Optimum birth interval (36-48 months) may reduce the risk of undernutrition in children: A meta-analysis
James Ntambara1, Wendi Zhang1, Anni Qiu1
1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
Insights
Longer birth intervals (≥24 months) are linked to better child nutrition, reducing risks of underweight, stunting, and wasting. An optimal interval of 36-48 months offers the most protection against childhood undernutrition.
Area of Science:
- Pediatrics
- Public Health
- Nutritional Science
Background:
- Short birth intervals are known risk factors for adverse child nutrition.
- The impact of long birth intervals on child nutritional status remains less understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantitatively evaluate the relationship between birth interval length and child nutrition outcomes.
- To identify optimal birth intervals for improved child nutritional status.
Main Methods:
- Quantitative meta-analysis of 46 studies.
- Inclusion of 898,860 children's data.
- Comparison of short (<24 months) versus longer birth intervals (≥24 months).
Main Results:
- Birth intervals of ≥24 months were associated with reduced risk of stunting and wasting.
- A U-shaped relationship was observed for underweight, with the 36-48 month interval showing the strongest protective effect (OR = 0.54).
- Longer intervals significantly decreased the risk of undernutrition compared to short intervals.
Conclusions:
- Longer birth intervals (≥24 months) are significantly associated with decreased childhood undernutrition.
- An optimal birth interval of 36-48 months may be beneficial for reducing poor nutritional outcomes, particularly underweight.
- Findings support policymakers in maternal and child health, family planning, and nutrition programs.
Background:
Although some studies have highlighted short birth interval as a risk factor for adverse child nutrition outcomes, the question of whether and to what extent long birth interval affects better nutritional outcomes in children remains unclear.
Methods:
In this quantitative meta-analysis, we evaluate the relationship between different birth interval groups and child nutrition outcomes, including underweight, wasting, and stunting.
Results:
Forty-six studies with a total of 898,860 children were included in the study. Compared with a short birth interval of <24 months, birth interval of ≥24 months and risk of being underweight showed a U-shape that the optimum birth interval group of 36-48 months yielded the most protective effect (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.89). Moreover, a birth interval of ≥24 months was significantly associated with decreased risk of stunting (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.55-0.67) and wasting (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.50-0.79) when compared with the birth interval of <24 months.
Conclusion:
The findings of this study show that longer birth intervals (≥24 months) are significantly associated with decreased risk of childhood undernutrition and that an optimum birth interval of 36-48 months might be appropriate to reduce the prevalence of poor nutritional outcomes in children, especially underweight. This information would be useful to government policymakers and development partners in maternal and child health programs, especially those involved in family planning and childhood nutritional programs.
Related Concept Videos
Environmental Influences on Intelligence
Regression Toward the Mean
Nature and Nurture
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Energy Budgets


