Low Birth Weight Prevalence 2001
Low birth weight prevalence shows the percentage of newborns weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
Rank | Actions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
1 | India | 32.272 % | |
2 | Bangladesh | 25.602 % | |
3 | Comoros | 25.402 % | |
4 | Guinea-Bissau | 24.22 % | |
5 | Nepal | 22.296 % | |
6 | Senegal | 21.857 % | |
7 | Philippines | 20.665 % | |
8 | Burkina Faso | 20.17 % | |
9 | Madagascar | 20.009 % | |
10 | Mauritius | 19.466 % | |
11 | Liberia | 19.429 % | |
12 | Côte d'Ivoire | 19.395 % | |
13 | Sri Lanka | 19.322 % | |
14 | Mozambique | 19.293 % | |
15 | Timor-Leste | 18.994 % | |
16 | Benin | 18.725 % | |
17 | Morocco | 18.188 % | |
18 | Botswana | 18.135 % | |
19 | Papua New Guinea | 18.094 % | |
20 | Laos | 17.614 % | |
21 | Angola | 17.246 % | |
22 | South Africa | 17.176 % | |
23 | Malawi | 16.448 % | |
24 | Namibia | 16.423 % | |
25 | Guyana | 16.377 % | |
26 | Eritrea | 15.943 % | |
27 | Ghana | 15.778 % | |
28 | Togo | 15.731 % | |
29 | Turkey | 15.672 % | |
30 | Burundi | 15.6 % | |
31 | Central African Republic | 15.299 % | |
32 | Trinidad and Tobago | 15.113 % | |
33 | Lesotho | 14.992 % | |
34 | Gabon | 14.991 % | |
35 | Jordan | 14.865 % | |
36 | Jamaica | 14.833 % | |
37 | Bahamas | 14.662 % | |
38 | Cambodia | 14.527 % | |
39 | Saint Lucia | 14.501 % | |
40 | Gambia | 14.376 % | |
41 | Suriname | 14.314 % | |
42 | Antigua and Barbuda | 14.137 % | |
43 | Maldives | 13.984 % | |
44 | Guatemala | 13.962 % | |
45 | Sierra Leone | 13.699 % | |
46 | Oman | 13.478 % | |
47 | Palau | 13.398 % | |
48 | Cameroon | 13.285 % | |
49 | Zambia | 13.016 % | |
50 | Solomon Islands | 12.918 % | |
51 | Zimbabwe | 12.889 % | |
52 | United Arab Emirates | 12.881 % | |
53 | Congo | 12.764 % | |
54 | Brunei Darussalam | 12.384 % | |
55 | Lebanon | 12.379 % | |
56 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 12.335 % | |
57 | Bhutan | 12.294 % | |
58 | Myanmar | 12.198 % | |
59 | Vanuatu | 12.172 % | |
60 | Malaysia | 12.156 % | |
61 | Seychelles | 12.107 % | |
62 | Tanzania | 11.889 % | |
63 | Kenya | 11.629 % | |
64 | Honduras | 11.541 % | |
65 | Panama | 11.505 % | |
66 | Ecuador | 11.474 % | |
67 | Nicaragua | 11.388 % | |
68 | Japan | 11.186 % | |
69 | Eswatini | 11.038 % | |
70 | Thailand | 11.014 % | |
71 | Azerbaijan | 10.994 % | |
72 | Belize | 10.902 % | |
73 | Indonesia | 10.821 % | |
74 | Bulgaria | 10.538 % | |
75 | Romania | 10.498 % | |
76 | Singapore | 10.497 % | |
77 | El Salvador | 10.444 % | |
78 | Iraq | 10.383 % | |
79 | Dominican Republic | 10.376 % | |
80 | Kuwait | 10.29 % | |
81 | Bahrain | 10.227 % | |
82 | Sao Tome and Principe | 10.14 % | |
83 | Peru | 10.081 % | |
84 | Tajikistan | 10.049 % | |
85 | Mexico | 9.988 % | |
86 | Israel | 9.934 % | |
87 | Paraguay | 9.892 % | |
88 | Greece | 9.867 % | |
89 | Qatar | 9.864 % | |
90 | Colombia | 9.749 % | |
91 | Vietnam | 9.682 % | |
92 | Kiribati | 9.251 % | |
93 | State of Palestine | 9.093 % | |
94 | Rwanda | 9.036 % | |
95 | Spain | 8.915 % | |
96 | Bolivia | 8.851 % | |
97 | Armenia | 8.784 % | |
98 | Venezuela | 8.751 % | |
99 | Andorra | 8.726 % | |
100 | Hungary | 8.521 % | |
101 | Uruguay | 8.438 % | |
102 | Costa Rica | 8.365 % | |
103 | Brazil | 8.046 % | |
104 | North Macedonia | 8.036 % | |
105 | United States | 7.869 % | |
106 | Tunisia | 7.828 % | |
107 | France | 7.573 % | |
108 | Russia | 7.549 % | |
109 | United Kingdom | 7.513 % | |
110 | Argentina | 7.412 % | |
111 | Mongolia | 7.397 % | |
112 | Monaco | 7.363 % | |
113 | Fiji | 7.288 % | |
114 | Portugal | 7.282 % | |
115 | Slovakia | 7.214 % | |
116 | Belgium | 7.142 % | |
117 | Kyrgyzstan | 7.138 % | |
118 | Cuba | 7.082 % | |
119 | Luxembourg | 7.004 % | |
120 | Austria | 6.939 % | |
121 | Algeria | 6.798 % | |
122 | Germany | 6.759 % | |
123 | Netherlands | 6.744 % | |
124 | Republic of Moldova | 6.637 % | |
125 | Czech Republic | 6.611 % | |
126 | Malta | 6.584 % | |
127 | Italy | 6.581 % | |
128 | Kazakhstan | 6.533 % | |
129 | Montenegro | 6.422 % | |
130 | Switzerland | 6.25 % | |
131 | Australia | 6.245 % | |
132 | Ukraine | 6.169 % | |
133 | New Zealand | 6.156 % | |
134 | Georgia | 6.106 % | |
135 | Poland | 5.995 % | |
136 | Serbia | 5.943 % | |
137 | Slovenia | 5.884 % | |
138 | Turkmenistan | 5.79 % | |
139 | Canada | 5.726 % | |
140 | Albania | 5.72 % | |
141 | China | 5.698 % | |
142 | Uzbekistan | 5.513 % | |
143 | Denmark | 5.429 % | |
144 | Chile | 5.342 % | |
145 | Belarus | 5.28 % | |
146 | Latvia | 5.13 % | |
147 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 5.071 % | |
148 | South Korea | 5.061 % | |
149 | Croatia | 5.057 % | |
150 | Norway | 5.042 % | |
151 | Ireland | 4.823 % | |
152 | Lithuania | 4.688 % | |
153 | Estonia | 4.452 % | |
154 | Finland | 4.311 % | |
155 | Sweden | 4.303 % | |
156 | San Marino | 3.923 % | |
157 | Iceland | 3.602 % |
- #1
India
- #2
Bangladesh
- #3
Comoros
- #4
Guinea-Bissau
- #5
Nepal
- #6
Senegal
- #7
Philippines
- #8
Burkina Faso
- #9
Madagascar
- #10
Mauritius
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
- #157
Iceland
- #156
San Marino
- #155
Sweden
- #154
Finland
- #153
Estonia
- #152
Lithuania
- #151
Ireland
- #150
Norway
- #149
Croatia
- #148
South Korea
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
India recorded the highest Low Birth Weight Prevalence in 2001 with a rate of 32.27%, while the global range spanned from 3.60% to 32.27%. The global average for low birth weight prevalence in 2001 was 11.20%, providing a benchmark for evaluating individual country performances.
Socioeconomic Factors and High Prevalence in South Asia
The data reveals a significant concentration of high Low Birth Weight Prevalence in South Asian countries. India leads with the highest prevalence at 32.27%, followed by Bangladesh at 25.60% and Nepal at 22.30%. These figures are substantially above the global average of 11.20%. The high prevalence in these regions can be attributed to socioeconomic factors such as poverty, inadequate prenatal care, and malnutrition. These countries often struggle with healthcare infrastructure, which can exacerbate maternal health issues leading to lower birth weights.
Geographic Disparities and Health Infrastructure
Geographic disparities are evident when comparing regions with robust healthcare systems to those without. Sub-Saharan Africa also shows higher rates, with countries like Comoros (25.40%) and Guinea-Bissau (24.22%) reflecting significant challenges in healthcare delivery and nutrition. In contrast, countries with advanced healthcare systems such as Iceland (3.60%), Sweden (4.30%), and Finland (4.31%) show much lower prevalence rates. These disparities underscore the importance of healthcare access and quality in managing birth outcomes.
Economic Development and Birth Outcomes
Economic development plays a crucial role in birth outcomes. In countries such as South Korea and Iceland, low birth weight prevalence is minimal at 5.06% and 3.60% respectively, reflecting their higher GDP per capita and better healthcare systems. Conversely, countries like Burkina Faso (20.17%) and Madagascar (20.01%) with lower economic development face higher rates. Improved economic conditions often lead to better nutrition, healthcare access, and education, which are critical in reducing low birth weight prevalence.
Policy Interventions and Global Health Initiatives
Policy interventions can significantly influence low birth weight prevalence. Countries with comprehensive maternal health policies and programs tend to have lower prevalence rates. For instance, the Nordic countries, which are among those with the lowest rates, have well-established healthcare policies focusing on maternal and child health. Global health initiatives aimed at reducing maternal and child mortality have also played a role in improving outcomes in many developing countries, although challenges remain. The data from 2001 highlights the need for continued investment and policy focus to address the underlying causes of low birth weight across different regions.
In conclusion, the data from 2001 underscores the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, healthcare infrastructure, economic development, and policy interventions in determining Low Birth Weight Prevalence. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach tailored to the specific needs and challenges of each country.
Frequently Asked Questions About Low Birth Weight Prevalence in 2001
Which country had the highest prevalence of low birth weight in 2001?
India had the highest prevalence of low birth weight in 2001, with 32.27% of newborns weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth.
Which country had the lowest prevalence of low birth weight in 2001?
Iceland had the lowest prevalence of low birth weight in 2001, with 3.6% of newborns weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth.
What was the average prevalence of low birth weight across countries in 2001?
The average prevalence of low birth weight across the 157 countries in 2001 was 11.2%.
What was the median prevalence of low birth weight in 2001?
The median prevalence of low birth weight in 2001 was 10.38%.
Which countries were in the top 3 for low birth weight prevalence in 2001?
The top 3 countries for low birth weight prevalence in 2001 were India (32.27%), Bangladesh (25.6%), and Comoros (25.4%).
What is the range of low birth weight prevalence among countries in 2001?
The range of low birth weight prevalence among countries in 2001 was from 3.6% in Iceland to 32.27% in India.
Insights by country
Bhutan
In 2001, Bhutan had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 12.294036 %, ranking #57 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than the global average, indicating significant health challenges within the nation. Contributing factors include Bhutan's rugged terrain, which can limit access to healthcare facilities, and ongoing economic development issues that affect maternal nutrition and healthcare access.
Finland
In 2001, Finland had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 4.3106885 %, ranking #154 out of 157 countries. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating potential challenges in maternal health compared to many developed nations. Contributing factors include Finland's relatively high rate of preterm births and socioeconomic disparities that affect access to healthcare services, particularly in rural areas.
Kenya
In 2001, Kenya had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 11.629028 %, ranking #63 out of 157 countries. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating significant public health challenges. Contributing factors include limited access to quality prenatal care, high rates of maternal malnutrition, and socioeconomic disparities that affect healthcare access. Additionally, rural areas often experience higher prevalence rates due to inadequate health infrastructure.
South Korea
In 2001, South Korea had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 5.0610237 %, ranking #148 out of 157 countries. This figure is notably higher than some neighboring countries, indicating potential public health concerns. Contributing factors include South Korea's rapid economic development, which has led to lifestyle changes and increased maternal age at childbirth, both of which are associated with higher low birth weight rates.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan ranked #71 globally with a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 10.99351 % in 2001. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating potential health challenges within the country. Contributing factors include economic transitions following independence and limited access to maternal healthcare services, which can impact birth outcomes.
Gambia
In 2001, Gambia had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 14.376005 %, ranking #40 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than the global average, indicating significant public health challenges. Contributing factors include limited access to healthcare services, high levels of poverty, and nutritional deficiencies among pregnant women, which are prevalent in the country.
Lebanon
In 2001, Lebanon had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 12.3786335 %, ranking #55 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than the global average, indicating potential health challenges faced by newborns in the region. Contributing factors include Lebanon's ongoing economic instability and the impact of conflict on healthcare access, which can adversely affect maternal health and nutrition.
Belarus
In 2001, Belarus had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 5.2797904 %, ranking #145 out of 157 countries. This figure is higher than the global average, reflecting significant health challenges in maternal and child care. Contributing factors include Belarus's economic transition post-Soviet Union, which affected healthcare access and quality, alongside demographic trends such as lower birth rates and higher rates of smoking among pregnant women.
Zimbabwe
In 2001, Zimbabwe had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 12.8892145 %, ranking #51 out of 157 countries. This prevalence is notably higher than many neighboring countries, indicating significant public health challenges. Contributing factors include economic instability, which affects maternal health services, and a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, impacting pregnancy outcomes.
Mauritius
In 2001, Mauritius had a Low Birth Weight Prevalence of 19.465933 %, ranking #10 out of 157 countries. This figure is notably higher than the global average, indicating significant public health challenges. Contributing factors include socioeconomic disparities and limited access to maternal healthcare services, which impact the nutritional status of pregnant women in the country.
Data Source
Share of babies born with a low birthweight, 2020
Our World in Data is a research organization that provides comprehensive data and visualizations on global development issues, including health, education, and economic indicators. The dataset on the share of babies born with low birthweight in 2020 offers country-level statistics that highlight variations in maternal and infant health outcomes across different regions.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Low Birth Weight Prevalence data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.