Malnutrition and birth related determinants among children in Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

Little is known about the effect of birth weight, birth order and number of siblings on the nutritional status in children in Iran, especially in Qazvin province. The aim of this study was to provide the current data on malnutrition and birth related determinants among children in Qazvin, Iran. This study was conducted in six cities of Qazvin province (Iran), during December 2009-December 2010. Data on age, weight and height were taken and birth weight, number of children in family, birth order, parental career and educational state and family caretaker were collected by a questionnaire that a trained team filled in. Sample size was1351, almost 225 children under 6-years-old from each city participated in the study (692 boys and 659 girls). In each city, subjects were randomly selected among children who had profiles at health centers. The overall prevalence of wasting, stunting and underweight was 10.3%, 5.8% and 4.8% respectively. There was association between 'birth weight' and wasting ( P = 0.022), stunting ( P = 0.032) and underweight ( P < 0.001). A non-significant association was obtained between factors 'number of children at home' and 'birth order' with wasting, stunting and underweight. These data suggest that birth weight can influence malnutrition indicators; therefore, knowing risk factors of malnutrition in population subgroups is important for planners in country because it helps the future studies concentrate on the most determining ones.

Association of number of siblings, birth order, and thinness in 3- to 12-year-old children: a population-based cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China

“…A previous study reported that a larger number of siblings increased the odds ratio for thinness for girls but not for boys [23]. By contrast, one study showed no relationship between the number of siblings or birth order and thinness [24].…”

“…Other studies indicated that having a larger number of siblings was associated with a more significant decrease in BMI [18,31]. One study, however, reported that there was no association between the number of siblings and thinness [24], whereas another study found that thinness was more common in girls than in boys [23]. One possible explanation is the effect of behavior and interaction among family members.…”

Association of number of siblings, birth order, and thinness in 3- to 12-year-old children: a population-based cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China

“…Regarding birth order, a higher birth order has been reported to signi cantly increase ORs for undernutrition [20][21][22]36], which is consistent with our results. In contrast, some studies have not found a relationship between BMI or thinness and birth order [24,32]. Thus, the association of birth order with childhood thinness remains unclear; however, differences in fetal nutrition and changes in some factors related to growth development in early life may explain this outcome.…”

“…Other studies indicated that having a larger number of siblings was associated with a more signi cant decrease in BMI [18,32]. One study, however, reported that there was no association between the number of siblings and thinness [24], whereas another study found that thinness was more common in girls than in boys [23]. One possible explanation is the effect of behavior and interaction among family members.…”

“…Childhood characteristics included age (in years), sex (boy, girl), birthweight (<2,500, 2,500-4,000, or ≥4,000 g), feeding pattern (breast-feeding, formulary-feeding, mixed-feeding), parental ages at childbirth (<25, 25-34, or ≥35 years old), workday TV time (<1, 1-3, or >3 hours/day), Internet use time (<2, 2-4, or >4 hours/day), and snacking frequency (0, 1-3, or >3 times/day) were considered as potential prenatal confounding factors [24,29,30]. Family characteristics included parental education level, which was divided into low (illiterate, primary school, or junior high school), middle (senior high school, technical school, or college), and high (undergraduate or above).…”