2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100211
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of biomass fuel use and kitchen location on maternal report of birth size: Cross-sectional analysis of 2016 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey data

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Birthweights obtained by maternal recall may have been subject to recall bias, but this was reduced by limiting the data collection period to births within the last five years. Although there was no evidence of an effect in our study and the reference cooking fuel differs to that of other studies, they are similar to those obtained in single-country analyses investigating the difference between biomass and cleaner fuels in Malawi (AOR, 1.29 (95% CI: 0.34; 4.48) [ 18 ]), Ethiopia (AOR, 1.3 (95% 0.9–1.9) [ 20 ]), Nigeria (−0.09 (95% CI: −0.31, 0.10) [ 17 ]), Bangladesh (AOR 0.96 (95% CI: 0.81–1.13) [ 46 ]), and India (AOR: 1.07(95% CI: 0.94–1.22) [ 47 ]). On the contrary, findings in this study were inconsistent with the population-based study from Zimbabwe which showed biomass fuel use was associated with a 175 g lower birthweight (95% CI: −300 to −50 g) [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Birthweights obtained by maternal recall may have been subject to recall bias, but this was reduced by limiting the data collection period to births within the last five years. Although there was no evidence of an effect in our study and the reference cooking fuel differs to that of other studies, they are similar to those obtained in single-country analyses investigating the difference between biomass and cleaner fuels in Malawi (AOR, 1.29 (95% CI: 0.34; 4.48) [ 18 ]), Ethiopia (AOR, 1.3 (95% 0.9–1.9) [ 20 ]), Nigeria (−0.09 (95% CI: −0.31, 0.10) [ 17 ]), Bangladesh (AOR 0.96 (95% CI: 0.81–1.13) [ 46 ]), and India (AOR: 1.07(95% CI: 0.94–1.22) [ 47 ]). On the contrary, findings in this study were inconsistent with the population-based study from Zimbabwe which showed biomass fuel use was associated with a 175 g lower birthweight (95% CI: −300 to −50 g) [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…However, only a limited number of studies from Africa were included in the meta-analyses [ 4 , 7 , 11 , 12 ], a region with a high burden of LBW [ 10 ], and predominant use of polluting fuels [ 1 ]. The studies from Africa were limited to relatively few countries, including Ghana [ 13 ], Nigeria [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], Malawi [ 18 ], Ethiopia [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], and Zimbabwe [ 22 ]. The African studies were limited to hospital-based settings [ 21 ] with a reliance on the woman’s subjective recall of the birth weight or size of the child [ 14 , 18 , 22 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then, many new studies have been conducted, focusing on a broader range of fuel types and adverse birth outcomes, and the conclusion is still inconsistent. One cohort study (27), two case-control studies (28,29), and six cross-sectional studies (30-35) suggested that polluting fuel use was related to increased risk of adverse birth outcomes, while other studies (23,24,(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47) failed to reveal a significant correlation between them. A recent review of the subject qualitatively assessed the impact of unclean cooking fuels on adverse birth outcomes, but the review was short of quantitative combined research data (48).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 10 Studies have linked cooking solid fuel use with adverse birth outcomes such as low birth weight (LBW), birth size, preterm birth, stillbirth, small for gestational age (SGA), Apgar score and neonatal mortality. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Most of previous studies have focused mainly on the association between the use of solid fuels and birth outcomes by comparing pollution fuels (wood, crop residue, animal dung, charcoal or kerosene) versus cleaner fuels (liquid petroleum gas, natural gas and/or electricity). 12 14-17 19-23 However, to our knowledge, no studies have accessed the type of cooking biomass fuels (crop residues vs fuelwood, also called 'firewood') in association with newborn birth outcomes such as birth size and LBW, even though the pollution exposure from biomass was different by type of cooking biomass fuels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have linked cooking solid fuel use with adverse birth outcomes such as low birth weight (LBW), birth size, preterm birth, stillbirth, small for gestational age (SGA), Apgar score and neonatal mortality 11–23. Most of previous studies have focused mainly on the association between the use of solid fuels and birth outcomes by comparing pollution fuels (wood, crop residue, animal dung, charcoal or kerosene) versus cleaner fuels (liquid petroleum gas, natural gas and/or electricity) 12 14–17 19–23.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%