Low Birth Weight Rate 2001
Low birth weight rate highlights newborns under 2,500 grams, affecting survival and health outcomes.
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 | 18.993 % | |
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
In 2001, the country with the highest Low Birth Weight Rate was India, with a rate of 32.27%, while the global range spanned from a minimum of 3.60% to a maximum of 32.27%. The average Low Birth Weight Rate across 157 countries was 11.20%, providing a critical benchmark for understanding global health disparities.
Economic and Demographic Influences on Low Birth Weight
Economic and demographic factors play a significant role in the prevalence of low birth weight. Countries such as Bangladesh and Comoros, which have high rates of 25.60% and 25.40% respectively, often face economic challenges that impact maternal health and nutrition. Limited access to healthcare and poor maternal nutrition are common in developing economies, directly affecting birth outcomes. In contrast, countries like Iceland and San Marino, with rates of 3.60% and 3.92%, benefit from robust healthcare systems and higher living standards, which contribute to better prenatal care and maternal health.
Geographic Patterns and Health Infrastructure
The geographic distribution of low birth weight rates highlights disparities in health infrastructure. South Asian countries, including India and Nepal (22.30%), exhibit some of the highest rates, while Scandinavian countries such as Sweden (4.30%) and Finland (4.31%) show significantly lower rates. The availability and quality of prenatal and postnatal care are crucial factors. In regions with comprehensive health systems, early interventions and continuous monitoring help mitigate risks associated with low birth weight.
Policy Impacts on Birth Outcomes
Policy initiatives can significantly influence birth outcomes. Countries with strong public health policies often report lower rates of low birth weight. For instance, Norway (5.04%) and South Korea (5.06%) have implemented extensive maternal health programs that ensure access to nutrition and healthcare services for expectant mothers. In contrast, countries like Guinea-Bissau (24.22%) and Senegal (21.86%) may lack such comprehensive policies, resulting in higher rates.
Urbanization and Its Effects on Low Birth Weight
Urbanization trends also affect low birth weight rates. Urban areas often provide better access to healthcare facilities and nutritional resources compared to rural settings. However, rapid urbanization can lead to overcrowding and inadequate living conditions, which may negatively impact maternal health. Countries like the Philippines (20.66%) and Burkina Faso (20.17%) illustrate how urbanization, without corresponding improvements in infrastructure, can exacerbate health challenges.
Understanding the Low Birth Weight Rate in 2001 offers valuable insights into the broader social, economic, and policy environments that shape health outcomes. By analyzing these factors, policymakers can better address the underlying causes and work towards improving maternal and child health globally.
Frequently Asked Questions About Low Birth Weight Rate in 2001
Which country had the highest low birth weight rate in 2001?
India had the highest low birth weight rate in 2001, with 32.27%.
Which country had the lowest low birth weight rate in 2001?
Iceland had the lowest low birth weight rate in 2001, with 3.6%.
What was the average low birth weight rate across countries in 2001?
The average low birth weight rate across countries in 2001 was 11.2%.
What was the median low birth weight rate in 2001?
The median low birth weight rate in 2001 was 10.38%.
Which countries were in the top 3 for low birth weight rates in 2001?
The top 3 countries for low birth weight rates in 2001 were India (32.27%), Bangladesh (25.6%), and Comoros (25.4%).
What was the range of low birth weight rates among countries in 2001?
The range of low birth weight rates in 2001 was from 3.6% in Iceland to 32.27% in India.
Insights by country
Germany
In 2001, Germany had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 6.759020752 %, ranking #122 out of 157 countries. This rate is higher than the global average, indicating potential public health concerns. Contributing factors include Germany's aging population and the increasing prevalence of maternal health issues, which can lead to lower birth weights.
Israel
In 2001, Israel had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 9.933578787 %, ranking #86 out of 157 countries. This figure is relatively high compared to neighboring countries, indicating potential health challenges in the region. Contributing factors include a diverse population with varying health access and socioeconomic disparities, as well as the impact of ongoing regional conflicts on healthcare infrastructure.
Gabon
In 2001, Gabon had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 14.99107874 %, ranking #34 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than the global average, indicating challenges in maternal health and nutrition. Contributing factors include Gabon's economic reliance on oil, which can lead to disparities in healthcare access, and limited public health initiatives targeting maternal and child health.
Republic of Moldova
In 2001, the Republic of Moldova had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 6.637154485 %, ranking #124 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than that of neighboring Romania, indicating potential regional health disparities. Contributing factors to this statistic include Moldova's economic challenges, which affect maternal health services, and a high prevalence of malnutrition among pregnant women.
Italy
In 2001, Italy had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 6.58144 %, ranking #127 out of 157 countries. This rate is higher than the global average, indicating potential health concerns within the population. Contributing factors include Italy's aging population, which may result in higher risks during pregnancy, as well as regional disparities in healthcare access that affect maternal and infant health outcomes.
Iceland
Iceland had a **Low Birth Weight Rate** of **3.602341382 %** in 2001, ranking **#157 out of 157 countries**. This rate was significantly lower than that of many developed nations, reflecting the country’s strong healthcare system and maternal health policies. Factors contributing to this statistic include Iceland's robust prenatal care programs and high socioeconomic status, which promote healthier pregnancies and reduce the incidence of low birth weight among newborns.
Albania
In 2001, Albania had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 5.720029605 %, ranking #140 out of 157 countries. This rate is notably higher than many neighboring countries, indicating potential health challenges in maternal care. Contributing factors include limited access to healthcare services, economic constraints, and a lack of comprehensive maternal health policies, which can adversely affect birth outcomes.
Belgium
In 2001, Belgium had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 7.141869507 %, ranking #116 out of 157 countries. This rate is higher than the global average, indicating potential health concerns in maternal care compared to neighboring countries like France, which performs better in this metric. Contributing factors include Belgium's diverse population and varying access to healthcare services, which can affect prenatal care and nutrition among expectant mothers.
Mexico
In 2001, Mexico had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 9.987899529 %, ranking #85 out of 157 countries. This rate is higher than the global average, indicating challenges in maternal and infant health. Contributing factors include socioeconomic disparities, limited access to healthcare in rural areas, and inadequate maternal nutrition, which are prevalent in various regions of the country.
Rwanda
In 2001, Rwanda had a Low Birth Weight Rate of 9.035622752 %, ranking #94 out of 157 countries. This rate is higher than the global average, indicating challenges in maternal and infant health. Contributing factors include limited access to healthcare services, nutritional deficiencies among pregnant women, and the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, which significantly impacted the country's social and economic structures.
Data Source
Low-birthweight babies (% of births)
The World Bank provides global development data, including statistics on low-birthweight babies as a percentage of total births. This dataset offers insights into maternal and child health across various countries, highlighting public health challenges and trends.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Low Birth Weight Rate data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.