Prevalence and associated factors of undernutrition among adolescents in India: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undernutrition is a major public health challenge among Indian adolescents in India where 253 million of them are in the age group of 10-19 years. In spite of several intensive efforts through various program interventions and care, research studies find a less encouraging improvement in nutritional scenarios. The present systematic review aimed to determine the pooled prevalence and associated factors of undernutrition (stunting and underweight) among Indian adolescents. METHODS: We searched e-databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library for the period between the years 2000 and 2021. The peer-reviewed and empirical studies analyzing the prevalence of undernutrition among Indian adolescents and its associated factors were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the study reports included in the review was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The random-effect model with the Dersimonian and Laird method, at 95% confidence intervals, was used for estimating the overall effect. Subgroup analysis was conducted to investigate the possible sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed through visual examination of funnel plots and objectively by Egger's regression test. RESULTS: A total of forty eligible studies with a pooled sample size of 67,865 adolescents were included to determine the prevalence of undernutrition among adolescents in India. The pooled prevalence of stunting and underweight in India was 41.1% (95% CI: 35.9, 46.0) and 32.6% (95% CI: 26.8, 37.1) respectively. It was also found that the rate of stunting prevalence was high among late adolescents and underweight was high among early adolescents. Age, gender, income, family size, caste, parental education, and occupation were the significant associated factors of the prevalence of stunting and underweight among adolescents in India. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of stunting and underweight among adolescents is still a high concern in India. The results of this review posit the need of an integrated effort to reduce undernutrition in India and identify research priorities in this field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".