Association between concurrence of multiple risk factors and under-5 mortality: a pooled analysis of data from Demographic and Health Survey in 61 low-and-middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Exposure to multiple risk factors is prevalent in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), challenging one-directional strategies to address preventable under-5 mortality (U5M). This study aims to assess the associations between concurrence of multiple risk factors and U5M in LMICs. Methods We extracted data from the Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2010 and 2021 across 61 LMICs. Our primary outcome was U5M, defined as deaths from birth to 59 months. Binary logistic regression model was applied to ascertain the association between U5M and a total of 20 critical risk factors. Upon identifying the risk factors demonstrating the strongest associations, we investigated the simultaneous presence of multiple risk factors in each individual and assessed their combined effects on U5M with logistic regression models. Findings Of the 604,372 under-5 children, 18,166 (3.0%) died at the time of the survey. Unsatisfied family planning needs was the strongest risk factor for U5M (odds ratio [OR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9–2.1), followed by short birth interval (<18 months; OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.9–2.1), small birth size (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8–2.1), never breastfed or delayed breastfeeding (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.9–2.0), and low maternal education (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.4–1.8). 66.7% (66.6%–66.8%) of the children had 2 or more leading risk factors simultaneously. Simultaneous presence of multiple leading risk factors was significantly associated with elevated risk of U5M and children presenting with all 5 leading risk factors exhibited an exceedingly high risk of U5M (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.3–6.3); a dose–response relationship between the number of risk factors and U5M was also observed–with the increment of numbers of leading risk factors, the U5M showed an increasing trend ( p-trend < 0.001). Interpretation Exposure to multiple risk factors is very common in LMICs and underscores the necessity of developing multisectoral and integrated approaches to accelerate progress in reducing U5M in line with the SDG 3.2. Funding This research is funded by Research Fund, Vanke School of Public Health, Tsinghua University.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".