Are children in female-headed households at a disadvantage? An analysis of immunization coverage and stunting prevalence: in 95 low- and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of inequalities in child health have given limited attention to household structure and headship. The few existing reports on child outcomes in male and female-headed households have produced inconsistent results. The aim of our analyses was to provide a global view of the influence of sex of the household head on child health in cross-sectional surveys from up to 95 LMICs. Studied outcomes were full immunization coverage in children aged 12-23 months and stunting prevalence in under-five children. We analyzed the most recent nationally-representative surveys for each country (since 2010) with available data. After initial exploratory analyses, we focused on three types of households: a) male-headed household (MHH) comprised 73.1% of all households in the pooled analyses; b) female Headed Household (FHH) with at least one adult male represented 9.8% of households; and c) FHH without an adult male accounted for 15.0% of households. Our analyses also included the following covariates: wealth index, education of the child's mother and urban/rural residence. Meta-analytic approaches were used to calculate pooled effects across the countries with MHH as the reference category. Regarding full immunization, the pooled prevalence ratio for FHH (any male) was 0.99 (0.97; 1.01) and that for FHH (no male) was 0.99 (0.97; 1.02). For stunting prevalence, the pooled prevalence ratio for FHH (any male) was 1.00 (0.98; 1.02) and for FHH (no male) was 1.00 (0.98; 1.02). Adjustment for covariates did not lead to any noteworthy change in the results. No particular patterns were found among different world regions. A few countries presented significant inequalities with different directions of association, indicating the diversity of FHH and how complex the meaning and measurement of household headship may be. Further research is warranted to understand context, examine mediating factors, and exploring alternative definitions of household headship in countries with some association.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".