MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3200237227 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.14859/v2

Identifying risk factors of anemia among women of reproductive age in Rwanda to inform  designing better interventions – a secondary data analysis, cross-sectional study using the Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (RDHS) data

2019· preprint· en· W3200237227 on OpenAlexafffund
Dieudonne Hakizimana, Marie Paul Nisingizwe, Jenae Logan, Rex Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Rwanda
KeywordsAnemiaMedicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionPsychological interventionDemographyCross-sectional studyConfidence intervalPopulationPublic healthOddsBivariate analysisEnvironmental healthInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anemia among Women of Reproductive Age (WRA) continues to be among the major public health problems in many developing countries including Rwanda where it was increased comparing 2015 to 2010 Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (RDHS) reports. A thorough understanding of the its risk factors is necessary to design interventions. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study with national representation assessing anemia risk factors among WRA has been conducted in Rwanda. Therefore, this study aims to identify anemia risk factors among WRA in Rwanda. Methods This was a quantitative, cross-sectional study using secondary data from the 2014-2015 RDHS data. The study population consisted of 6680 WRA who were tested for anemia during the survey. Anemia was defined as having a hemoglobin level equal or below to 10.9 g/dl for a pregnant woman, and hemoglobin level equal or below to 11.9 g/dl for a non-pregnant woman. Pearson’s chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression were conducted for bivariate and multivariable analysis respectively. We reported Odds Ratio (OR), 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) and p-values. Results The overall prevalence of anemia among WRA was 19.2% (95% CI: 18.0 - 20.5). After controlling for other variables, four factors were found associated with lower odds of anemia, they are being obese (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40 - 0.91), being in rich category (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63 - 0.87), sleeping under a mosquito net (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74 - 0.98), and using hormonal contraceptives (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.50 - 0.73). Four factors associated with higher odds of anemia were being underweight (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.78), using an Intra Uterus Device (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.05 - 3.75), and living in the Southern province (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.11 - 1.89) or in the Eastern province (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.06 - 1.88). Conclusion Anemia continues to pose public health challenges; novel public health interventions should consider geographic variations, improve women economic status, and strengthen iron supplementation especially for Intrauterine Device users. Additionally, given the association between anemia and malaria, interventions to prevent malaria should be enhanced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicIron Metabolism and Disorders→French-language works237,207→