Advertisement

Factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal: evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2001–2016

  • Pramesh Raj GhimireEmail author
  • Kingsley E. Agho
  • Andre M. N. Renzaho
  • Monjura K. Nisha
  • Michael Dibley
  • Camille Raynes-Greenow
Open Access
Research article
  • 200 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Pregnancy and childbirth in low and middle income countries

Abstract

Background

Perinatal mortality is a devastating pregnancy outcome affecting millions of families in many low and middle-income countries including Nepal. This paper examined the more distant factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal.

Methods

A sample of 23,335 pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation from the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey datasets for the period (2001–2016) was analysed. Perinatal Mortality (PM) is defined as the sum of stillbirth (fetal deaths in pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation) and early neonatal mortality (deaths within the first week of life), while Extended Perinatal Mortality (EPM) is denoted as the sum of stillbirth and neonatal mortality (deaths within the first 28 days of life). Rates of PM and EPM were calculated. Logistic regression generalized linear latent and mixed models (GLLAMM) that adjusted for clustering and sampling weight was used to examine the factor associated with perinatal mortality.

Results

Over the study period, the PMR was 42 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 39, 44] per 1000 births for the five-year before each survey; while corresponding EPMR was 49 (95% CI, 46, 51) per 1000 births. Multivariable analyses revealed that women residing in the mountains, who did not use contraceptives, women aged 15–18 years or 19–24 years, and women having no education were associated with increased PM and EPM. The study also identified households using biomass as cooking fuel, and households who reported unimproved sanitation or open defecation were significantly more likely to experience PM and EPM.

Conclusions

Interventions aimed to improve use of contraceptives, and reduce biomass as a source of cooking fuel are needed to achieve the recommended target of < 12 perinatal deaths per 1000 births by 2030.

Keywords

Perinatal mortality Extended perinatal mortality NDHS Nepal 

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

EPM

Extended Perinatal Mortality

EPMR

Extended Perinatal Mortality Rate

IFA

Iron and Folic Acid

NDHS

Nepal Demographic and Health Survey

OR

Odd Ratio

PM

Perinatal Mortality

PMR

Perinatal Mortality Rate

TT

Tetanus Toxoid

Background

Availability and quality of healthcare of both mother and newborn is reflected in the perinatal mortality rate, and perinatal mortality remains one of the devastating pregnancy outcomes for millions of families in low-and-middle-income countries including Nepal [1]. A recent Lancet systematic review for the Global Burden of Disease estimated that every year over 4 million perinatal deaths occur worldwide; and almost all (98%) of these deaths occur in low-and-middle-income countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, including Nepal [2]. The perinatal mortality rate is five times higher in low as compared to high income countries, with 10 deaths per 1000 total births in high income countries; 50 per 1000 total deaths in low and middle income countries and over 60 per 1000 in the most deprived countries [1].

In Asia, the perinatal mortality rate is estimated to be 50 per 1000 births, but as high as 65 per 1000 in South-central Asia, the third-highest rate among the sub-regions [1]. Past studies indicated that preterm birth, intrapartum complications and infections are the three leading causes of perinatal death [3], and millions of these deaths can be averted with high coverage quality interventions along with a population-specific action plan for women who are socially marginalized based on issues such as ethnicity, geography and socioeconomic status [4]. A case-control study conducted in Pakistan identified that maternal literacy, poor socio-economic household, primigravida, and lack of knowledge of family planning were associated with perinatal mortality [5]. Similarly, a population-based cross-sectional study conducted in Bangladesh that examined the impact of maternal excessive body weight on a range of maternal and child health outcomes reported that overweight and obesity among women aged 25 years and older increased the risk of perinatal mortality by 1.8 [95% Confidence Interval (1.5, 2.1)] [6].

Perinatal mortality rates play an increasingly important role in childhood mortality, and there are currently no effective community-based intervention programs in Nepal particularly targeting perinatal mortality including stillbirth. Despite the high burden of perinatal mortality globally, there have been very limited epidemiological studies that examine potential factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal. Previous studies conducted in Eastern and Central districts of Nepal found that birth asphyxia, infection, and prematurity were the major causes of stillbirth and neonatal mortality [7, 8]. A multi-centre prospective study conducted in the Jhapa and Kathmandu districts revealed that higher parity (> 4), low birthweight (< 1999 g) and older maternal age (≥35 years) were reported to be associated with PM [9]. In contrast, a cross-sectional study conducted in central Nepal found that teenage women were more likely to report higher perinatal mortality [10]. Similarly, another prospective study conducted in Kathmandu concluded that perinatal mortality occurred more frequently among primigravid women, and those having preterm birth reported a higher risk of perinatal mortality [11]. However, the external validity of these studies was limited because they were not population-based, hence may not be generalised to inform effective interventional policy that will significantly reduce perinatal death. The Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) dataset provides an opportunity to examine factors associated with perinatal mortality using a population-based sample. Using a national population-based sample will allow the formulation of an integrated policy and programmatic response to address perinatal mortality in Nepal.

The main aim of this study was to determine more distant factors associated with Perinatal Mortality (PM) and Extended Perinatal Mortality (EPM) by using the four most recent nationally representative household data of NDHS for the years 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016.

Methods

Data sources and sample

This study combined data of NDHS for the years 2001 [12], 2006 [13], 2011 [14] and 2016 [15]; which were nationally representative household surveys, using multistage cluster sampling designs, stratified by geographical regions and urban and rural areas. All four surveys sampling methods were similar and routinely collected with the objective of estimating socio-demographic; and maternal and child health indicators at national and district level.

A total of 32,193 women aged 15–49 years were interviewed in the four surveys (8726 women in 2001 NDHS, 10,793 women in 2006 NDHS, 12,674 women in 2011 NDHS, and 12,862 in 2016 NDHS), with the average response rate over 97%. In the 2001 NDHS [12] women were asked to report all pregnancies they had in their lifetime records of pregnancy loss and the duration of such pregnancies included; whereas in the 2006 NDHS [13], the 2011 NDHS [14], and the 2016 NDHS [15] women were asked to report on any pregnancy loss and the duration of such pregnancy that occurred five years preceding the surveys. Information such as pregnancy, pregnancy loss and duration of pregnancy was used to identify the number of livebirth, stillbirth and pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation. For this study 23,335 pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation were identified (N = 7134 in 2001, N = 5671 in 2006, N = 5444 in 2011, and N = 5086 in 2016). Details of the survey methodology, sampling procedures, and questionnaires are provided in the respective NDHS reports [12, 13, 14, 15].

Outcome

Outcome variables for this study were: (I) Perinatal Mortality (PM) defined as the sum of stillbirth (fetal deaths in pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation) and early neonatal mortality (deaths within the first week of life) [12, 13, 14, 15], and (II) Extended Perinatal Mortality (EPM) defined as the sum of stillbirth and neonatal mortality (deaths within the first 28 days of life) [12, 13, 14, 15, 16].

Potential explanatory variables

The selection of potential explanatory variables for this study was based on past studies that have examined factors associated with perinatal mortality in different low-and middle-income countries [9, 17, 18, 19]. We also adopted Mosley and Chen’s analytical framework for the study of child survival in low income countries [20]. Figure 1 illustrates the factors used to examine their relation with PM and EPM in that framework. Based on Mosley and Chen’s framework, 19 explanatory variables were classified into five categories as community level factors (types of residence and ecological zone); socioeconomic factors (wealth index, religion, mother’s education, mother’s literacy level, father’s education and mother’s occupation); maternal factors (mother’s current age, maternal marital status, and birth order and birth interval); environmental factors (types of drinking water sources, types of sanitation facility and types of cooking fuel); and health service factors (number of antenatal care visits, number of Tetanus Toxoid (TT) vaccines during pregnancy, place of delivery and use of contraceptives). Birth order and birth interval were combined because a previous study found that the impact of birth order may be mediated by birth interval [21]. A household wealth index variable was constructed using principle component analysis [22] of the common household facilities across four NDHS, 2001–2016 (electricity, radio, television, bicycle, telephone, and main material of floor). For the purpose of this study, the household wealth index was divided into three categories. The bottom 40% of households were arbitrarily referred to as poor households, the next 40% was classified as the middle households and the top 20% was classified as rich households, consistent with previous studies [18, 21].
Fig. 1

Framework for factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal, adopted from Mosley and Chen analytical framework for the study of child survival in low income countries

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund Joint Monitoring Program guidelines were used to categorize the source of drinking water and types of sanitation facility [23]. Categories of source of drinking water included (1) piped water on premises, (2) other improved drinking water sources, (3) unimproved drinking water sources, and (4) surface drinking water sources. Households with piped water system into dwelling were categorised as piped water on premises. Households relying on neighbour’s tap or tubewell, borehole in yard, stone tap, protected well and rainwater for drinking were categorised as other improved drinking water sources. Households who reported unprotected well in-house, unprotected public or neighbour’s well, unprotected spring, bottled water or water from tanker or truck as sources of drinking water were categorised as unimproved water sources. Households who reported river, stream, pond, lake, dam, canal, or irrigation water for drinking were categorised as surface drinking water sources. Likewise, categories of sanitation facility included (1) improved sanitation facilities, (2) unimproved sanitation facilities, and (3) open defecation. Households having flush toilet, ventilated or improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab or composting toilet were categorised as improved sanitation facilities. Households who reported traditional pit toilet, pit latrine without slab, bucket toilet were categorised as unimproved sanitation facilities. Households relying on bush or open field for defecation were categorised as open defecation.

Statistical analysis

Weighted frequencies for all explanatory variables were calculated (Table 2). Perinatal Mortality Rate (PMR) and Extended Perinatal Mortality Rate (EPMR) with 95% confidence interval across all explanatory variables were calculated (Table 2). The sample was restricted to five years preceding each survey. Data were analysed using STATA 14.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, US). SVY functions were used to adjust for sampling weights. Logistic regression generalized linear latent and mixed models (GLLAMM) with the logit link and binomial family [24] that adjusted for clustering and sampling weights were used to measure the level of association between outcomes and explanatory variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted using staged technique described by Victora et al. [25] and based on this technique, the effect of distal determinants can be assessed without adjustment of proximal or intermediate determinants [21]. Therefore, at the first stage, all community-level factors (more distal determinants) were assessed in the baseline multivariable model with manual backward elimination to keep statistically significant factors (model 1). Second, socioeconomic factors were added with model 1 and manual backward elimination process was repeated to keep statistically significant factors (model 2). This procedure was followed when maternal, environmental and health service variables were included in the third (model 3), in the fourth (model 4) and in the fifth stage (model 5) respectively. Variables significantly associated at the 5% significance level were included in model 5 and reported in the study. In the final model (Model 5), we tested and reported any collinearity. Unadjusted and adjusted odd ratios with 95% confidence interval of the final model were reported.

“We double checked our findings by re-normalising the sampling weights for each year of survey to add up to 1. This process involved computing the total sum of weights for each survey round and divide each year of survey sampling weights with the total sum of weights. The results obtained from using each year of survey sampling weights presented in the manuscript and those obtained from re-normalized sampling weights were similar (see Additional files 1 and 2).

Results

Over the study period (2001–2016), PMR was 42 (95% CI: 39, 44) per 1000 births; whereas EPMR was 49 (95% CI: 46, 51) per 1000 births (Table 1). PMR and EPMR decreased significantly in 2011 and 2016 compared to 2001 (Fig. 2a, b). Similarly, PMR and EPMR decreased significantly in 2016 compared to 2006. However, there was no significant decrease in PMR and EPMR in 2016 compared to 2011.
Table 1

Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of stillbirth, early neonatal mortality, late neonatal mortality, neonatal mortality, perinatal mortality, and extended perinatal mortality in Nepal (2001–2016)

Birth and mortality rate

Birth/Mortality

Rate (95% CI)

All births, Na

23,335

Stillbirth, rateb per 1000 births (95% CI)

414

18 (16, 19)

Early neonatal mortality, ratecper 1000 live births (95% CI)

561

24 (22, 27)

Late neonatal mortality, ratedper 1000 live births (95% CI)

160

7 (6, 8)

Neonatal mortality, ratee per 1000 live births (95% CI)

721

31 (29, 34)

Perinatal mortality, ratef (95% CI)

975

42 (39, 44)

Extended perinatal mortality, rateg (95% CI)

1135

49 (46, 51)

aN included stillbirths and live births from pregnancies > 28 weeks’ gestation

bThe rate of stillbirth was calculated from the number of stillbirths divided by all births multiplied by 1000

cEarly neonatal mortality rate is early neonatal mortality divided by total live births multiplied by 1000

dLate neonatal mortality rate is late neonatal mortality divided by total live births multiplied by 1000

eNeonatal mortality rate is neonatal mortality divided by total live births multiplied by 1000

fPerinatal mortality rate is stillbirths plus mortality within the first week of life per 1000 births

gExtended perinatal mortality rate is stillbirths plus mortality within the first 28 days of life per 1000 births

Fig. 2

a Rate and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of perinatal mortality per 1000 births in NDHS 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016. b Rate and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of extended perinatal mortality per 1000 births in NDHS 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016

Mothers residing in the mountains reported significantly higher PMR and EPMR than those who resided in the Terai or the hills (Table 2). Lower rates of perinatal and extended perinatal mortality were observed among women with aged between 25 to 49 years. Households with improved sanitation facilities, as well as those who used natural gas for cooking at home reported lower PMRs and EPMRs. Women who currently used contraceptives also reported lower PMR and EPMR.
Table 2

Characteristics of study population as weighted counts, and Perinatal Mortality (PM) and Extended Perinatal Mortality (EPM) rates with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in Nepal (2001–2016), (N = 23,335)

Explanatory Variables

Na

PM Rate (95% CI)

EPM Rate (95% CI)

Community level factor

 Types of residence

  Urban

4395

31 (28, 33)

34 (32, 37)

  Rural

18,940

44 (42, 47)

52 (49, 55)

 Ecological zone

  Terai

12,169

42 (40, 45)

49 (46, 52)

  Hill

9319

38 (35, 40)

45 (42, 47)

  Mountain

1847

56 (53, 59)

67 (63, 70)

Socio-economic factor

 Wealth index

  Rich

4946

26 (24, 28)

29 (27, 31)

  Middle

9644

44 (41, 47)

51 (48, 54)

  Poor

8745

48 (45, 51)

57 (54, 60)

  Religion

   Buddhist

1601

31 (28, 33)

41 (39, 44)

   Hindu

19,639

42 (40, 45)

49 (46, 52)

   Othersb

2096

45 (42, 48)

48 (45, 51)

 Ethnicity

  Brahmin/chettry

6323

37 (34, 39)

43 (40, 46)

  Dalit

3716

51 (48, 54)

61 (58, 64)

  Janajati

7647

37 (35, 40)

43 (40, 46)

  Madhesi

5649

47 (44, 50)

55 (52, 58)

 Mother education

  Secondary or higher

6151

29 (27, 32)

33 (31, 36)

  Primary

4148

42 (39, 45)

48 (45, 51)

  No education

13,036

47 (45, 50)

56 (53, 59)

 Mother’s literacy level (N = 23,333)

  Can read part or whole of the sentence

11,391

32 (30, 35)

37 (34, 39)

  Cannot read

11,942

51 (48, 54)

60 (57, 63)

 Father education (N = 23,299)

  Secondary or higher

11,382

36 (33, 38)

41 (38, 44)

  Primary

5923

43 (40, 46)

51 (48, 54)

  No education

5994

52 (49, 55)

61 (58, 64)

 Mother occupation (N = 23,333)

  Not working

5906

34 (32, 36)

39 (36, 41)

  Agriculture

15,157

45 (43, 48)

53 (50, 56)

  Non- Agriculturec

2270

36 (33, 38)

41 (38, 43)

Maternal factor

 Mother’s current age (years)

  25–49

14,131

39 (37, 42)

45 (42, 47)

  15–18

821

67 (64, 70)

77 (73, 80)

  19–24

8383

44 (41, 46)

53 (50, 56)

 Maternal marital status

  Not currently married

219

32 (30, 34)

32 (30, 34)

  Currently married

23,116

42 (39, 45)

49 (46, 52)

 Birth order and birth interval

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval > 2 years

7065

19 (18, 21)

24 (22, 26)

  1st birth order

7074

36 (33, 38)

44 (41, 46)

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

2613

42 (39, 45)

52 (49, 55)

  4th or higher birth order, interval > 2 years

1727

82 (78, 85)

86 (83, 90)

  4th or higher birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

4856

45 (42, 47)

59 (56, 62)

Environmental factor

 Types of drinking water source (N = 21,779)

  Piped water on premises

2990

31 (29, 33)

36 (34, 39)

  Other improved drinking water sources

15,231

40 (38, 43)

47 (45, 50)

  Unimproved drinking water sources

1434

45 (42, 47)

50 (47, 52)

  Surface drinking water sources

2124

52 (49, 55)

59 (56, 62)

 Types of sanitation facility (N = 21,775)

  Improved sanitation facilities

7931

30 (27, 32)

34 (31, 36)

  Unimproved sanitation facilities

1924

42 (39, 45)

50 (47, 53)

  Open defecation

11,920

47 (45, 50)

56 (53, 59)

 Types of cooking fuel (N = 21,782)

  Natural gas

3035

22 (20, 24)

25 (23, 27)

  Biomass energy

18,747

44 (41, 46)

51 (48, 54)

Health service factor

 Number of antenatal care (ANC) visits (N = 23,164)

  4+

8442

29 (27, 32)

34 (32, 37)

  (1–3)

8330

37 (34, 39)

44 (41, 46)

  No ANC

6392

40 (37, 42)

49 (47, 52)

 Number of TT during pregnancy (N = 23,164)

  2 + TT

13,461

33 (31, 36)

39 (37, 42)

  1 TT

3551

34 (32, 36)

40 (38, 43)

  Never

6152

39 (36, 41)

48 (46, 51)

 IFA supplementation during pregnancy(N = 23,168)

  Yes

13,460

33 (30, 35)

38 (35, 40)

  No

9708

38 (36, 41)

47 (44, 50)

 Place and assistance during delivery (N = 23,154)

  Health facility

6816

31 (29, 34)

35 (33, 37)

  Home delivery with skilled attendantsd

167

48 (45, 51)

54 (51, 57)

  Home delivery without skilled attendants

16,171

36 (34, 39)

44 (42, 47)

 Use of contraceptives

  Yes

8483

24 (22, 26)

29 (27, 32)

  No

14,852

52 (49, 55)

60 (57, 63)

aWeighted study population. N varies between categories because of missing values

bother religion includes mainly Christians, Muslims, and Kirats

cNon-agriculture occupation includes skilled or professional jobs; dSkilled attendants: doctors/nurses/midwives

Multivariate analysis

Table 3 shows unadjusted and adjusted Odd Ratios (OR) for the association between perinatal mortality and exploratory variables, while Table 4 summarizes the corresponding ORs for extended perinatal mortality.
Table 3

Unadjusted and adjusted Odd Ratios (OR) for factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal, 2001–2016 (N = 23,335)

Explanatory Variables

Unadjusted

Adjusted

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Year of survey

 2001

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

 2006

0.92 (0.78, 1.10)

0.95 (0.78, 1.16)

 2011

0.77 (0.64, 0.93)

0.98 (0.80, 1.21)

 2016

0.62 (0.51, 0.77)

0.72 (0.56, 0.92)

Community level factor

 Types of residence

  Urban

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Rural

1.46 (1.20, 1.79)

 

 Ecological zone

  Terai

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  Hill

0.89 (0.75, 1.05)

1.02 (0.83, 1.26)

  Mountain

1.35 (1.09, 1.66)

1.44 (1.07, 1.95)

Socio-economic factor

 Wealth index

  Rich

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Middle

1.73 (1.41, 2.13)

 

  Poor

1.93 (1.57, 2.39)

 

 Religion

  Buddhist

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Hindu

1.37 (0.99, 1.91)

 

  Others including Muslim and Christian

1.47 (0.97, 2.21)

 

 Ethnicity

  Brahmin/chettri

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  Dalit

1.44 (1.13, 1.82)

1.30 (1.02, 1.65)

  Janajati

1.02 (0.83, 1.26)

1.05 (0.84, 1.31)

  Madhesi

1.31 (1.07, 1.62)

1.28 (0.99, 1.65)

 Mother education

  Secondary or higher

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Primary

1.44 (1.11, 1.85)

 

  No education

1.64 (1.33, 2.03)

 

 Mother’s literacy level

  Can read part or whole of the sentence

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Cannot read

1.42 (1.24, 1.63)

 

 Father education

  Secondary or higher

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Primary

1.21 (1.00, 1.46)

 

  No education

1.47 (1.23, 1.77)

 

 Mother occupation

  Not working

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Agriculture

1.28 (1.05, 1.56)

 

  Non-agriculture

0.95 (0.66, 1.36)

 

Maternal factor

 Mother’s current age (years)

  25–49

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  15–18

1.76 (1.27, 2.45)

1.99 (1.30, 3.09)

  19–24

1.12 (0.95, 1.33)

1.71 (1.39, 2.11)

 Maternal marital status

  Not currently married

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Currently married

1.43 (0.63, 3.26)

 

 Birth order and birth interval

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval > 2 years

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  1st birth order

1.90 (1.54, 2.35)

1.32 (1.03, 1.69)

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

2.20 (1.71, 2.85)

1.83 (1.39, 2.42)

  4th or higher birth order, interval > 2 years

4.48 (3.67, 5.47)

3.27 (2.58, 4.15)

  4th or higher birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

2.35 (1.76, 3.12)

2.41 (1.76, 3.29)

Environmental factor

 Types of drinking water source

  Piped water on premises

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Other improved drinking water sources

1.30 (1.00, 1.68)

 

  Unimproved drinking water sources

1.45 (1.00, 2.12)

 

  Surface drinking water sources

1.70 (1.24, 2.35)

 

 Types of sanitation facility

  Improved sanitation facilities

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Unimproved sanitation facilities

1.44 (1.06, 1.95)

 

  Open defecation

1.63 (1.37, 1.94)

 

 Types of cooking fuel

  Natural gas

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  Biomass energy

2.05 (1.54, 2.73)

1.46 (1.08, 1.97)

Health service factor

 Number of antenatal care (ANC) visits

  4+

1.00 (Reference)

 

   (1–3)

1.25 (1.04, 1.51)

 

  No ANC

1.37 (1.10, 1.70)

 

 Number of TT during pregnancy

  2 + TT

1.00 (Reference)

 

  1 TT

1.02 (0.80, 1.30)

 

  Never

1.18 (0.97, 1.43)

 

 IFA supplementation during pregnancy

  Yes

1.00 (Reference)

 

  No

1.18 (0.99, 1.41)

 

 Place and assistance during delivery

  Health facility

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Home delivery with skilled attendants

1.59 (0.76, 3.32)

 

  Home delivery without skilled attendants

1.12 (0.94, 1.32)

 

 Use of contraceptives

  Yes

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  No

2.25 (1.87, 2.70)

1.93 (1.61, 2.31)

Table 4

Unadjusted and adjusted Odd Ratios (OR) for factors associated with extended perinatal mortality in Nepal, 2001–2016 (N = 23,335)

Explanatory Variables

Unadjusted

Adjusted

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Year of survey

 2001

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

 2006

0.92 (0.79, 1.08)

0.98 (0.82, 1.18)

 2011

0.70 (0.58, 0.83)

0.88 (0.73, 1.08)

 2016

0.58 (0.48, 0.70)

0.69 (0.54, 0.86)

Types of residence

 Urban

1.00 (Reference)

 

 Rural

1.54 (1.27, 1.86)

 

Ecological zone

 Terai

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

 Hill

0.91 (0.78, 1.06)

0.99 (0.84, 1.18)

 Mountain

1.39 (1.15, 1.68)

1.37 (1.06, 1.76)

Socio-economic factor

 Wealth index

  Rich

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Middle

1.66 (1.33, 2.08)

 

  Poor

1.53 (1.13, 1.81)

 

 Religion

  Buddhist

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Hindu

1.21 (0.89, 1.63)

 

  Others including Muslim and Christian

1.18 (0.80, 1.74)

 

 Ethnicity

  Brahmin/chettri

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Dalit

1.45 (1.16, 1.80)

 

  Janajati

1.00 (0.83, 1.22)

 

  Madhesi

1.28 (1.05, 1.57)

 

 Mother education

  Secondary or higher

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Primary

1.46 (1.14, 1.86)

 

  No education

1.73 (1.42, 2.11)

 

 Mother’s literacy level

  Can read part or whole of the sentence

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  Cannot read

1.51 (1.33, 1.72)

1.23 (1.05, 1.45)

 Father education

  Secondary or higher

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Primary

1.27 (1.08, 1.50)

 

  No education

1.52 (1.28, 1.81)

 

 Mother occupation

  Not working

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Agriculture

1.32 (1.09, 1.59)

 

  Non-agriculture

0.94 (0.68, 1.32)

 

Maternal factor

 Mother’s current age (years)

  25–49

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  15–18

1.79 (1.32, 2.42)

2.15 (1.45, 3.18)

  19–24

1.19 (1.03, 1.39)

1.78 (1.47, 2.15)

 Maternal marital status

  Not currently married

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Currently married

1.68 (0.74, 3.82)

 

 Birth order and birth interval

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval > 2 years

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  1st birth order

1.86 (1.54, 2.25)

1.30 (1.04, 1.63)

  2nd/3rd birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

2.17 (1.72, 2.74)

1.80 (1.41, 2.31)

  4th or higher birth order, interval > 2 years

3.79 (3.15, 4.55)

2.75 (2.20, 3.43)

  4th or higher birth order, interval ≤ 2 years

2.52 (1.96, 3.25)

2.56 (1.94, 3.38)

Environmental factor

 Types of drinking water source

  Piped water on premises

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Other improved drinking water sources

1.33 (1.05, 1.69)

 

  Unimproved drinking water sources

1.40 (0.97, 2.00)

 

  Surface drinking water sources

1.68 (1.25, 2.26)

 

 Types of sanitation facility

  Improved sanitation facilities

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Unimproved sanitation facilities

1.51 (1.10, 2.07)

 

  Open defecation

1.70 (1.44, 2.01)

 

 Types of cooking fuel

  Natural gas

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  Biomass energy

2.11 (1.60, 2.79)

1.44 (1.09, 1.91)

Health service factor

 Number of antenatal care (ANC) visits

  4+

1.00 (Reference)

 

   (1–3)

1.29 (1.07, 1.54)

 

  No ANC

1.47 (1.21, 1.80)

 

 Number of TT during pregnancy

  2 + TT

1.00 (Reference)

 

  1 TT

1.03 (0.83, 1.29)

 

  Never

1.25 (1.04, 1.50)

 

 IFA supplementation during pregnancy

  Yes

1.00 (Reference)

 

  No

1.25 (1.07, 1.47)

 

 Place and assistance during delivery

  Health facility

1.00 (Reference)

 

  Home delivery with skilled attendants

1.69 (0.87, 3.31)

 

  Home delivery without skilled attendants

1.23 (1.05, 1.43)

 

 Use of contraceptives

  Yes

1.00 (Reference)

1.00 (Reference)

  No

2.10 (1.77, 2.51)

1.79 (1.52, 2.11)

Factors associated with perinatal mortality (PM)

After adjusting for potential explanatory variables, perinatal mortality has decreased significantly by 28% (aOR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.92) between 2001 and 2016. Women residing in the mountain ecological zone and women of the dalit ethnic group had increased risk of perinatal mortality compared to those who reside in the terai ecological zone and belong to Brahmin/Chettri ethnic group. A significant increment of perinatal mortality was observed among women having 4th or higher birth order with any years of interval compared to women having 2nd or 3rd birth order with > 2 years of interval. Women aged 15 to 18 years or19 to 24 years, and those not using contraception reported higher risk of perinatal mortality compared to those with aged 25 to 49 years, and who were using contraception. Women who used biomass energy for cooking at home had significantly higher odds of having perinatal mortality compared to those who used natural gas for cooking.

In the final model of PM, when types of cooking fuel were removed and replaced by household wealth index, we found that women from the middle households were more likely to report PM (aOR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.83) compared to their richer counterparts.

Factors associated with extended perinatal mortality (EPM)

Our results showed similar factors to be associated with EPM as those mentioned for PM. We replaced household wealth index with types of cooking fuel in the final model; and our results indicated that women from middle households were more likely to report EPM (aOR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.78) compared to their richer counterparts.

Discussion

This study identified more distant factors associated with PM and EPM in Nepal. Over the study period (2001–2016), there has been a significant decline in PM and EPM. However, the pace of progress is not sufficient enough to achieve SDG target of 12 or fewer perinatal deaths per 1000 births by the year 2030. We found that the factors that were consistent across PM and EPM were ecological zone, household wealth index, birth order and birth interval; maternal age, use of contraceptives, and type of cooking fuel. Similarly, the study also found that maternal ethnic background was associated with PM; whereas maternal literacy level was found to be associated with EPM.

In this study, the odds of PM and EPM were significantly higher among women residing in the mountain ecological zone compared to those who lived in the terai ecological zone. This finding is consistent with a past study conducted in a landlocked country of Peru which has shown that high altitude (≥3000 m above the sea level) was associated with perinatal mortality [26]. Similarly, a study conducted in Nepal revealed that mothers who lived in mountainous region, with altitude ranges from 4877 m to 8848 m above the sea level were significantly more likely to report an increased risk of perinatal mortality [27]. Aadditionally, higher perinatal mortality in the mountains could be connected to access to services. Absence of adequate medical facilities would be an important contributor to the increased risk of perinatal mortality due to difficulties in timely accessing maternal and newborn health care services including emergency obstetric care during labour.

Women who were illiterate had a higher risk of EPM. This finding was consistent with a prospective longitudinal study conducted in Northwest Ethiopia [19]. Similarly, a case-control study conducted in Mashonaland East Province of Zimbabwe revealed that mothers who completed Primary education or no schooling were 5.4 times more likely to report PM compared with educated mothers [28]. These findings contradict a study carried out in Bangladesh that used prospective data on maternal morbidity which indicated that women who completed secondary or more level of education reported higher risks of perinatal mortality compared with women with no schooling [29].

Higher PM and EPM among younger age women reported in this study were similar to those reported in a population-based nested case-control conducted in Ethiopia [30]. Younger women are more likely to receive inadequate health care including family planning than older women due to the low level of women’s autonomy regarding health care decisions in the households [31], psychological problems and less social support from family members [32]. Higher odds of perinatal mortality among younger women may be due to inadequate weight gain during pregnancy, low socioeconomic status, and inadequate prenatal care [33]. In Nepal, early marriage and pregnancy is still a common practice with about 17% of girls married before the age of 19 years [15]. Early marriage is a deeply rooted and widely practised socio-cultural norm. For example, in the regional part of Nepal, bride family are required to pay extra money when young unmarried girls grow older [34].

In agreement with our findings a previous study in Nepal and India showed that mothers with 4th or higher birth order had higher probability of perinatal death [9, 35]. Obstetric complications are important causes of perinatal mortality in South Asia [17]; and a previous study has suggested that women with 4th or higher birth order were at greater risk of having any obstetric complication compared to women with birth order < 3 [36].

In Asia, while environmental factors (unimproved water, sanitation, and smoke from unimproved cooking fuel) are considered among the ten leading risks for disease [37], Nepal has made substantial improvements in the use of improved drinking water sources and sanitation facilities over the past 15 years [12, 13, 14, 15]. Yet, the majority (over 65%) of households in the same period have constantly been using biomass energy for cooking at home [12, 13, 14, 15]. The finding of an increased risk of PM and EPM has also been reported in a hospital-based surveillance and case-control study, linked with a population survey in India [38]. Past studies suggested that chronic exposure to carbon monoxide from biomass energy will deteriorate newborn respiratory health that may lead to a lower chance of survival especially in the first month of infant life [39]. In Nepal, natural gas is expensive; and the use of natural gas is more prevalent among rich households [12, 13, 14, 15]. Our study also revealed that women from a rich household wealth index were less likely to report PM and EMP compared to women from a lower household wealth index. Access to affordable renewal energy both at home and community could benefit health and thus help in reducing perinatal deaths.

A plausible reason for the finding of a higher PM among Dalit women may be because Dalits were ethnic minority women, less empowered, and socio-economically marginalised with limited ability to improve their health and the health of their newborn. It has been documented that 90% of total Dalit populations living below the poverty line in Nepal have limited access to health care [40].

The higher perinatal mortality rate in home births with skilled birth attendants compared to those without skilled birth attendants in this study may be the reflection of high-risk pregnancies which may be difficult to manage in home settings.

This study has many strengths, including the use of the pooled Nepal DHS (2001–2016) with large sample sizes, and higher response rates (almost 97%). Second, the study investigated factors associated with PM and EPM using household national-wide representative surveys; and findings from a population-based study can be used by public health practitioners to formulate and inform national level policies to improve fetal and newborn survival. Third, the same questionnaires were used to collect information in all four surveys which increase accuracy and promote coherence of the data used for analysis. Despite these strengths, this study also has limitations. First, information about duration of pregnancy and birth intervals (which may be complex for illiterate women) may lead to reporting bias. Second, twin stillbirths are recorded as one stillbirth in the calendar that may undercount the number of total stillbirths, but they are very rare events. Third, this study is limited by the fact that data on important explanatory variables such as a history of previous stillbirth, prematurity, fetal growth, low birthweight, maternal anaemia, obstetric complications such as breech delivery, and birth asphyxia were not collected in the four NDHS. Fourthly, maternal body mass index, an important confounder, was not included in our multivariate analysis due to large numbers of missing data (23%) which if included could have biased the results.

Conclusions

Our analyses examined more distant factors associated with PM and EPM in Nepal using pooled population-based surveys for the year 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016. Women who lived in the mountains, women who did not use contraceptives at the time of the survey, younger women, and women having 4th or higher birth order had significantly higher risks of PM and EPM. At household level, educating illiterate women about the benefits of using contraceptives is required to further reduce perinatal mortality. At community level, modern energy technologies such as the use of liquefied petroleum gas or electricity to all households may help to reduce perinatal mortality; and these interventions should target rural women and women from low socioeconomic households.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Measure DHS, ICF International, Rockville, Marylands, USA for providing the data of NDHS (2001-2016) for this study.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

The first author lodged a request application via online DHS program (https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm) to use NDHS data (2001–2016) for this study, and permission was granted. The authors were not able to share the data directly.

Authors’ contributions

PRG and KEA conceptualized the study. PRG performed the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. PRG, KEA, AMNR, MKN, MD and CRG critically reviewed the manuscript and also involved in editing and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is a secondary analysis of the NDHS data. The NDHS obtained ethical clearance from the Ethical Review Board of Nepal Health Research Council, Kathmandu and ICF Institutional Review Board, Maryland, USA. Data for this study are free to download and use by completing a request application via online DHS program (https://dhsprogram.com). The first author got permission from online DHS program to use data for this study. All four NDHS received informed consent from all the study participants, and the process for obtaining informed consent is also available from https://www.dhsprogram.com/What-We-Do/Protecting-the-Privacy-of-DHS-Survey-Respondents.cfm.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. KEA is a member of the editorial board (Associate Editor) of BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, and does not have any role in the journal review and decision making process for this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

12884_2019_2234_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Additional file 1: Adjusted Odd Ratios (aOR) for factors associated with perinatal mortality in Nepal, 2001–2016 (N = 23,335). (DOCX 19 kb)
12884_2019_2234_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Additional file 2: Adjusted Odd Ratios (aOR) for factors associated with extended perinatal mortality in Nepal, 2001–2016 (N = 23,335). (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Neonatal and perinatal mortality: country, regional and global estimates. Geneva: WHO; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang H, Bhutta ZA, Coates MM, Coggeshall M, Dandona L, Diallo K, et al. Global, regional, national, and selected subnational levels of stillbirths, neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mason E, McDougall L, Lawn JE, Gupta A, Claeson M, Pillay Y, et al. From evidence to action to deliver a healthy start for the next generation. Lancet. 2014;384:455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? Lancet. 2014;384:347–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fikree FF, Gray RH. Demographic survey of the level and determinants of perinatal mortality in Karachi, Pakistan. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1996;10:86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan MN, Rahman MM, Shariff AA, Rahman MM, Rahman MS, Rahman MA. Maternal undernutrition and excessive body weight and risk of birth and health outcomes. Arch Public Health. 2017;75:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women's groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:970–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manandhar SR, Ojha A, Manandhar DS, Shrestha B, Shrestha D, Saville N, et al. Causes of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in Dhanusha district, Nepal: a verbal autopsy study. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2010;8:62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geetha T, Chenoy R, Stevens D, Johanson R. A multicentre study of perinatal mortality in Nepal. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1995;9:74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suwal A. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of teenage pregnancy. JNHRC. 2012;10:52–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shrestha M, Manandhar D, Dhakal S, Nepal N. Two year audit of perinatal mortality at Kathmandu medical college teaching hospital. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2006;4:176–81.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Health [Nepal], New ERA, and ORC Macro. 2002. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2001. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Family Health Division, Ministry of Health; New ERA; and ORC Macro.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Nepal], New ERA, and Macro International Inc. 2007. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2006. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, and Macro International Inc.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Nepal], New ERA, and ICF International Inc. 2012. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, and ICF International, Calverton, Maryland.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Nepal], New ERA, and ICF International Inc. 2017. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, and ICF International, Calverton, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neasham D, Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Jensen T, Best N. Stillbirth and neonatal mortality due to congenital anomalies: temporal trends and variation by small area deprivation scores in England and Wales, 1986–96. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001;15:364–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghimire PR, Agho K, Akombi B, Wali N, Dibley M, Raynes-Greenow C, et al. Perinatal mortality in South Asia: systematic review of observational studies. Int J Environ Res. 2018;15:1428.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nisha MK, Alam A, Raynes-Greenow C. Variations in perinatal mortality associated with different polluting fuel types and kitchen location in Bangladesh. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2018;24:47–54.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andargie G, Berhane Y, Worku A, Kebede Y. Predictors of perinatal mortality in rural population of Northwest Ethiopia: a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mosley WH, Chen LC. An analytical framework for the study of child survival in developing countries. Popul Dev Rev. 1984;10:25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abir T, Agho KE, Ogbo FA, Stevens GJ, Page A, Hasant MA, et al. Predictors of stillbirths in Bangladesh: evidence from the 2004–2014 nation-wide household surveys. Glob Health Action. 2017;10:1410048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data--or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography. 2001;38:115–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    UNICEF/WHO. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water: 2015 Update and MDG assessment. Geneva: UNICEF/WHO; 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S. Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Victora CG, Huttly SR, Fuchs SC, Olinto M. The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26:224–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gonzales GF, Tapia V, Carrillo CE. Stillbirth rates in Peruvian populations at high altitude. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;100:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghimire PR, Agho KE, Renzaho A, Christou A, Nisha MK, Dibley M, et al. Socio-economic predictors of stillbirths in Nepal (2001-2011). PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tachiweyika E, Gombe N, Shambira G, Chadambuka A, Mufuta T, Zizhou S. Determinants of perinatal mortality in Marondera district, Mashonaland East Province of Zimbabwe, 2009: a case control study. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;8:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bari W, Chowdhury RI, Islam MA, Chakraborty N, Akhter HA. The differentials and determinants of perinatal mortality in rural Bangladesh. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002;7:216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yirgu R, Molla M, Sibley L, Gebremariam A. Perinatal mortality magnitude, determinants and causes in west Gojam: population-based nested case-control study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0159390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharma AK, Verma K, Khatri S, Kannan A. Determinants of pregnancy in adolescents in Nepal. Indian J Pediatr. 2002;69:19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Choe MK, Thapa S, Mishra V. Early marriage and early motherhood in Nepal. J Biosoc Sci. 2005;37:143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weng Y-H, Yang C-Y, Chiu Y-W. Risk assessment of adverse birth outcomes in relation to maternal age. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shrestha R. Maternal mortality in Nepal: addressing the issue. Inquiries J. 2012;4:1–4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Viswanath K, Ps R, Chakraborty A, Prasad JH, Minz S, George K. A community based case control study on determinants of perinatal mortality in a tribal population of southern India. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15:3388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bai J, Wong FW, Bauman A, Mohsin M. Parity and pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:274–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guilbert JJ. The world health report 2002 - reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Educ Health. 2003;16:230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mavalankar DV, Trivedi C, Gray RH. Levels and risk factors for perinatal mortality in Ahmedabad, India. Bull World Health Organ. 1991;69:435.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim K-H, Jahan SA, Kabir E. A review of diseases associated with household air pollution due to the use of biomass fuels. J Hazard Mater. 2011;192:425–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bishwakarma P. The situation analysis for dalit women of Nepal. National Seminar on Raising Dalit Participation in governance Centre for Economic and Technical Studies; 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Science and HealthWestern Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social Sciences and PsychologyWestern Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia
  3. 3.Sydney School of Public HealthUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations