| Literature DB >> 23075225 |
Adeladza K Amegah1, Jouni Jk Jaakkola, Reginald Quansah, Gameli K Norgbe, Mawuli Dzodzomenyo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effect of indoor air pollution (IAP) on birth weight remains largely unexplored but yet purported as the most important environmental exposure for pregnant women in developing countries due to the effects of second-hand smoke. We investigated the associations between the determinants of indoor air quality in households and birth weight.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23075225 PMCID: PMC3533864 DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-78
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health ISSN: 1476-069X Impact factor: 5.984
Characteristics of the Study Population
| | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | |
| < 20 | 5.7 | 2.5 | 6.4 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 4.4 |
| 20-29 | 50.0 | 46.0 | 53.5 | 48.1 | 47.5 | 40.0 | 47.8 |
| 30-39 | 42.3 | 50.9 | 37.6 | 42.3 | 46.2 | 56.7 | 45.6 |
| > 39 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Low | 58.8 | 43.5 | 66.0 | 63.5 | 56.2 | 43.3 | 57.8 |
| Middle | 36.1 | 46.6 | 31.6 | 33.7 | 39.4 | 40.0 | 40.0 |
| High | 5.1 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 16.7 | 2.2 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Married | 77.2 | 90.1 | 74.1 | 72.1 | 76.9 | 90.0 | 77.8 |
| Unmarried | 22.8 | 10.0 | 25.9 | 27.9 | 23.1 | 10.0 | 22.2 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Primary | 15.2 | 8.7 | 18.8 | 17.3 | 16.9 | 13.3 | 14.4 |
| Junior High | 45.1 | 39.8 | 51.4 | 37.5 | 45.6 | 36.7 | 51.1 |
| Senior High | 25.3 | 34.8 | 16.0 | 36.5 | 28.1 | 40.0 | 23.3 |
| Tertiary | 7.1 | 15.5 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 10.0 | 5.6 |
| None | 7.3 | 1.2 | 10.3 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 5.6 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Trader/Street vendor | 43.6 | 33.5 | 50.7 | 41.3 | 47.5 | 36.7 | 51.1 |
| Fish monger/Caterer | 5.9 | 7.5 | 4.6 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 6.7 | 2.2 |
| Hairdresser/Seamstress | 29.7 | 29.8 | 27.0 | 33.7 | 31.9 | 36.7 | 30.0 |
| Office worker | 5.9 | 13.0 | 2.8 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 16.7 | 3.3 |
| Housewife/Unemployed | 9.8 | 6.8 | 12.1 | 4.8 | 6.9 | 0 | 10.0 |
| Other | 5.1 | 9.3 | 2.8 | 6.7 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Primigravida | 39.2 | 41.0 | 36.9 | 36.5 | 33.1 | 23.3 | 36.7 |
| Multigravida | 60.8 | 59.0 | 63.1 | 63.5 | 66.9 | 76.7 | 63.3 |
Values reported in table are percentages.
*X2 Test for differences in cooking fuel choices: social class, p<0.0001; educational level, p<0.0001, occupation, p<0.0001.
Characteristics of Neonates, and LBW Cases and Mean Birth Weight (grams) by Cooking Fuel Use and Garbage Burning at Home
| | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | |
| Male | 53.2 | | | | | | |
| Female | 46.8 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 1 | 38.3 | | | | | | |
| 2-3 | 45.9 | | | | | | |
| 4-5 | 13.5 | | | | | | |
| 6+ | 2.2 | | | | | | |
| 2949±634 | 3165±540 | 2843±650 | 2911±613 | 2855±690 | 3040±703 | 2773±721 | |
| 109(18.4) | 15(9.3) | 64(22.7) | 20(19.2) | 37(23.1) | 6(20.0) | 23(25.6) | |
Note. SD Standard Deviation. Values reported for sex and birth order of neonates are percentages.
*t-Test for differences in mean birth weight: LPG use vs. Charcoal use, p<0.0001; LPG use vs. Charcoal use & LPG use, p<0.0001; LPG use vs. Garbage burning, p<0.0001; LPG use vs. LPG use & garbage burning, p=0.162; LPG use vs. Charcoal use & garbage burning, p<0.0001.
**X2 Test for differences in LBW cases: all fuel type categories, p=0.002; LPG use vs. Charcoal use, p<0.0001; LPG use vs. Charcoal use & LPG use, p=0.020; LPG use vs. Garbage burning, p<0.0001; LPG use vs. LPG use & garbage burning, p=0.026; LPG use vs. Charcoal use & garbage burning, p<0.0001.
Unadjusted and Adjusted Effect of Cooking Fuel Use and Garbage Burning at Home
| −267 (−518, -15) | −243 (−496, 11) | −136 (−399, 127) | −108 (−372, 155) | |
| Low (n=40) | −237 (−450, -24) | −262 (−477, -47) | −205 (−426, 15) | −181 (−403, 42) |
| Moderate (n=106) | −300 (−451, -150) | −289 (−442, -137) | −165 (−323, -7) | −144 (−305, 16) |
| High (n=136) | −363 (−503, -223) | −381 (−523, -239) | −274 (−419, -130) | −278 (−425, -131) |
| | ||||
| −146 (−441, 149) | −109 (−406, 188) | −114 (−416, 189) | −82 (−385, 220) | |
| −153 (−395, 88) | −178 (−421, 65) | −114 (−361, 134) | −133 (−382, 116) | |
| Low (n=57) | −144 (−322, 44) | −140 (−331, 50) | −11 (−205, 183) | 9 (−188, 205) |
| Moderate (n=60) | −488 (−673, -304) | −489 (−676, -302) | −389 (−588, -191) | −403 (−602, -204) |
| High (n=43) | −386 (−594, -178) | −383 (−596, -170) | −247 (−463, -31) | −217 (−438, 3) |
| | ||||
| −153 (−396, 90) | −169 (−415, 77) | −114 (−361, 134) | −126 (−375, 123) | |
| −420 (−584, -255) | −429 (−599, -259) | −249 (−427, -72) | −245 (−428, -62) | |
Note. CI Confidence interval, Effect estimate (β) is in grams.
Trend test is for charcoal use only and garbage burning only exposure categories.
LPG users (n=161) served as reference category for all exposure categories.
Effect estimates adjusted for age, social class, marital status and gravidity of mothers, and sex of neonate.
Unadjusted and Adjusted Risk of Low Birth Weight attributable to Cooking Fuel Use and Garbage Burning at Home
| 1.28 (0.58, 2.84) | 1.41 (0.62, 3.23) | 1.10 (0.39, 3.12) | 1.14 (0.39, 3.35) | |
| Low (n=40) | 2.42 (1.14, 5.11) | 2.89 (1.34, 6.21) | 2.12 (0.78, 5.73) | 2.05 (0.76, 5.56) |
| Moderate (n=106) | 2.63 (1.46, 4.73) | 2.70 (1.51, 4.84) | 1.71 (0.75, 3.91) | 1.59 (0.72, 3.53) |
| High (n=136) | 2.29 (1.28, 4.09) | 2.41 (1.34, 4.35) | 1.88 (0.89, 4.01) | 1.79 (0.81, 3.94) |
| | ||||
| 0.97 (0.37, 2.58) | 1.09 (0.41, 2.93) | 1.07 (0.32, 3.54) | 1.05 (0.31, 3.59) | |
| 2.91 (1.12, 7.56) | 2.95 (1.10, 7.92) | 2.75 (0.84, 8.99) | 2.77 (0.81, 9.52) | |
| Low (n=57) | 2.30 (0.96, 5.49) | 2.50 (1.03, 6.04) | 1.53 (0.46, 5.17) | 1.56 (0.45, 5.42) |
| Moderate (n=60) | 3.88 (1.82, 8.28) | 4.32 (2.03, 9.20) | 3.71 (1.41, 9.74) | 3.95 (1.50, 10.42) |
| High (n=43) | 4.06 (1.84, 8.97) | 4.59 (2.01, 10.48) | 3.61 (1.31, 9.96) | 3.59 (1.20, 10.77) |
| | ||||
| 2.91 (1.12, 7.56) | 2.80 (1.04, 7.54) | 2.75 (0.84, 8.99) | 2.60 (0.76, 8.88) | |
| 3.72 (1.81, 7.66) | 4.16 (2.02, 8.59) | 3.03 (1.18, 7.76) | 3.06 (1.15, 8.14) | |
Note. RR Risk ratio, CI Confidence interval.
Trend analysis is for charcoal use only and garbage use only exposure categories.
LPG users (n=161) served as reference category for all exposure categories.
Risk ratios adjusted for age, social class, marital status and gravidity of mothers, and sex of neonate.