4.6 Article

Household fuels, low birth weight, and neonatal death in India: The separate impacts of biomass, kerosene, and coal

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2012.12.006

关键词

Indoor air pollution; Household air pollution; NFHS-3; Solid fuel

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Health
  2. Society Scholars Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the impact of maternal use of different household cooking fuels in India on low birth weight (LBW < 2500 g), and neonatal mortality (death within 28 days of birth). Using cross-sectional data from India's National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), we separately analyzed the prevalence of these two outcomes in households utilizing three types of high-pollution fuels for cooking - biomass, coal, and kerosene - using low-pollution fuels (gas and biogas) as the comparison control group. Taking socioeconomic and child-specific factors into account, we employed logistic regression to examine the impact of fuel use on fetal and infant health. The results indicate that household use of high-pollution fuels is significantly associated with increased odds of LBW and neonatal death. Compared to households using cleaner fuels (in which the mean birth weight is 2901 g), the primary use of coal, kerosene, and biomass fuels is associated with significant decreases in mean birth weight (of -110 g for coal, -107 g for kerosene, and -78 g for biomass). Kerosene and biomass fuel use are also associated with increased risk of LBW (p < 0.05). Results suggest that increased risk of neonatal death is strongly associated with household use of coal (OR 18.54; 95% CI: 6.31-54.45), and perhaps with kerosene (OR 230; 95% CI: 0.95-5.55). Biomass is associated with increased risk of neonatal death among infants born to women with no more than primary education (OR 7.56; 95% CI: 2.40-23.80). These results are consistent with a growing literature showing health impacts of household air pollution from these fuels. (c) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据