| Literature DB >> 24847401 |
Mohidul Islam1, Shahinur Rahman1, Mominul Islam1, Abdus Samad1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to address the current scenario of LBW and infant nutritional and to analyze the effect of maternal status and pattern of their breast feeding practices on perinatal and postnatal infant development.Entities:
Keywords: Breast feeding; Low birth weight; infant growth; maternal anthropometry; maternal socio-demography
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24847401 PMCID: PMC4024436 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2013.16.139.2755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Relative distribution of infant according to their birth weight and categories of maternal variables.
| Variable | Total | Birth Weight (gm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <2500 (LBW | 2500-2999 | ≥3000 | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| Up to 20 | 110(21.57) | 34(30.9) | 48(43.6) | 28(25.5) |
| 21-25 | 282(55.29) | 80(28.4) | 112(39.7) | 90(31.9) |
| 26-30 | 55(10.78) | 13(23.6) | 20(36.4) | 22(40) |
| ≥ 31 | 63(12.35) | 23(36.5) | 23(36.5) | 17(27) |
|
| ||||
| Illiterate | 58(11.37) | 32(55.2) | 15(25.9) | 11(18.9) |
| Primary | 75(14.71) | 35(46.7) | 32(42.6) | 08(10.7) |
| class 6- S.S.C | 272(53.33) | 69(25.3) | 11542.3) | 88(32.4) |
| H.S.C | 52(10.20) | 11(21.2) | 26(50) | 15(28.8) |
| Graduation & above | 53(10.39) | 03(5.7) | 1528.3) | 35(66) |
|
| ||||
| Up to 3999 | 81(15.88) | 35(43.2) | 28(34.6) | 18(22.2) |
| 4000-7999 | 135(26.47) | 42(31.1) | 62(45.9) | 31(23.0) |
| 8000-11999 | 119(23.33) | 36(30.1) | 46(38.7) | 37(31.1) |
| 12000-15999 | 87(17.05/ | 25(28.7) | 32(36.8) | 30(34.5) |
| ≥16000 | 88(17.25) | 12(13.6) | 3539.8) | 41(46.6) |
|
| ||||
| Up to 144.9 | 74(14.51) | 32(43.2) | 22(29.8) | 20(27) |
| 145-149.9 | 89(17.45) | 33(37.1) | 28(31.5) | 28(31.4) |
| 150-154.9 | 101(19.8) | 27(26.7) | 46(45.5) | 28(27.8) |
| 155-159.9 | 118(23.14) | 32(27.1) | 52(45.7) | 32(27.7) |
| 160-164.9 | 61(11.96) | 13(21.3) | 25(41) | 25(37.7) |
| ≥165 | 67(13.14) | 13(19.4) | 28(41.8) | 26(38.8) |
|
| ||||
| Up to 45.9 | 57(11.18) | 30(52.6) | 10(17.5) | 17(29.8) |
| 46-49.9 | 75(14.71) | 38(50.7) | 22(29.3) | 15(20) |
| 50-54.9 | 120(23.53) | 30(25) | 53(44.2) | 37(30.8) |
| 55-59.9 | 106(20.78) | 30(28.3) | 49(46.2) | 27(25.5) |
| ≥60 | 152(29.8) | 22(14.5) | 69(45.4) | 61(40.1) |
|
| ||||
| ≤ 22.0 | 75(14.71) | 41(54.7) | 25(33.3) | 09(12.0) |
| 22.1-24 | 118(23.14) | 42(35.6) | 51(43.2) | 25(21.2) |
| 24.1-26 | 133(26.08) | 33(24.8) | 55(41.4) | 45(33.8) |
| 26.1-28 | 83(16.27) | 19(22.9) | 31(38.6) | 33(39.7) |
| 28.1-29 | 50(9.8) | 10(20.0) | 18(36.0) | 22(44.0) |
| >29 | 51(10) | 05(9.8) | 23(45.0) | 23(45.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LBW = Low Birth Weight, S.S.C. = Secondary School Certificate, H.S.C. = Higher Secondary School Certificate.
Independent effects of demographic, socio-economic and anthropometric risk factors for risk for low birth weight (LBW) analyzed by binary logistic regression.
| Socio-demographic Factors | Pearson Chi-Square |
| OR |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.151 | 0.697 | 1.095 (0.693- 1.732) |
|
| 20.917 | 0.000 | 3.484 (1.993-6.089) |
|
| 8.830 | 0.003 | 2.078 (1.274-3.387) |
|
| 12.639 | 0.000 | 2.044 (1.374- 3.043) |
|
| 41.910 | 0.000 | 3.835 (2.520- 5.837) |
|
| 24.817 | 0.000 | 3.385 (2.058- 5.567) |
OR: Odd Ratio.
Maternal age > 20 years, Literate, Family income ≥ 4000 Tk, Maternal height ≥ 150 cm, Maternal weight ≥ 50 kg and maternal MUAC ≥ 22 cm was considered as reference categories.
Figure 1Distribution of infants according to birth weight
Figure 2Infants with LBW according to category of risk factors (Total number of LBW infants = 150)
Pattern of Breastfeeding practice
| Breast Feeding Practice | Total Number (%) | Positive | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initiated breastfeeding within one hour of child birth. | 510 (100) | 312(61.1) | 198(38.9) |
| Give pre-lacteal feeds. | 510 (100) | 107(21) | 403(79) |
| Breastfed on child demand. | 510 (100) | 464(90.9) | 46(9.1) |
| Children that Breastfed Exclusively (EBF) for the first six months of life. | 510 (100) | 230(45) | 280(55) |
| Continuing and will continue breastfeeding for 2 years. | 510 (100) | 499(97.8) | 11(2.2) |
Prevalence of wasting Stunting and wasting and wasting according to pattern of exclusive breastfeeding practice
| Breast Feeding Status | Maternal age Group 26-30 years | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wasting | Stunting and wasting | Stunting | |||||
| Number | Present | Absent | Present | Absent | Present | Absent | |
| Exclusive Breast Feed Infant | 25 (100) | 02 (8) | 23 (92) | 01 (4) | 24 (96) | 04 (16) | 21 (84) |
| Non-Exclusive Breastfeed Infant | 30 (100) | 06 (20) | 24 (80) | 03 (10) | 27 (90) | 08 (26.7) | 22 (73.3) |
| Total | 55 (100) | 8 (14.5) | 47 (85.5) | 04 (7.3) | 51 (92.7) | 12 (21.8) | 43 (78.20) |
|
| |||||||
| Exclusive Breast Feed Infant | 25 (100) | 04 (24) | 21 (76) | 02 (8) | 23 (92) | 11 (44) | 14 (56) |
| Non-Exclusive Breastfeed Infant | 38 (100) | 15 (39.5) | 23 (60.5) | 07 (18.4) | 31 (81.6) | 20 (52.6) | 18 (47.4) |
| Total | 63 (100) | 19 (31.1) | 44 (69.9) | 09 (14.3) | 54 (85.7) | 31 (49.2) | 32 (50.8) |
Independent Effects of exclusive breast feeding practice for risk for infant growth retardation analyzed by binary logistic regression
| Effect | Pearson Chi-Square |
| OR |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Wasting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 1.580 | 0.209 | 2.875 (0.526- 15.729) |
| Stunting and Wasting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 0.728 | 0.617 | 2.667 (0.260- 27.381) |
| Stunting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 0.910 | 0.340 | 1.909 (0.499- 7.298) |
|
| |||
| Wasting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 3.945 | 0.047 | 3.424 (0.979- 11.969) |
| Stunting and Wasting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 1.337 | 0.298 | 2.597 (0.493- 13.677) |
| Stunting (Non-EBF vs. EBF) | 0.450 | 0.503 | 1.414 (0.513- 3.900) |
OR: Odd Ratio.
Exclusive Breast Feeding (EBF) was considered as reference category