Cited by 207Global Maternal and Child HealthMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareChild Nutrition and Water Access

Changes in cause-specific neonatal and 1–59-month child mortality in India from 2000 to 2015: a nationally representative survey

Open access
Fadel, Shaza A, Rasaily, Reeta, Awasthi, Shally, Begum, Rehana, Black, Robert E, Gelband, Hellen, Gerland, Patrick, Kumar, Rajesh +19 more·2017·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Documentation of the demographic and geographical details of changes in cause-specific neonatal (younger than 1 month) and 1-59-month mortality in India can guide further progress in reduction of child mortality. In this study we report the changes in cause-specific child mortality between 2000 and 2015 in India.Methods Since 2001, the Registrar General of India has implemented the Million Death Study (MDS) in 1·3 million homes in more than 7000 randomly selected areas of India. About 900 non-medical surveyors do structured verbal autopsies for deaths recorded in these homes. Each field report is assigned randomly to two of 404 trained physicians to classify the cause of death, with a standard process for resolution of disagreements. We combined the proportions of child deaths according to the MDS for 2001-13 with annual UN estimates of national births and deaths (partitioned across India's states and rural or urban areas) for 2000-15. We calculated the annual percentage change in sex-specific and cause-specific mortality between 2000 and 2015 for neonates and 1-59-month-old children.Findings The MDS captured 52 252 deaths in neonates and 42 057 deaths at 1-59 months. Examining specific causes, the neonatal mortality rate from infection fell by 66% from 11·9 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 4·0 per 1000 livebirths in 2015 and the rate from birth asphyxia or trauma fell by 76% from 9·0 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 2·2 per 1000 livebirths in 2015. At 1-59 months, the mortality rate from pneumonia fell by 63% from 11·2 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 4·2 per 1000 livebirths in 2015 and the rate from diarrhoea fell by 66% from 9·4 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 3·2 per 1000 livebirths in 2015 (with narrowing girl-boy gaps). The neonatal tetanus mortality rate fell from 1·6 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to less than 0·1 per 1000 livebirths in 2015 and the 1-59-month measles mortality rate fell from 3·3 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 0·3 per 1000 livebirths in 2015. By contrast, mortality rates for prematurity or low birthweight rose from 12·3 per 1000 livebirths in 2000 to 14·3 per 1000 livebirths in 2015, driven mostly by increases in term births with low birthweight in poorer states and rural areas. 29 million cumulative child deaths occurred from 2000 to 2015. The average annual decline in mortality rates from 2000 to 2015 was 3·3% for neonates and 5·4% for children aged 1-59 months. Annual declines from 2005 to 2015 (3·4% decline for neonatal mortality and 5·9% decline in 1-59-month mortality) were faster than were annual declines from 2000 to 2005 (3·2% decline for neonatal mortality and 4·5% decline in 1-59-month mortality). These faster declines indicate that India avoided about 1 million child deaths compared with continuation of the 2000-05 declines.Interpretation To meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals for child mortality, India will need to maintain the current trajectory of 1-59-month mortality and accelerate declines in neonatal mortality (to >5% annually) from 2015 onwards. Continued progress in reduction of child mortality due to pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, and measles at 1-59 months is feasible. Additional attention to low birthweight is required.Funding National Institutes of Health, Disease Control Priorities Network, Maternal and Child Epidemiology Estimation Group, and University of Toronto.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32162-1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinician-assigned cause of death may be inaccurate for several reasons, including lack of diagnostic tools such as autopsies, placental histology, X-rays, and lack of routine bacterial cultures.

    “Clinician-assigned cause of death, which is the most common method used, may be inaccurate for several reasons, including lack of diagnostic tools such as autopsies, placental histology, X-rays, as well as lack of routine bacterial cultures [6, 7].”

    From Neonatal deaths in rural Karnataka, India 2014–2018: a prospective population-based observational study in a low-resource setting (2020) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion acknowledges uncertainty and some misclassification in physician-coded verbal autopsies, supporting the general point that assigned causes of death may be inaccurate. It does not say clinician assignment is the most common method or link inaccuracies to missing autopsies, placental histology, X-rays, or routine bacterial cultures. The indexed passages do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 207

Authors
Fadel, S. A., Rasaily, R., Awasthi, S., Begum, R., Black, R. E., Gelband, H., Gerland, P., Kumar, R., Liu, L., Mathers, C., Morris, S. K., Nair, S., Newcombe, L., Pandey, A., Ram, F., Ram, U., Rodriguez, P. S., Sahu, D., Sati, P., Shah, P. J., Shet, A., Sheth, J., Singh, J. K., Singh, L., Sinha, A., Suraweera, W., & Jha, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
390
Issue
10106
Pages
1972-1980
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2755535717
Cited by
207
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
16.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Fogarty International Center (R01TW005991)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
Keywords
neonatal mortality, child mortality, cause-specific mortality, verbal autopsy, pneumonia, diarrhea, neonatal asphyxia, infection, mortality trends, sex differences in mortality, India, urban-rural differences
MeSH terms
Cause of Death, Child, Preschool, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, India, Infant, Infant Mortality, Infant, Newborn, Male, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Rural Population, Socioeconomic Factors, Urban Population, Risk Assessment, Child Mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review