Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders: Current Research
Open Access

Determinants of Low Birth Weight in Rural Areas of North West in Iran: 2013-2017 (A Case-Control Study)

Author info »

Introduction

Low Birth Weight (LBW) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), as a birth weight of an infant of 2500 g or less [1-4]. Since LBW increases the probability of mortality, it is considered an important health issue in the world’s developing countries [1]. LBW is one of the main causes of death in children and is an important factor related to the growth and development of children [5,6]. LBW is the result of premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction and is the most dangerous cause of fetus, infant, and even children [7]. Also, it is related to health problems in childhood such as neurological disorders and low-level cognitive skills [8]. There are many pieces of evidence attesting to the relationship [between low birth weight with a health problem at the birth time and even one year after the birth [9]. Also, LBW is an important indicator of the health of fertility and general health status of the population [10]. Each year almost 15% of newborn all over the world have LBW, and more than 95% of them are born in developing countries, with 72% of it being in Asia [10-12]. According to the report of WHO, in the year 2008, LBW prevalence had a range of 7% in high-income countries to 22% in countries with low income [10]. Almost 11.6% of newborns in the U.S.A are born premature and 8% of them have LBW [10]. Also, almost 17% of newborns in Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) and 7% of them In Islamic Republic of Iran have LBW [10]. Since children are the most vulnerable group of the society and form an important part of population in developing countries, the quality of their growth is of special importance therefore the best and most suitable method for analysis of the health of children is the measurement of indicators of physical growth [4]. LBW is an important health indicator for each country, since it is one of the important factors for the growth and development and even survival of newborns and infants [4]. LBW is associated with causes such as: pregnancy after a short interval, Weight and height of mother, lack of cares during pregnancy, medicines, side effects of abortion, genetic factors, relaxation, conditions of fighting stress [1,2], pregnancy In low or higher ages, low age while marriage, weight before pregnancy [11], different diseases such as: Hypertension during pregnancy, thyroid diseases, tooth and mouth diseases of mother, history of bleeding in pregnancy [6], smoking [7], lower socio-economic status and lack of enough income [8], Iron deficiency anemia [13] and malnutrition [14]. But some of the risk factors may be due to the country or geographical region, therefore studies conducted in certain regions may be indicative of risk factors related to those regions [11]. Regarding this issue and considering the fact that few regional studies in the northwestern part of Iran about the risk factors affecting LBW, this study was conducted to investigate the risk factors associated with LBW in the villages of Oskou county, northwest of Iran.

Methodology

This study is a population-based case-control study and all the cases of LBW, that have occurred during the five years 2012-2016 in all the villages of Oskou county have been included in case study group. Oskou is a city in the capital of Oskou County, East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. This city’s distance from Tabriz is 20 Km (Figure 1). The city has 40 villages with a population of 41370 according to the census of 2017. The Crude Birth Rate (CBR) in the total of these villages in the year 2017 is 17.76 per thousand people.

Figure 1: Geographic situation of Oskou, East Azarbaijan, Iran.

The cases are comprised of newborns with weights lower that 2500 grams, and controls were comprised of infants born with weights equal to 2500 grams or more, in that same village and year. In order to choose the controls sampling frame was obtained from all the infants who met the criteria to be included in the control group and after that based on systematic random sampling control groups were included in the study. Inclusion criteria’s in the study were lack of a folder for the family in the health house due to lack of certain documents or any other reasons. While filling any questionnaire, in case the related folder did not exist in a health house, the folder number of the next family was chosen and its data was collected.

The data of the study were collected through a questionnaire with 25 questions based on the folders of each infant and with the help of three expert people working in health centers who were accustomed with such matters. These data were comprised of following factors: Factors related to the newborns, factors related to the pregnancy and delivery of the mother, and other factors related to parents.

Two approaches were used to study the factors affecting LBW. First, the relationship between the qualitative probabilistic factor and the outcome was studied using Chi-square statistical analysis or Fisher's exact test. Then a logistic regression model was used to investigate possible factors. At this part, all independent variables were analyzed using Univariate analysis and then the variable that had P-value of lower than 0.2 were put into multivariate logistic regression model. All analysis of the studied relationships was performed with a 95% confidence Interval and therefore all P-values less than 0.05 represent a statistically significant relationship between the two independent and dependent variables. All statistical analyzes were performed using Stata 12 and SPSS 20 software.

Results

In this study 242 cases and 242 control groups were analyzed. 45% of cases and 48.8% of the control group were males (P=0.46). The mean birth weight in cases at the time of birth was, was 2053.37 ± 33 grams in cases and 3224.75 ± 41 in controls. The mean height of newborns at the time of birth in cases was 44.49 ± 3.5 cm and 49.25 ± 2.45 cm in control group (P=0.000). The mean age of mothers of newborns in cases was 26.43 ± 6.2 and 26.04 ± 6.2 in control group (P=0.48). The mean weight of mothers at the time of delivery in cases was 64.81 ± 12.35 and in control group 67.26 ± 10.45 Kg (P=0.019). Mothers of any of the cases and controls have no history of smoking.

Using contraceptive pills was the most prevalent reliable method of contraception in mothers of neonates in cases (13.6%) and controls (19.8%). The percentage of natural methods users in mothers of neonates in cases was 14.9% and in controls it was 1.7% (Table 1).

Table 1: The mean (SD) of probabilistic risk factors for low birth weight in cases and controls.

According to the unadjusted univariate analysis, considerable causes related with LBW were as follows:

Maternal low weight before pregnancy, gestational age less than 37 weeks, low maternal weight gain, long gestational interval, twin's birth, lower caring of mother at the time of pregnancy, using pills and IUD as a method of contraception in mothers, maternal education is more than 12 years, abortion history, having LBW newborn history, nonfamilial marriage, employee being the father of the newborn.

According to the results of adjusted multi-variate analysis the risk factor related to LBW after adjusting the effects of different variables on each other, were as follows: maternal low weight before pregnancy, gestational age less than 37 weeks, low maternal weight gain twin's birth, lower caring of mother at the time of pregnancy, using condoms as a reliable method of contraception, and natural method of contraception in mothers, maternal education is more than 12 years, having LBW newborn history, worker being the father of the newborn.

The chance of a newborn being with LBW from mothers who have a history of LBW newborn is more than 25 times that of mothers who did not have a history of LBW newborn in previous pregnancy(OR=25.87). The chance of a newborn being with LBW in mothers who used natural methods of contraception was 29 times more than those who used no method(OR=29.54). Also, the chance of a newborn being with LBW was 24 times more in mothers who had twin's birth, compared to those who had not (OR=24.04). Others important risk factors for birth of newborns with LBW were gestational age less than 37 weeks (OR=3.89), using oral pills (OR=2.22) and condoms as a contraception method (OR 2.62) and worker being the father of the newborn (OR=2.22), (Table 2). Also, the variable of maternal education is less than 12 years (OR=0.95), the heavy weight of mother at the time of delivery (OR=0.95), increase in weight of mother at the tie of pregnancy (OR=0.92) and more pregnancy period cares were considered as protective variables (Table 3).

Table 2: Frequency (%) of probabilistic risk factors for low birth weight in cases and controls.

Table 3: Univariate and multivariate logistic regression model for probabilistic risk factors for low birth weight in cases and controls.

Discussion

The odds of death in newborns with LBW are 20 times more than newborns with weight more than 2500 grams. Incidence of LBW in developing countries [4] and in rural regions and underprivileged areas [15] is more than developed countries and urban areas. Some studies have shown the effects of risk factors on LBW are different in rural and urban areas [6,11]. This study was implemented with the purpose of determining the risk factors that have an effect on LBW of newborns at the time of birth in Oskou between 2011 and 2016.

The results of current study indicate that the most important moderated risk factors relating to LBW are respectively as follows: natural methods of contraception, having history of giving LBW newborn, twin's birth, gestational age less than 37 weeks, using condom as method of contraception, worker father in contrast to farmer and rancher.

Contraception methods are categorized as certain and uncertain. The natural method is an uncertain method. Since mothers who use natural method of contraception get pregnant unwantedly [16] due to lack of preparedness for spiritual and physical hardships of pregnancy [17,18], not paying attention to proper interval between pregnancies, lack of any attendance to health care’s provider centers or health house to receive pregnancy carings and therefore lack of any consumption of necessary multivitamins and supplements like folic acid, face a newborn with LBW at the time of birth [19,20]. Also, spouses of women who used condoms as a contraception method, due to the high frequency of the possible failures of this method compared to other certain methods such as IUD and oral pills, experienced more unintended pregnancies [21]. As previously mentioned in unintended pregnancies the chances for a newborn with LBW are high.

Having a previous history of LBW newborn was a strong risk factor for having newborn with LBW in this study, so much so that moderated chance of having a newborn with LBW in mothers with a history of LBW, was 25 times more than the ones who had no newborn with LBW. These results are completely conformed to studies conducted in other cities of Iran such as Tehran and Zahedan [22,23].

The chances for the newborn to be LBW from mothers, who had twins’ birth, were 20 times more than the mothers who gave birth to one child. In the same vein in other country scale and international studies, the relation between giving birth to multiple newborn and LBW and VLBW is well documented [22,24]. Also studies have shown chances of giving twins’ birth in mothers with lower age are higher compared to the older ones [25]. Also different studies have shown gestational age of lower than 37 weeks (due to lack of fetus’s growth) is a riskfactor for LBW, it also increases the probability of mortality of newborns [26-30].

Different studies have shown lower socio-economic status and socioeconomic underprivileged are important risk factors for LBW [8,9,31- 33]. The present study also showed the work status of father as a worker to be a risk factor compared to being a rancher or farmer. In this study in the village the welfare state of farmers and ranchers were much better than those families with worker father.

Conclusion

In the present study, the mean maternal weight of mothers with LBW newborn is significantly lower than the mothers without LBW newborn. So that each kilogram of maternal birth weight reduces the chance of LBW newborn by about 5%. In other words each 10 kg of mothers’ weight reduces the chance of LBW newborn by 40 percent. Also, the increase in each kg of maternal weight during pregnancy, regardless of other factors, reduces the chance of having LBW newborn by about 8%.

The chances of a newborn being born with LBW, regardless of other factors, decreases with increasing maternal care during pregnancy. Often those mothers with more number of cares during pregnancy have a higher socio-economic level and are more concerned about their own health and the fetus and may also have a healthier lifestyle than mothers who are not cared for nor have fewer cares during pregnancy.

References

1. Hashemian Nejad N, Pejhan A, Rakhshani MH, Hoseini BL. The incidence of low birth weight (LBW) and Small-for-Gestational Age (SGA) and its related factors in neonates, Sabzevar, Iran. Int J Pediatr. 2014;2(4):73-78.

   [Google scholar]

2. Karmer MS. Determinants of low birth weight: Methodological assessment and Meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65(5):637-737.

   [Google scholar] [Pub med]

3. Kochanek KD, Xu J, Murphy SL, Minino AM, Kung H-C. National vital statistics reports. 2011.

4. Wardlaw TM. Low birthweight: Country, regional and global estimates: Unicef; 2004.

5. Moradi G, Khazaei Z, Esmailnasab N, Roshani D, Zokaii M, Ghaderi E, et al. The relationship between maternal diseases during pregnancy and low birth weight: A nested case-control study in rural areas of Kurdistan province (West of Iran). Int J Pediatr. 2017;5(8):5501-5514.

   [Google scholar]

6. Shokouhi M, Hematpour S, Afjeh SA. Best Strategies against Respiratory Problems in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants. Int J Pediatr. 2016;4(7):2079-2086.

   [Google scholar]

7. Suzuki K, Tanaka T, Kondo N, Minai J, Sato M, Yamagata Z. Is maternal smoking during early pregnancy a risk factor for all low birth weight infants? J epidemiol. 2008;18(3):89-96.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

8. Dibben C, Sigala M, Macfarlane A. Area deprivation, individual factors and low birth weight in England: is there evidence of an “area effect”? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(12):1053-9.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

9. Pattenden S, Dolk H, Vrijheid M. Inequalities in low birth weight: Parental social class, area deprivation, and "lone mother" status. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(6):355-358.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

10. WHO. WORLD HEALTH STATISTICS 2008.

11. Karamzad N, Safiri S, Amiri S, Syedi N, Ebrahimi-Mameghani M, Moosazadeh M, et al. Predictors of low birth weight infants in the north west province of Iran: A case-control study. Int J Pediatr. 2016;4(6):1983-1991.

    [Google scholar]

12. Mathews T, MacDorman MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 2010 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(8):1-26.

    [Google scholar] [Pub med]

13. Rahmati S, Delpisheh A, Parizad N, Sayehmiri K. Maternal anemia and pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr . 2016;4(8):3323-3342.

    [Google scholar]

14. Naghavi S, Baradaran Mahdavi S, Moradi B, Tajadini MH, Kelishadi R. Association of Dietary Patterns during Pregnancy and Cord Blood Nitric Oxide Level with Birth Weight of Newborns. Int J Pediatr. 2017;5(3):4489-4501.

    [Google scholar]

15. Wendl‐Richter HU. Birthweight distribution in rural North‐West Burkina Faso. Trop Med International Health. 1997;2(4):404-408.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

16. Motlaq ME, Eslami M, Yazdanpanah M, Nakhaee N. Contraceptive use and unmet need for family planning in Iran. Int J  Gynecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):157-161.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

17. Christensen AL, Stuart EA, Perry DF, Le H-N. Unintended pregnancy and perinatal depression trajectories in low-income, high-risk Hispanic immigrants. Prevention science. 2011;12(3):289-299.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

18. Raine T, Minnis AM, Padian NS. Determinants of contraceptive method among young women at risk for unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Contraception. 2003;68(1):19-25.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

19. Khajehpour M, Simbar M, Jannesari S, Ramezani-Tehrani F, Majd HA. Health status of women with intended and unintended pregnancies. Public health. 2013;127(1):58-64.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

20. Tsui AO, McDonald-Mosley R, Burke AE. Family planning and the burden of unintended pregnancies. Epidemiol rev. 2010;32(1):152-174.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

21. Shahbazin S, GHOLAMI A. Prevalence of Unintended Pregnancy and Its Related Factors in Kermanshah, Kangavar city (west Iran). 2015;4(1):19-28.

    [Google scholar]

22. Roudbari M, Yaghmaei M, Soheili M. Prevalence and risk factors of low-birth-weight infants in Zahedan, Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2007;13(4):838-845.  

    [Google scholar] [Pub med]

23. Vahdaninia M, Tavafian SS, Montazeri A. Correlates of low birth weight in term pregnancies: A retrospective study from Iran. BMC pregnancy childbirth. 2008;8(1):12.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

24. Blickstein I, Goldman RD, Mazkereth R. Risk for one or two very low birth weight twins: A population study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(3):400-402.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

25. Blickstein I, Goldman RD, Mazkereth R. Maternal age and birth weight characteristics of twins born to nulliparous mothers: A population study. Twin Res. 2001;4(1):1-3.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

26. Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph K, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001;108(2).

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

27. Lubchenco LO, Searls D, Brazie J. Neonatal mortality rate: Relationship to birth weight and gestational age.  J pediatr. 1972;81(4):814-22.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

28. Norris T, Seaton SE, Manktelow BN, Baker PN, Kurinczuk JJ, Field D, et al. Updated birth weight centiles for England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed.103(6)577-582.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

29. Oken E, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards J, Gillman MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC pediatrics. 2003;3(1):6.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

30. Alexander GR, Kogan M, Bader D, Carlo W, Allen M, Mor J. US birth weight/gestational age-specific neonatal mortality: 1995–1997 rates for whites, Hispanics, and blacks. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1):e61-e6.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

31. Jafari F, Eftekhar H, Pourreza A, Mousavi J. Socio-economic and medical determinants of low birth weight in Iran: 20 years after establishment of a primary healthcare network. Public health. 2010;124(3):153-158.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

32. Shah PS. Paternal factors and low birthweight, preterm, and small for gestational age births: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):103-123.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [Pub med]

33. Currie J, Hyson R. Is the impact of health shocks cushioned by socioeconomic status? The case of low birthweight. American Economic Review. 1999;89(2):245-250.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar]