Associations of women’s empowerment with neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality in low- and /middle-income countries: meta-analysis of individual participant data from 59 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Child survival and women's empowerment are global public health concerns and important sustainable development goals (SDGs). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have the largest burden of both phenomena. The aim of this study is to investigate a measure of women's empowerment at individual and population levels and its potential associations with neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality at national and regional levels in 59 LMICs. Methods: We used pooled population-based cross-sectional surveys from 59 LMICs (n=6 12 529) conducted from 2000 to 2015 using standardised protocols. We constructed individual-level women's empowerment index (ILWEI) and population-level women's empowerment index (PLWEI) for LMICs and investigated the potential associations of these measures with neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality using two-stage random-effect individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Results: The pooled neonatal mortality rate was 24 per 1000 live births. Infant and under-5 mortality rates were 43 and 55/1000 live births, respectively. In the pooled sample, 61.6% and 19.9% of women had autonomy regarding their healthcare and household decision-making, respectively, whereas 56.0% rejected domestic violence against women for any reason. IPD meta-analysis showed that children of women with low ILWEI had a higher risk of neonatal (OR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.22), infant (OR: 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.17) and under-5 (OR: 1.12, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.18) mortality compared with children of high ILWEI. Similar relationships were found across most of the regions as well as between PLWEI and all the three outcomes. Conclusions: Women's empowerment at individual and population levels is associated with neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality in LMICs. Our study underscores the importance of women's empowerment in accelerating progress towards the attainment of the SDG targets for child survival in LMICs. Multi-sectoral and concerted efforts are necessary to eliminate preventable child mortality in these countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".