Decomposition of factors associated with housing material inequality in under-five deaths in low and middle-income countries

listen audio

Study Justification:
– The study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding the factors contributing to housing material inequalities in under-five deaths in low and middle-income countries (LMIC).
– Understanding these factors is crucial for developing interventions to reduce the burden of under-five deaths in households with unimproved housing materials.
– The study provides valuable insights into the variations in individual- and neighborhood-level factors that drive housing material inequalities and their impact on under-five deaths in LMIC.
Study Highlights:
– The overall under-five death rate was 53 per 1000 children, with higher rates observed among children from houses built with unimproved housing materials (UHM) compared to improved housing materials (IHM).
– The study found significant pro-IHM inequality in several countries, indicating that under-five deaths were higher among children from houses with IHM.
– Factors explaining housing inequalities in under-five deaths include household wealth status, residence location, source of drinking water, media access, paternal employment, birth interval, and toilet type.
Study Recommendations:
– Urgent interventions are needed to reduce the burden of under-five deaths in households built with unimproved housing materials.
– Policy makers should focus on improving housing conditions, particularly in low-income communities, by promoting access to improved housing materials and addressing factors contributing to housing material inequalities.
– Interventions should also target improving household wealth status, access to clean drinking water, media access, employment opportunities, birth spacing, and sanitation facilities.
Key Role Players:
– Researchers and experts in public health, housing, and child mortality.
– Government officials and policymakers responsible for housing, health, and social welfare.
– Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the areas of housing, child health, and poverty alleviation.
– Community leaders and organizations involved in housing and community development initiatives.
Cost Items for Planning Recommendations:
– Research and data collection costs, including survey implementation, data analysis, and report writing.
– Costs associated with housing improvement programs, such as subsidies for housing materials, construction, and renovation.
– Investments in infrastructure development, including access to clean drinking water and sanitation facilities.
– Financial support for poverty alleviation programs, employment generation, and income enhancement initiatives.
– Awareness campaigns and educational programs to promote health and hygiene practices.
– Monitoring and evaluation costs to assess the effectiveness of interventions and track progress in reducing housing material inequalities and under-five deaths.

The strength of evidence for this abstract is 7 out of 10.
The evidence in the abstract is moderately strong. The study used data from 56 recent Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in low and middle-income countries, which provides a large sample size. The study also employed a rigorous analytical approach, including descriptive statistics, bivariable analysis, meta-analysis, and Fairlie decomposition analysis. However, the abstract does not provide information on the specific statistical methods used in the analysis, such as the type of regression models or the significance levels of the findings. To improve the strength of the evidence, the abstract should include more details on the statistical methods used and provide the significance levels of the results.

Background: Low-and Medium-Income Countries (LMIC) continue to record a high burden of under-five deaths (U5D). There is a gap in knowledge of the factors contributing to housing materials inequalities in U5D. This study examined the contributions of the individual- and neighbourhood-level factors to housing materials inequalities in influencing U5D in LMIC. Methods: We pooled data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys for 56 LMIC conducted between 2010 and 2018. In all, we analysed the data of 798,796 children living in 59,791 neighbourhoods. The outcome variable was U5D among live births within 0 to 59 months of birth. The main determinate variable was housing material types, categorised as unimproved housing materials (UHM) and improved housing materials (IHM) while the individual-level and neighbourhood-level factors are the independent variables. Data were analysed using the Fairlie decomposition analysis at α = 0.05. Results: The overall U5D rate was 53 per 1000 children, 61 among children from houses built with UHM, and 41 among children from houses built with IHM (p  = 2 scores out of the maximum obtainable 3 scores were classified as houses built with improved housing materials (IHM) while houses with < 2 scores were categorized as houses built with unimproved housing materials (UHM). The independent variables consist of individual-level and neighbourhood-level factors identified in the literature to be associated with childhood deaths. The children characteristics, mothers’ characteristics and the households’ characteristics constitute the individual-level factors. The children characteristics are sex (male, female), weight at birth (average+, small and very small), birth interval (firstborn,  =36 months) and birth order (1, 2, 3 and 4+), a child is a twin (single, multiple (2+). The maternal characteristics: maternal education (none, primary or secondary plus), maternal age [15, 19–23], marital status (never, currently and formerly married), maternal and paternal employment status (working or not working), health insurance (yes /no). The household characteristics include the sex of the head of the household (male or female), access to media (at least one of radio, television, or newspaper), sources of drinking water (improved or unimproved), toilet type (improved or unimproved), cooking fuel (clean fuel or biomass), housing materials (improved or unimproved) and household wealth index (poorest, poorer, middle, richer and richest), place of residence (rural or urban). Neighbourhood was operationalized as the clustering of children. The DHS uses “clusters” as the PSU. People of the same cluster are very likely to share similar contextual factors [13, 14]. We regard children as “neighbours” if they belong to the same cluster. In this study, we computed neighbourhood socioeconomic status (SES) as a neighbourhood-level from the proportion of mothers within the same clusters without education, belonging to a household in the two lowest wealth quintiles, has no media access and unemployed using the principal component factor method. The analytical approach for this study included descriptive statistics, bivariable analysis and multivariable decomposition analysis. Descriptive statistics to show the distribution of the children’s background characteristics as well as the distribution of U5D among the children from houses with IHM and UHM by countries and characteristics. The bivariable analysis was conducted using the Z-test to determine the equality of proportions of U5D among the children from houses with IHM and UHM within each country and region (Table 1). Charts were used for visualization. The spatial distribution of under-five deaths per 1000 livebirths among children in houses with improved and unimproved housing materials are shown in Fig. ​Fig.1.1. The maps were built in Microsoft Projects 2020. Distribution of sample characteristics by countries, regions and prevalence of under-five deaths in LMIC by the quality of housing material, 2010–2018 *significant at 5% test of equality of proportions We calculated the risk differences (RD) in U5D among the children from houses with IHM and UHM. A risk difference greater than 0 suggests that U5D are higher among the children from houses built with UHM than those from IHM (pro-unimproved housing material). Conversely, a negative RD indicates under-5 deaths are higher among the children from houses with IHM than those from UHM (pro-improved housing material). We carried out a country-level meta-analysis of the prevalence of U5D in each of the countries by computing the risk difference in the development of U5D between U5C from houses with improved and unimproved housing materials and presented the results in Fig. 2. A random-effects meta-analysis was used on the assumption that each country is estimating a study-specific true effect. We implemented the meta-analysis in R software by specifying the summary measure (SM) as risk difference (RD), the number of deaths in houses with improved and unimproved housing materials as well as the numbers of participants for each country, grouped by regions using the “metabin” command in R. We built a 95% confidence interval (CI) around the RDs to determine their significance. a Spatial distribution of under-five deaths among children in houses with unimproved housing materials in the LMIC studied. 2b Spatial distribution of under-five deaths among children in houses with improved housing materials in the LMIC studied The Mantel-Haenszel (MH) Odds Ratio (OR) and tests of heterogeneity of ORs were conducted to ascertain that the countries are different with regards to the odds ratio of U5D among children from houses with IHM and UHM and a test of homogeneity of ORs among all the countries with a significant odds ratio of U5D to determine if the odds of having U5D in those countries are homogenous. Finally, the Fairlie decomposition analysis (FDA) techniques using logistic models was applied. Sampling weights were applied in all the analyses in this study to adjust for unequal cluster sizes, stratifications and to ensure that our findings adequately represent the target population. Multicollinearity among the independent variables was tested using the “colin” command in Stata version 16. The command provided the variance inflation factor (VIF). The VIF is approximate of the 1/(1-R2) ranging from 1 to infinity. The R2-value is obtained by regressing tjth independent variable on other independent variables. All variables with VIF > 2.5 were removed from the regression analysis. Literature has shown concerns about VIF > 2.5 [24]. The FDA technique is an offshoot of the well-known Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis technique that was originally developed for linear models [25–27]. FDA was developed following the inefficiency of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis technique in handling non-linear outcomes such as logit or probit models [19, 20, 28–30]. The FDA was developed for non-linear regression models and used in the quantification of the contributions to differences in the prediction of an outcome of interest between two groups [31]. This technique is a counterfactual method with an assumption that “what the probability of under-5 death would be if children from houses built with UHM had the same characteristics as the children whose houses are built with IHM?” The FDA allows for the decomposition of the difference in an outcome variable between 2 groups (children from houses with IHM and UHM) into 2 components. The first component is the “explained” (also referred to as the “compositional” or “endowments”) portion of that gap that captures differences in the distributions of the measurable characteristics. The explained part is the portion of the gap in U5D attributable to the differences in observable, measurable characteristics between children from houses with IHM and UHM. This method helps to quantify how much of the gap between the children from houses with UHM and the children from houses with IHM is attributable to these differences in specific measurable characteristics. The second component of the model is the “unexplained” (also referred to as the “structural” component or the “coefficient”) part. The unexplained part is the portion of the gap due to the differences in the estimated regression coefficients and the unmeasured variables between the two groups. The Fairlie decomposition technique works by constraining the predicted probability between 0 and 1 as available in a logit model. The coefficients (β) estimated by the logit regression technique with the probability of under-5 deaths conditioned on the independent variables (X) is obtained as We carried out an FDA analysis by calculating the difference between the predicted probability for Group A (children from houses with UHM) using the Group B (children from houses with UHM) regression coefficients and the predicted probability for under-5 deaths among Group B using its regression coefficients [19]. Fairlie et al. showed that the decomposition for a nonlinear equation Y = F(X), can be expressed as: Where NA is the sample size for group J [32]. In equation (1), Y¯ is not necessarily the same as FX¯β^, unlike in BODA where F(Xiβ) = Xiβ. The 1st term (explained) is the part of the gap in the binary outcome variable that is due to group differences in distributions of X, and the 2nd term (unexplained) is the part due to differences in the group processes determining levels of Y (under-5 deaths). The 2nd term also captures the portion of the binary outcome variable gap due to group differences in unmeasurable or unobserved endowments. The estimation of the total contribution is the difference between the average values of the predicted probabilities. Using coefficient estimates from a logit regression model for a pooled sample, β^∗, the independent contribution of X1 and X2 to the group, the gap can be written as and respectively. The contribution of each variable to the gap is thus equal to the change in the average predicted probability from replacing the group B distribution with the group A distribution of that variable while holding other variables constant. Other detailed numerical of this approach have been reported in the literature [19, 20, 30, 32, 33]. We implemented the FDA in STATA 16 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, United States of America) using the “Fairlie” command.

N/A

Based on the provided information, it seems that the study is focused on understanding the factors contributing to housing material inequalities in under-five deaths in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). The study analyzes data from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in 56 LMIC between 2010 and 2018.

While the information does not explicitly mention innovations for improving access to maternal health, there are potential recommendations that can be derived from the study findings. These recommendations aim to address the housing material inequalities and ultimately contribute to improving maternal health access. Here are some potential innovations:

1. Affordable Housing Solutions: Develop innovative approaches to provide affordable housing options for families in LMIC. This could involve designing low-cost housing models that utilize improved materials and construction techniques, making them more accessible to vulnerable populations.

2. Education and Awareness Programs: Implement educational programs to raise awareness about the importance of housing materials and their impact on maternal and child health. These programs can provide information on the benefits of improved housing materials and promote behavior change towards adopting safer housing practices.

3. Financial Incentives: Introduce financial incentives or subsidies to encourage families to upgrade their housing materials. This could involve providing financial support or loans specifically targeted at improving housing conditions for pregnant women and families with young children.

4. Partnerships and Collaboration: Foster partnerships between governments, non-governmental organizations, and private sector entities to address housing material inequalities. Collaboration can help leverage resources, expertise, and networks to implement effective interventions and scale up efforts.

5. Policy and Regulation: Advocate for policies and regulations that prioritize housing quality and safety standards, particularly for vulnerable populations. This can include enforcing building codes, promoting the use of improved housing materials, and ensuring access to basic amenities like clean water and sanitation.

6. Research and Innovation: Encourage further research and innovation in the field of housing and maternal health. This can involve exploring new technologies, materials, and construction methods that are cost-effective, sustainable, and suitable for LMIC contexts.

It is important to note that these recommendations are derived from the provided study description and may need to be further explored and tailored to specific contexts and challenges within LMIC.
AI Innovations Description
Based on the provided description, the recommendation to improve access to maternal health based on the study’s findings is to focus on interventions that target reducing the burden of under-five deaths (U5D) in households built with unimproved housing materials (UHM) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This can be achieved by implementing the following strategies:

1. Improve housing conditions: Implement programs and policies that aim to upgrade housing materials in households with UHM. This can include providing financial assistance or subsidies to families to improve the quality of their housing materials, such as promoting the use of improved floor, wall, and roof materials.

2. Enhance household wealth status: Addressing poverty and income inequality can contribute to improving housing conditions and overall maternal health. Implement poverty reduction programs, income generation initiatives, and social protection measures to uplift the economic status of households, particularly those living in UHM.

3. Enhance access to basic amenities: Improve access to clean drinking water, sanitation facilities, and clean cooking fuel in households with UHM. This can be achieved through infrastructure development, provision of clean water sources, promotion of improved toilet facilities, and dissemination of clean cooking technologies.

4. Increase health education and awareness: Implement health education programs that focus on maternal and child health, emphasizing the importance of proper housing conditions and its impact on child survival. Raise awareness among communities about the risks associated with UHM and the benefits of improved housing materials.

5. Strengthen healthcare services: Ensure the availability and accessibility of quality healthcare services, including antenatal care, skilled birth attendance, and postnatal care. Strengthen health systems in LMIC to provide comprehensive maternal and child health services, particularly in areas with a high prevalence of UHM.

6. Promote gender equality and women’s empowerment: Address gender disparities and promote women’s empowerment, as these factors play a crucial role in improving maternal and child health outcomes. Empower women through education, economic opportunities, and decision-making power within households and communities.

By implementing these recommendations, it is expected that access to maternal health will be improved, leading to a reduction in under-five deaths and better overall health outcomes for mothers and children in LMIC.
AI Innovations Methodology
The study aims to examine the factors contributing to housing material inequalities in under-five deaths (U5D) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The methodology used in the study includes the following steps:

1. Data Collection: The study used data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted between 2010 and 2018 in 56 LMIC. The DHS is a nationally representative household survey that collects data on various health indicators.

2. Sampling Design: The DHS uses a multi-stage, clustered, and stratified sampling design. Clusters, referred to as primary sampling units (PSUs), are selected from each country’s most recent census. Within each selected cluster, households are sampled, and eligible women and men within the households are interviewed.

3. Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of children’s characteristics and U5D among children from houses with improved and unimproved housing materials. Bivariable analysis was conducted to compare the proportions of U5D between the two groups. Risk differences (RD) were calculated to assess the differences in U5D rates.

4. Meta-Analysis: A country-level meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of U5D in each country and region. The Mantel-Haenszel (MH) odds ratio (OR) was calculated to determine the odds of U5D among children from houses with improved and unimproved housing materials.

5. Fairlie Decomposition Analysis (FDA): The FDA technique was used to decompose the differences in U5D between children from houses with improved and unimproved housing materials. The FDA allows for the quantification of the contributions of different factors to the observed differences. It consists of two components: the explained part, which captures differences in measurable characteristics, and the unexplained part, which captures differences in unmeasured variables.

6. Statistical Software: The data analysis was conducted using statistical software such as Stata 16 and R.

In summary, the study used data from DHS surveys in LMIC to analyze the factors contributing to housing material inequalities in U5D. The methodology included data collection, sampling design, descriptive and bivariable analysis, meta-analysis, and Fairlie decomposition analysis.

Partilhar isto:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email