Magnitude and associated factors of anemia among adolescent girls in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Ethiopia, there are primary studies on adolescent anemia with imprecise and inconclusive findings. Besides, there was no meta-analysis pooled the magnitude and associated factors of anemia among adolescent girls in Ethiopia. Estimating the pooled magnitude and associated factors of anemia among adolescent girls is helpful for evidence-based interventions in Ethiopia. METHODS: The authors used a preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). We included articles and survey reports published until May 2021 using searching engines of Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. To assess the quality of studies, we used Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for non-randomized. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the studies. We computed the pool magnitude and odds ratio of the associated factors with their 95%CI using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Publication bias assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULT: In this review, we included a total of 15 studies with 9,669 adolescent girls. Using the random-effects model, the pooled magnitude of anemia among the Ethiopian adolescent girls was 19.1% (95%CI: 16.1%, 24.6%). The associated factors were attained menarche (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.96), ≥ 5 days of blood flow during menses (AOR = 6.21), food insecurity (AOR = 1.48), inadequate diet diversity score (AOR = 2.81), presence of intestinal parasite (AOR = 3.51), low body mass index (AOR = 2.49), and rural residence (AOR = 1.79). CONCLUSION: The pooled magnitude of anemia among adolescent girls in Ethiopia was 19.1% depicting a mild public health problem; while attained menarche, ≥ 5 days' blood flow during menses, food insecurity, inadequate diet diversity score, intestinal parasites, low body mass index, and rural residence were the associated factors. Hence, addressing health and nutrition wellness of adolescent girls should be center of concern in health, nutrition, agriculture, research, strategies and policies in Ethiopia.
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 | 0.026 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".