Back

Prevalence, trends, and determinants of malnutrition among under six-month old infants in Bangladesh: analysis of DHS data (2004 to 2022)

Mahmud, I.; Assies, R.; Haider, R.; Sharif, A. B.; Roba, K. T.; Kerac, M.

2026-02-11 public and global health
10.64898/2026.02.10.26345991 medRxiv
Show abstract

Malnutrition among infants aged under six months (u6m) is a global public health problem. As countries begin implementing 2023 WHO malnutrition guidelines, local prevalence and epidemiology must be well understood. We analysed Bangladesh Demographic Health Survey data (2004 - 2022), describing the prevalence and time trends of infant u6m wasting (weight-for-length z-score [WLZ] <-2), stunting (length-for-age z-score [LAZ] <-2), and underweight (weight-for-age z-score [WAZ] <-2). In bivariate and multivariate analyses, we tested the association between wasting and underweight and established risk factors for malnutrition. Over the last 20 years, Bangladesh has seen a substantial reduction in stunting and underweight while wasting has remained relatively stable. In 2022, out of 476 infants u6m, 10.6% were wasted, 12.8% stunted, 13.7% underweight, 0.5% concurrently wasted/stunted, and 14.8% were reported small at birth. This translates to 185,390 infants u6m being wasted, 223,867 stunted, and 239,608 underweight, in 2022. WAZ had the lowest percentage of flagged data (0.8%) compared to WLZ (6.0%) and LAZ (6.4%). Underweight was associated with delivery place, small birth size, infant sex, post-natal check-ups, fever in the past 2 weeks, drinking water source, maternal BMI, and maternal height. Fewer factors were associated with being wasted, including the sex of the household head. Our findings support the urgent need to roll out 2023 WHO Guidelines in Bangladesh. They also support the superiority of underweight as a measure of undernutrition. Packages of care tackling a wide range of potential underlying causes are important for effective local interventions tailored to this age group.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.