% among lactating women and 49.33% among non-lactating women. Maternal age, education, wealth index, family size, media exposure, residence, pregnancy termination, drinking water source, and contraceptive usage were significantly associated with anaemia in both groups. Additional factors for lactating women included toilet facility type, antenatal care, postnatal care, iron supplementation, and place of delivery. Smoking was additionally associated with anaemia in non-lactating women.

STUDY TYPE

cross-sectional

SPECIALTY

epidemiology

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10201259

Anaemia among lactating and non-lactating women in low-income and middle-income countries: a comparative cross-sectional study

BMJ Open

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

Objective This study aimed to assess the prevalence and determinants of anaemia among lactating and non-lactating women in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Design Comparative cross-sectional study. Setting LMICs. Participants Reproductive-age women. Primary outcome Anaemia. Methods Data for the study were drawn from the recent 46 LMICs Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). A total of 185 330 lactating and 827 501 non-lactating women (both are non-pregnant) who gave birth in the last 5 years preceding the survey were included. STATA V.16 was used to clean, code and analyse the data. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify factors associated with anaemia. In the adjusted model, the adjusted OR with 95% CI and a p value <0.05 was reported to indicate statistical association. Result The prevalence of anaemia among lactating and non-lactating women was found at 50.95% (95% CI 50.72, 51.17) and 49.33% (95% CI 49.23%, 49.44%), respectively. Maternal age, mother’s educational status, wealth index, family size, media exposure, residence, pregnancy termination, source of drinking water and contraceptive usage were significantly associated determinants of anaemia in both lactating and non-lactating women. Additionally, the type of toilet facility, antenatal care visit, postnatal care visit, iron supplementation and place of delivery were factors significantly associated with anaemia in lactating women. Besides, smoking was significantly associated with anaemia in non-lactating women. Conclusions and recommendations The prevalence of anaemia was higher in lactating women compared with non-lactating. Almost half of the lactating and non-lactating women were anaemic. Both individual-level and community-level factors were significantly associated with anaemia. Governments, non-governmental organisations, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders are recommended to primarily focus on disadvantageous communities where their knowledge, purchasing power, access to healthcare facilities, access to clean drinking water and clean toilet facilities are minimal.

CITATION EXPORT

Dagmawi Chilot, Fantu Mamo Aragaw, Daniel Gashaneh Belay et al.. Anaemia among lactating and non-lactating women in low-income and middle-income countries: a comparative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069851

AUTHORS

6 · 8 CENTRES

Dagmawi Chilot, Fantu Mamo Aragaw, Daniel Gashaneh Belay, Melaku Hunie Asratie, Mequanint Melesse Bicha, Adugnaw Zeleke Alem

1Center for Innovative Drug Development and Therapeutic Trials for Africa (CDT-Africa), Addis Ababa University College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
2Department of Human Physiology, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia
3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
4Epidemology, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia
5Human Anatomy, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia
6Women and Family Health, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
7Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia
8Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia