Implications of the availability and distribution of birth weight on addressing neonatal mortality: population-based assessment from Bihar state of India

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 12; no. 6; p. e061934
• Main Authors: Kumar, G Anil, George, Sibin, Akbar, Md, Bhattacharya, Debarshi, Nanda, Priya, Dandona, Lalit, Dandona, Rakhi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London British Medical Journal Publishing Group 01-06-2022; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Publishing Group
• Series: Original research
• Subjects: Birth weight; Births; Caregivers; community child health; Epidemiology; Households; Infant mortality; Low income groups; Newborn babies; Nutrition; Parent educational background; Perceptions; Population; public health; India
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061934

ObjectiveA large proportion of neonatal deaths in India are attributable to low birth weight (LBW). We report population-based distribution and determinants of birth weight in Bihar state, and on the perceptions about birth weight among carers.DesignA cross-sectional household survey in a state representative sample of 6007 live births born in 2018–2019. Mothers provided detailed interviews on sociodemographic characteristics and birth weight, and their perceptions on LBW (birth weight <2500 g). We report on birth weight availability, LBW prevalence, neonatal mortality rate (NMR) by birth weight and perceptions of mothers on LBW implications.SettingBihar state, India.ParticipantsWomen with live birth between October 2018 and September 2019.ResultsA total of 5021 (83.5%) live births participated, and 3939 (78.4%) were weighed at birth. LBW prevalence among those with available birth weight was 18.4% (95% CI 17.1 to 19.7). Majority (87.5%) of the live births born at home were not weighed at birth. LBW prevalence decreased and birth weight ≥2500 g increased significantly with increasing wealth index quartile. NMR was significantly higher in live births weighing <1500 g (11.3%; 95% CI 5.1 to 23.1) and 1500–1999 g (8.0%; 95% CI 4.6 to 13.6) than those weighing ≥2500 g (1.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.7). Assuming proportional correspondence of LBW and NMR in live births with and without birth weight, the estimated LBW among those without birth weight was 35.5% (95% CI 33.0 to 38.0) and among all live births irrespective of birth weight availability was 23.0% (95% CI 21.9 to 24.2). 70% of mothers considered LBW to be a sign of sickness, 59.5% perceived it as a risk of developing other illnesses and 8.6% as having an increased probability of death.ConclusionsMissing birth weight is substantially compromising the planning of interventions to address LBW at the population-level. Variations of LBW by place of delivery and sociodemographic indicators, and the perceptions of carers about LBW can facilitate appropriate actions to address LBW and the associated neonatal mortality.