| Literature DB >> 35935708 |
Jonathan C K Wells1, Akanksha A Marphatia2, Dharma S Manandhar3, Mario Cortina-Borja1, Alice M Reid2, Naomi S Saville4.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Women's nutritional status is important for their health and reproductive fitness. In a population where early marriage is common, we investigated how women's nutritional status is associated with their age at marriage (marking a geographical transfer between households), and at first pregnancy. Methodology: We used data from a cluster-randomized control trial from lowland Nepal (n = 4071). Outcomes including body mass index (BMI) were measured in early pregnancy and trial endpoint, after delivery. We fitted mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models to estimate associations of age at marriage and age at pregnancy with outcomes, and with odds of chronic energy deficiency (CED, BMI <18.5 kg/m2), at both timepoints.Entities:
Keywords: child marriage; maternal capital; maternal nutrition; pregnancy; reproductive scheduling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935708 PMCID: PMC9346504 DOI: 10.1093/emph/eoac025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Med Public Health ISSN: 2050-6201
Figure 1.Conceptual diagram illustrating how the timing of the transition from the natal to the marital household may shape a woman’s nutritional status, as assessed by BMI. Natal households with lower resources and experiencing food insecurity may have limited capacity to invest in their daughter, which could lead to them marrying her at younger age, and with poor nutritional status. Natal households with greater resources may fund both their daughter’s education and her adolescent increase in BMI, leading to them marrying their daughter at a later age and with better nutritional status. These patterns interact with the daughter’s experience in the marital household, as they may shape both the timing of her pregnancy and her nutritional status when pregnancy occurs. Her nutritional status may continue to improve in the marital household if her pregnancy is delayed. These dynamics affect the fitness of the father, as maternal nutritional status represents a key developmental niche in which his genes are expressed in the offspring
Summary statistics of the sample (n = 4701)
|
| % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at marriage (year) | |||
| ≤14 | 834 | 20.5 | |
| 15 | 976 | 24.0 | |
| 16 | 930 | 22.8 | |
| ≥17 | 1331 | 32.7 | |
| Age at pregnancy (year) | |||
| ≤15 | 367 | 9.0 | |
| 16 | 583 | 14.3 | |
| 17 | 1042 | 25.6 | |
| 18 | 555 | 13.6 | |
| ≥19 | 1524 | 37.4 | |
| Maternal education | |||
| Never went to school | 1950 | 47.9 | |
| Primary | 510 | 12.5 | |
| Lower secondary | 632 | 15.5 | |
| Secondary or higher | 979 | 24.0 | |
| Husband’s education | |||
| Never went to school | 1638 | 40.2 | |
| Primary | 464 | 11.4 | |
| Lower secondary | 745 | 18.3 | |
| Secondary or higher | 1224 | 30.1 | |
| Caste | |||
| Dalit/Muslim disadvantaged | 1303 | 32.0 | |
| Janjati/middle class | 1815 | 44.6 | |
| Yadav/Brahmin least disadvantaged | 953 | 23.4 | |
| Land ownership | |||
| No | 1295 | 31.8 | |
| Yes | 2775 | 68.2 | |
| Asset quintile | |||
| 1 | 767 | 18.8 | |
| 2 | 940 | 23.1 | |
| 3 | 1147 | 28.2 | |
| 4 | 1216 | 29.9 | |
| Study arm | |||
| Control | 957 | 23.5 | |
| Women’s group | 914 | 22.5 | |
| Cash | 1215 | 29.8 | |
| Food | 985 | 24.2 | |
| n | Mean | SD | |
| Height (cm) | 4052 | 150.8 | 5.4 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||
| Early pregnancy | 1409 | 20.9 | 2.2 |
| Endpoint | 3385 | 19.6 | 2.4 |
| MUAC (cm) | n | Mean | SD |
| Early pregnancy | 1409 | 23.5 | 2.0 |
| Endpoint | 3412 | 23.4 | 2.2 |
Missing data (n = 1).
Figure 2.Interactive associations of nutritional status with age at marriage and age at first pregnancy. (a) Heat map of age at pregnancy and age at marriage for the sample of 4071 women. Twenty percent of the cohort had been married ≤14 years, and 49% had their first pregnancy ≤17 years. (b) Heat map of the time interval (years) between marriage and pregnancy. (c) Plot for BMI. (d) Plot for MUAC. Among those pregnant at ≤15 years, earlier marriage was associated with lower BMI and MUAC (P < 0.05). Among those pregnant at ≥19 years, however, earlier marriage was associated with higher BMI (P < 0.05 for trend)
Associations of age at marriage and pregnancy with BMI and MUAC in early pregnancy and endpoint
| Early pregnancy ( | Endpoint ( | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI (kg/m2) | MUAC (cm) | BMI (kg/m2) | MUAC (cm) | |||||||||
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
| |
| Marriage age | ||||||||||||
| Crude model (years) | ||||||||||||
| ≤14 | −0.22 | −0.56, 0.12 | 0.2 | −0.04 | −0.35, 0.26 | 0.7 | −0.04 | −0.26, 0.19 | 0.7 | −0.01 | −0.21, 0.20 | 0.9 |
| 15 | −0.06 | −0.38, 0.26 | 0.7 | −0.04 | −0.32, 0.24 | 0.7 | 0.08 | −0.14, 0.29 | 0.4 | 0.01 | −0.19, 0.21 | 0.9 |
| 16 y | −0.25 | −0.55, 0.05 | 0.1 | −0.06 | −0.33, 0.21 | 0.6 | −0.08 | −0.30, 0.14 | 0.4 | −0.08 | −0.29, 0.12 | 0.4 |
| 17+ | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||
| Adjusted model | ||||||||||||
| ≤14 | 0.07 | −0.32, 0.46 | 0.7 | 0.08 | −0.26, 0.43 | 0.4 | 0.33 | 0.08, 0.58 | 0.009 | 0.42 | 0.19, 0.65 | <0.001 |
| 15 | 0.28 | −0.08, 0.65 | 0.1 | 0.07 | —0.25, 0.39 | 0.2 | 0.43 | 0.0.19, 0.66 | <0.001 | 0.35 | 0.14, 0.57 | 0.001 |
| 16 | −0.00 | —0.32, 0.33 | 0.9 | 0.06 | −0.23, 0.35 | 0.6 | 0.21 | −0.02, 0.45 | 0.078 | 0.21 | 0.00, 0.43 | 0.049 |
| 17+ | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||
| Pregnancy age | ||||||||||||
| Crude model (years) | ||||||||||||
| ≤15 | −0.98 | −1.42, −0.54 | <0.001 | −0.62 | −1.01, −0.22 | 0.002 | −0.87 | −1.17, −0.57 | <0.001 | −0.99 | −1.27, −0.71 | <0.001 |
| 16 | −0.72 | −1.08, −0.37 | <0.001 | −0.30 | −0.62, 0.01 | 0.057 | −0.55 | −0.79, 0.30 | <0.001 | −0.60 | −0.83, −0.37 | <0.001 |
| 17 | −0.47 | −0.77, −0.17 | 0.002 | −0.41 | −0.68, −0.15 | 0.002 | −0.45 | −0.65, −0.24 | <0.001 | −0.51 | −0.70, −0.32 | <0.001 |
| 18 | −0.52 | −0.89, −0.14 | 0.007 | −0.52 | −0.86, −0.19 | 0.002 | −0.61 | −0.85, −0.36 | <0.001 | −0.66 | −0.89, −0.43 | <0.001 |
| 19+ | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||
| Adjusted model | ||||||||||||
| ≤15 | −1.05 | −1.55, −0.26 | <0.001 | −0.61 | −1.04, −0.16 | 0.007 | −0.88 | −1.21, −0.56 | <0.001 | −1.08 | −1.38, −0.78 | <0.001 |
| 16 | −0.80 | −1.20, −0.41 | <0.001 | −0.32 | −0.67, 0.03 | 0.078 | −0.69 | −0.96, −0.42 | <0.001 | −0.70 | −0.95, −0.46 | <0.001 |
| 17 | −0.43 | −0.74, −0.11 | 0.008 | −0.38 | −0.66, −0.10 | 0.008 | −0.46 | −0.68, −0.24 | <0.001 | −0.52 | −0.72, −0.33 | <0.001 |
| 18 | −0.42 | −0.80, −0.05 | 0.028 | −0.46 | −0.79 −0.13 | 0.007 | −0.47 | −0.72, −0.22 | <0.001 | −0.58 | −0.80, −0.35 | <0.001 |
| 19+ | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||
Twenty-six missing data points for BMI.
Adjusted models are mixed-effects models, controlling for caste, maternal and paternal education, land ownership, assets, cluster and study arm. In addition, marriage age model controlled for pregnancy age, and vice versa.
Associations of age at marriage and pregnancy with the risk of CED in early pregnancy and at endpoint
| Early pregnancy ( | Endpoint ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI |
| OR | 95% CI |
| |
| Marriage age | ||||||
| ≤14 | 0.93 | 0.53, 1.64 | 0.8 | 0.76 | 0.61, 0.96 | 0.019 |
| 15 | 0.83 | 0.49, 1.41 | 0.4 | 0.76 | 0.62, 0.95 | 0.013 |
| 16 | 1.08 | 0.69, 1.71 | 0.7 | 0.90 | 0.73, 1.11 | 0.3 |
| 17+ | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Pregnancy age | ||||||
| ≤15 | 2.13 | 1.09, 4.16 | 0.089 | 1.57 | 1.17, 2.10 | 0.003 |
| 16 | 1.59 | 0.90, 2.79 | 0.1 | 1.24 | 0.97, 1.58 | 0.083 |
| 17 | 1.27 | 0.80, 2.01 | 0.3 | 1.11 | 0.91, 1.35 | 0.2 |
| 18 | 1.58 | 0.94, 2.66 | 0.085 | 1.21 | 0.97, 1.51 | 0.094 |
| 19+ year (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for caste, maternal and paternal education, land ownership, asset quartile, study arm and cluster.
CED categorized as BMI <18.5 kg/m2.