Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27491527›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017

Unintended Childbearing and Child Growth in Northern Malawi.

Angela Baschieri, Kazuyo Machiyama, Sian Floyd, Albert Dube, Anna Molesworth, Menard Chihana, Judith R Glynn, Amelia C Crampin, Neil French, John Cleland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Didn't Plan One but got One:European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Angela BaschieriFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. angela.baschieri@lshtm.ac.uk.
Kazuyo MachiyamaFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sian FloydFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Albert DubeCommunity Health Department, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi.
Anna MolesworthSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Menard ChihanaInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Judith R GlynnFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Amelia C CrampinFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Neil FrenchInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
John ClelandFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 098610Wellcome Trust 101594
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective The study aims to assess whether unintended children experience slower growth than intended children. Methods We analysed longitudinal data linked to the Karonga Health and Demographic Surveillance Site collected over three rounds between 2008 and 2011 on women's fertility intentions and anthropometric data of children. Using the prospective information on fertility intention we assessed whether unintended children are more likely to be stunted than intended children. We applied Propensity Score Matching technique to control for endogenous factors affecting both the probability that a family has an unwanted birth and a child with poor health outcomes. Results We found that 24 % of children from unwanted pregnancies were stunted compared with 18 % of mistimed pregnancies and 17 % of those from wanted pregnancies. However, these differences in probability of children being stunted, though in the expected direction, were not significant either for large or small families, after controlling for age. The number of children in the household was associated with stunting and boys were substantially more likely to be stunted than girls. Conclusion We found no significance difference in probability of being stunted by mother's fertility intention.

Indexed as

IntentionAdolescentAdultChild DevelopmentChild, UnwantedFamily Planning ServicesFemaleGrowth DisordersHumansInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMalawiMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillancePregnancyRetrospective StudiesAfricaChild growthChild nutritionFertilityFertility intentionsFertility preferenceMalawiPropensity Score MatchingStuntingUnintended pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID27491527
PMCPMC5357271

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.