RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.19.20196535
DO 10.1101/2020.09.19.20196535
A1 Susan Thurstans
A1 Charles Opondo
A1 Andrew Seal
A1 Jonathan C Wells
A1 Tanya Khara
A1 Carmel Dolan
A1 André Briend
A1 Mark Myatt
A1 Michel Garenne
A1 Rebecca Sear
A1 Marko Kerac
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/20/2020.09.19.20196535.abstract
AB Background Excess male morbidity and mortality is well recognised in neonatal medicine and infant health. In contrast, within global nutrition, it is commonly assumed that girls are more at-risk of experiencing undernutrition. We aimed to explore evidence for any male/female differences in child undernutrition using anthropometric case definitions and the reasons for differences observed.Methods We searched: Medline, Embase, Global health, Popline and Cochrane databases with no time limits applied. Eligible studies focused on children aged 0-59 months affected by undernutrition where sex was reported. In the meta-analysis, undernutrition-specific estimates were examined separately for wasting, stunting and underweight using a random effects model.Results 76 studies were identified: 46/76 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 20 which examined wasting, boys had higher odds of being wasted than girls (pooled OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13-1.40). 39 examined stunting: boys had higher odds of stunting than girls (pooled OR 1.31 95% CI 1.24-1.39). 25 explored underweight: boys had higher odds of being underweight than girls (pooled OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32). There was some limited evidence that the female advantage indicating lower risk of stunting and underweight was weaker in South Asia than other parts of the world.44/76 (58%) studies discussed possible reasons for boy/girl differences; 11/76 (14%) cited studies with similar findings with no further discussion; 21/76 (28%) had no sex difference discussion. 6/44 studies (14%) postulated biological causes, 21/44 (48%) social causes and 17/44 (38%) to a combination.Conclusion Our review indicates that undernutrition in children under 5 is more likely to affect boys than girls, though the magnitude of these differences varies and is more pronounced in some contexts than others. Future research should further explore reasons for these differences and implications for nutrition policy and practice.What is already known?Undernutrition (wasting, stunting, and underweight) is a public health problem affecting millions of children aged under 5 years globally.Although higher neonatal and infant morbidity/mortality for boys is well described, little attention has been given to sex differences in the field of undernutrition due to an assumption that girls are very often disadvantaged over boys.What are the new findings?In most settings studied, undernutrition is more common among boys than girls, though the extent of these differences varies and is reversed in a few contexts.Both biological and social mechanisms have been proposed to be responsible for the observed differences as well as a combination of the two.What do the new findings imply?Greater awareness of actual sex differences is needed within the field of nutrition. While sex-specific data is routinely analysed and reported in nutrition surveys it should be used in nutrition programming to better identify and understand what differences exist. Analysis should assess if the sex balance in programme admissions is reflective of the population undernutrition burden.Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms that lead to sex and gender differences in undernutrition and their implications. Better epidemiological understanding is a priority, as is work to explore their consequent effects on morbidity and mortality.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis paper is made possible by funding from Irish Aid (grant number HQPU/2020/ENN). The ideas, opinions and comments therein are entirely the responsibility of its author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect Irish Aid policy. This paper is also made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of ENN and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data reported in this paper are publicly available