↓ Skip to main content

Trends, causes, and risk factors of mortality among children under 5 in Ethiopia, 1990–2013: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
323 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Trends, causes, and risk factors of mortality among children under 5 in Ethiopia, 1990–2013: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013
Published in
Population Health Metrics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12963-016-0112-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amare Deribew, Gizachew Assefa Tessema, Kebede Deribe, Yohannes Adama Melaku, Yihunie Lakew, Azmeraw T. Amare, Semaw F. Abera, Mesoud Mohammed, Abiy Hiruye, Efrem Teklay, Awoke Misganaw, Nicholas Kassebaum

Abstract

Ethiopia has made remarkable progress in reducing child mortality over the last two decades. However, the under-5 mortality rate in Ethiopia is still higher than the under-5 mortality rates of several low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). On the other hand, the patterns and causes of child mortality have not been well investigated in Ethiopia. The objective of this study was to investigate the mortality trend, causes of death, and risk factors among children under 5 in Ethiopia during 1990-2013. We used Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 data. Spatiotemporal Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) was applied to generate best estimates of child mortality with 95% uncertainty intervals (UI). Causes of death by age groups, sex, and year were measured using Cause of Death Ensemble modeling (CODEm). For estimation of HIV/AIDS mortality rate, the modified UNAIDS EPP-SPECTRUM suite model was used. Between 1990 and 2013 the under-5 mortality rate declined from 203.9 deaths/1000 live births to 74.4 deaths/1000 live births with an annual rate of change of 4.6%, yielding a total reduction of 64%. Similarly, child (1-4 years), post-neonatal, and neonatal mortality rates declined by 75%, 64%, and 52%, respectively, between 1990 and 2013. Lower respiratory tract infection (LRI), diarrheal diseases, and neonatal syndromes (preterm birth complications, neonatal encephalopathy, neonatal sepsis, and other neonatal disorders) accounted for 54% of the total under-5 deaths in 2013. Under-5 mortality rates due to measles, diarrhea, malaria, protein-energy malnutrition, and iron-deficiency anemia declined by more than two-thirds between 1990 and 2013. Among the causes of under-5 deaths, neonatal syndromes such as sepsis, preterm birth complications, and birth asphyxia ranked third to fifth in 2013. Of all risk-attributable deaths in 1990, 25% of the total under-5 deaths (112,288/435,962) and 48% (112,288/232,199) of the deaths due to diarrhea, LRI, and other common infections were attributable to childhood wasting. Similarly, 19% (43,759/229,333) of the total under-5 deaths and 45% (43,759/97,963) of the deaths due to diarrhea and LRI were attributable to wasting in 2013. Of the total diarrheal disease- and LRI-related deaths (n = 97,963) in 2013, 59% (57,923/97,963) of them were attributable to unsafe water supply, unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, and no handwashing with soap. LRI, diarrheal diseases, and neonatal syndromes remain the major causes of under-5 deaths in Ethiopia. These findings call for better-integrated newborn and child survival interventions focusing on the main risk factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 321 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 18%
Researcher 36 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Lecturer 17 5%
Other 66 20%
Unknown 95 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 16%
Social Sciences 16 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 102 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,690,435
of 25,046,511 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#66
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,829
of 314,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,511 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.