Obstetric Risk Factors Affecting Incidence of Low Birth Weight in Live-Born Infants

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the incidence of low birth weight (LBW) in the indigenous population of Al Ain and to identify some risk factors associated with it. The population studied included all consecutive deliveries, occurring in the 3 hospitals in Al Ain City, where almost all deliveries take place, during a 1-year period. When a LBW infant (< 2,500 g) was born, gestational age assessment was made and a questionnaire completed during an interview with the mother. For control, the first baby who weighed more than 2,500 g at birth, following the birth of a LBW was recruited. It was found that a total of 3,485 live births occurred of which 293 were classified as LBW, giving an LBW incidence of 8.4%. Of these, 73 (24.9%) were small for gestational age ( < 10th percentile for gestational age). Overall, the mothers of LBW infants were found to be statistically significantly younger in age. The mothers of LBW infants also had a significantly higher number of previous LBW deliveries, twin deliveries and a larger number of premature rupture of membranes. The factors that were not significantly different in the 2 groups were diabetes during pregnancy, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, occurrence of significant infection during pregnancy, 1st and 2nd trimester bleeding, and antepartum hemorrhage. This is the first comprehensive study on the incidence of LBW infants in the United Arab Emirates. The main obstetric factors responsible for this were found to be age, number of previous LBW babies, premature rupture of membranes and multiple births.

A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity

“…In the Middle East, where the religion of the majority of the population is Islam, consanguineous marriages are common, the rate being very high in Kuwait (54.2%) (Al-Awadi et al 1985) and Saydi Arabia (54.3%) (Saedi Wong & A1 Frayh 1989) and high in Egypt (22%) (Hafez et al 1983), Lebanon (25%) (Khlat & Khadr 1984), Syria (33%) (Prothro & Diab 1974), Algeria (23%) (Benallegue & Kedji 1984) and Jordan (41%) (Prothro & Diab 1974) and in Israeli-Arab settlements in Israel (44.3%) (Jaber et al 1994). In the Emirates, like the rest of the Gulf countries, the consanguineous marriage rate was found to be very high and, in fact, the 50.5% consanguinity rate found in the present study is higher than previously reported (45%) (Abdulrazzaq et al 1995) from the same area.…”

“…This study was conducted on a representative sample of 2200 UAE women resident in Dubai and A1 A h and aged 15 years and above during the period between October 1994 and March 1995. This number is representative of the population and was obtained by computing for 99% confidence limits and with 2.5% error bound, and based on previous knowledge of a rate of consanguinity of 45% (Abdulrazzaq et al 1995). True estimates of required numbers to be studied can be obtained by allowing a Type 1 error of 2.5% and a level of significance of 1%, when an estimate of the predicted prevalence is available.…”

Size at birth in a rapidly developing economy: intrauterine growth pattern of UAE infants

“…The most comprehensive study of socio-demographic and obstetric determinants of low birth weight among United Emirates nationals found an incidence of low birth weight of 8.4%, which is lower than figures from developing countries but is two-fold higher than figures from developed countries (Abdulrazzaq et al 1995;Dawodu et al 1996). An accurate classification of the low birth weight infants according to intrauterine growth patterns was not possible in that UAE study due to a lack of published local intrauterine growth standards.…”

Consanguinity and Associated Socio-Demographic Factors in the United Arab Emirates

“…The total number of UAE females aged 15 years and above was estimated to be 136.500 [17], Stratifica tion was based upon geographical location. The sample size was determined with the a priori knowledge that the incidence rate of consanguineous marriages in the UAE population was relatively high (45%) [18] with an allowed error of 2.5% and a level of significance (type I error) of 1 %. It is believed that such a sample is ade quate to achieve a high degree of precision in estimat ing the true incidence rate in the general population.…”