Short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Short birth interval is associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes for mothers and children. Despite this, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence on short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region. Thus, this study aimed to synthesise evidence related to the definition, classification, prevalence, and predictors of short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region.

Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published between September 2000 and May 2023 (the last search was conducted for all databases in May 2023). We included original studies published in English that reported on short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region. Studies that combined birth interval with birth order, used multi-country data and were published as conference abstracts and commentaries were excluded. Three independent reviewers screened the articles for relevancy, and two reviewers performed the data extraction and quality assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. The findings were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesised and presented.

Results: A total of 140 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. About 58% (n = 82) of the studies defined short birth interval, while 42% (n = 58) did not. Out of 82 studies, nearly half (n = 39) measured a birth-to-birth interval, 37 studies measured a birth-to-pregnancy, four measured a pregnancy-to-pregnancy, and two studies measured a pregnancy loss-to-conception. Approximately 39% (n = 55) and 6% (n = 8) of studies classified short birth intervals as <24 months and <33 months, respectively. Most of the included studies were cross-sectional, and about two-thirds had either medium or high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence of short birth interval was 33.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 23.0-44.6, I² = 99.9%, P < 0.01) among the studies that used the World Health Organization definition.

Conclusions: This review's findings highlighted significant variations in the definition, measurement, classification, and reported prevalence of short birth interval across the included studies. Future research is needed to harmonise the definition and classification of short birth interval to ensure consistency and comparability across studies and facilitate the development of targeted interventions and policies.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023426975.

Figure 1

Studies’ selection process according to PRISMA 2020 Statement.

Figure 2

Pooled prevalence of short birth interval among studies that followed World Health Organization recommendation.