Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539669›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2014

Determinants and consequences of short birth interval in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.

Hendrik C C de Jonge, Kishwar Azad, Nadine Seward, Abdul Kuddus, Sanjit Shaha, James Beard, Anthony Costello, Tanja A J Houweling, Ed Fottrell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hendrik C C de JongeInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. h.c.c.dejonge@erasmusmc.nl.
Kishwar AzadPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. kishwar.azad@googlemail.com.
Nadine SewardInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. n.seward@ucl.ac.uk.
Abdul KuddusPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. kudduspcp@dab-bd.org.
Sanjit ShahaPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. sanjitpcp@dab-bd.org.
James BeardInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. j.beard@ucl.ac.uk.
Anthony CostelloInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. cihdcostello@gmail.com.
Tanja A J HouwelingInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. tanja.houweling@gmail.com.
Ed FottrellInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. e.fottrell@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 085417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShort birth intervals are known to have negative effects on pregnancy outcomes. We analysed data from a large population surveillance system in rural Bangladesh to identify predictors of short birth interval and determine consequences of short intervals on pregnancy outcomes.

methodsThe study was conducted in three districts of Bangladesh - Bogra, Moulavibazar and Faridpur (population 282,643, 54,668 women of reproductive age). We used data between January 2010 and June 2011 from a key informant surveillance system that recorded all births, deaths and stillbirths. Short birth interval was defined as an interval between consecutive births of less than 33 months. Initially, risk factors of a short birth interval were determined using a multivariate mixed effects logistic regression model. Independent risk factors were selected using a priori knowledge from literature review. An adjusted mixed effects logistic regression model was then used to determine the effect of up to 21-, 21-32-, 33-44- and 45-month and higher birth-to-birth intervals on pregnancy outcomes controlling for confounders selected through a directed acyclic graph.

resultsWe analysed 5,571 second or higher order deliveries. Average birth interval was 55 months and 1368/5571 women (24.6%) had a short birth interval (<33 months). Younger women (AOR 1.11 95% CI 1.08-1.15 per year increase in age), women who started their reproductive life later (AOR 0.95, 0.92-0.98 per year) and those who achieve higher order parities were less likely to experience short birth intervals (AOR 0.28, 0.19-0.41 parity 4 compared to 1). Women who were socioeconomically disadvantaged were more likely to experience a short birth interval (AOR 1.42, 1.22-1.65) and a previous adverse outcome was an important determinant of interval (AOR 2.10, 1.83-2.40). Very short birth intervals of less than 21 months were associated with increased stillbirth rate (AOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.28-3.53) and neonatal mortality (AOR 2.28 95% CI 1.28-4.05).

conclusionsBirth spacing remains a reproductive health problem in Bangladesh. Disadvantaged women are more likely to experience short birth intervals and to have increased perinatal deaths. Research into causal pathways and strategies to improve spacing between pregnancies should be intensified.

Indexed as

Perinatal MortalityPopulation SurveillanceAdolescentAdultAge FactorsBangladeshBirth IntervalsCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornParityPregnancyReligion

Identifiers

PMID25539669
PMCPMC4314752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.