Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2021 Jun 29;11:13497. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92606-0

Approximation of the Cox survival regression model by MCMC Bayesian Hierarchical Poisson modelling of factors associated with childhood mortality in Nigeria

A F Fagbamigbe 1,2,, M M Salawu 1,2, S M Abatan 2,3, O Ajumobi 2,4
PMCID: PMC8241837  PMID: 34188083

Abstract

The need for more pragmatic approaches to achieve sustainable development goal on childhood mortality reduction necessitated this study. Simultaneous study of the influence of where the children live and the censoring nature of children survival data is scarce. We identified the compositional and contextual factors associated with under-five (U5M) and infant (INM) mortality in Nigeria from 5 MCMC Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression models as approximations of the Cox survival regression model. The 2018 DHS data of 33,924 under-five children were used. Life table techniques and the Mlwin 3.05 module for the analysis of hierarchical data were implemented in Stata Version 16. The overall INM rate (INMR) was 70 per 1000 livebirths compared with U5M rate (U5MR) of 131 per 1000 livebirth. The INMR was lowest in Ogun (17 per 1000 live births) and highest in Kaduna (106), Gombe (112) and Kebbi (116) while the lowest U5MR was found in Ogun (29) and highest in Jigawa (212) and Kebbi (248). The risks of INM and U5M were highest among children with none/low maternal education, multiple births, low birthweight, short birth interval, poorer households, when spouses decide on healthcare access, having a big problem getting to a healthcare facility, high community illiteracy level, and from states with a high proportion of the rural population in the fully adjusted model. Compared with the null model, 81% vs 13% and 59% vs 35% of the total variation in INM and U5M were explained by the state- and neighbourhood-level factors respectively. Infant- and under-five mortality in Nigeria is influenced by compositional and contextual factors. The Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression model used in estimating the factors associated with childhood deaths in Nigeria fitted the survival data.

Subject terms: Health care, Statistics, Risk factors, Epidemiology

Introduction

Globally, child mortality has declined rapidly, however, the rate of reduction is very slow and poses a great public health challenge in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)13. Child mortality is a useful indicator of the general level of health and development of a society4,5. Reports revealed that the daily 25,000 deaths among under-five children are concentrated in the world’s poorest countries in SSA and Southeast Asia68. These regions, especially the SSA, is the most challenging region for a child to live and survive as it bears the highest burden of child mortality globally8. Under-five mortality (U5M) is the risk of a child dying before age five while Infant Mortality (INM) is the death of a child before age one. In SSA, 1 child in 13 dies before her fifth birthday9. The 2018 World Health Organization (WHO) reported that U5M and INM in low-income countries were 68 per 1000 and 62 per 1000 live births compared to 5 deaths per 1000 live births in high-income countries4. The 2018 United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation report stated that 2.8 million children die before the fifth birthday in SSA and Southeast Asia which translates to 52% of all under-five mortality rate (U5MR) globally 7. Despite the global reduction in U5MR and infant mortality rate (INMR), the United Nations (UN) stated that many countries of the world, especially SSA countries, failed to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targeted at two-third reduction of childhood mortality at the end of 20152,3. In 2017, 118 countries achieved the target of child mortality at below 25 deaths per 1000 livebirth of the new framework known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). However, the SSA lags far behind in meeting the global target1012.

In 2018, half of the global child mortality occurred in five countries: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia8. Sadly, India and Nigeria alone accounted for about a third of these deaths8. The Nigerian Demographic Health Survey (NDHS) estimated that between 1990 to 2018, U5MR declined from 213 to 32, while INMR declined from 125 to 621317. These trends show a slow reduction in child mortality over two decades which is unremarkable and clearly above the SDG target16.

This slow reduction in U5MR and INMR in Nigeria has been largely attributed to preventable causes for which there are known and cost-effective interventions. Communicable diseases also contribute and conditions such as acute lower respiratory infections, mostly pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, measles, HIV/AIDS, and neonatal conditions, mainly pre-term birth, birth asphyxia, and infections. HIV/AIDS has been contributing steadily to the relative increase in total U5M in SSA4,12. Studies across the country have attributed these determinants in child mortality in Nigeria to maternal, child and socioeconomic factors1820. These factors include poverty, suboptimal uptake of immunization, poor access to basic healthcare services, maternal factors such as low or no education, young maternal age, high fertility risk disparity in region and place of residence1,1820.

Variations in these indices have been reported across sub-group of populations, geopolitical regions, states, and divisions across different countries19,2125. This inequity in child mortality rate across the country could be explained by the Mosley and Chen popular framework of the proximate causes of child mortality which linked child deaths to socio-economic determinants at the individual, household, and community levels26. Understanding the depth of the determinants of U5M and INM at various levels will help policymakers to put in place appropriate interventions to improve child in Nigeria. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with infant and under-five mortalities regarding the communities and the states where the children live.

Methods

This study used secondary data from 2018 NDHS, which is cross-sectional in design and nationally representative14. The DHS uses a multistage, stratified sampling design (state, clusters, and households) with the clusters (neighbourhoods) as the primary sampling unit. Eligible mothers living in households were interviewed. Sampling weights were generated to account for unequal selection probabilities as well as for non-response because the surveys were not self-weighting. With weights applied, survey findings represent the target populations. Information on households, sexual and reproductive health was collected from women aged 15–49 years within the selected households. Moreover, the DHS collects the birth history of all women interviewed. We, therefore, used the “child recode data” which contains all follow-up information on all children born to the interviewed women within five years preceding the survey. Information on a total sample of 33,924 under-five children was included in the analysis.

Study setting

The setting is Nigeria which comprises 36 states and the Federal capital territory (FCT), Abuja. The states are distributed across six geopolitical regions; North-East (NE), North-West (NW), North-Central (NC), South-East (SE), South-South (SS), and South-West (SW). The states are hereafter referred to as 36 + 1 states. The population characteristics in each of the geopolitical regions and states are relatively homogeneous and they share similar socio-cultural characteristics. Also, health-related characteristics such as access to healthcare, environment, housing characteristics are similar within the regions and states.

Ethical approval and informed consent

Publicly available data from the DHS was used for the analysis. Before each interview, informed consents were obtained from the participants to participate in the survey. DHS survey protocol has consistent procedures with the standards for ensuring the protection of respondents’ confidentiality and privacy. While no further approval was required for us, we obtained permission to use the data from the data owners (ICF Macro, US). Originally, ethical approval for the survey was sought from ICF institutional review board. The data is available at dhsprogram.com. Written and signed informed consent was obtained from each parent and/or legal guardians of the children who participated in the study were told that the interviews have minimal risks and potential benefits and that information will be collected anonymously and held confidentially. The full details can be found at http://dhsprogram.com. All methods for data collection and data analysis were carried out following relevant guidelines and regulations on the protection of participants’ data.

Data

Data structure

The multistage sampling procedure used by DHS in collecting the data enabled a hierarchical (multi-level) structure across the individual, neighbourhood and state levels as shown in Fig. 1. Overall, data on 33,924 children under-five from 1,389 clusters embedded within 36 + 1 states were included in the analysis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Hierarchical nature of the data structure. Source: Authors drawings.

Data availability

The data used for this data is available at http://dhsprogram.com.

Outcome variable

There are two outcome variables in this study. They are infant mortality (INM), and under-five mortality (U5M). According to the NDHS, INM and U5M are deaths within the first one year and first five years of life respectively14.

Explanatory variables

We adopted the Mosley et al. conceptual framework26 to arrive at the explanatory variables. These variables have been identified in earlier studies to be associated with mortality among children11,1820,23,2729. We categorised the explanatory variables into individual-level, neighbourhood-level and state-level explanatory variables as shown in Fig. 1.

Individual-level factors

The following individual-level factors were included in the models: sex of the children (male versus female), maternal age in completed years (15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–39, 40–49 years), maternal education (no education, primary, secondary or higher); marital status (never married, living together/married and widowed/divorced) and occupational status (currently working or not working), religious affiliation (Islam, Other Christians, Catholic and others); Ethnicity (Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo/Ibobio and others); decision on mothers healthcare-seeking (respondent alone, both respondent and spouse, spouse alone); problem in accessing health care (big problem, not a big problem). Information on household income and expenditure was not collected in the 2018 NDHS. We, therefore, used DHS wealth index scores as a proxy indicator for households’ socioeconomic position. The scores were aggregated from the household’s assets ownership. We classified the scores into three tertiles (poorest, middle, and richest). Other variables were sources of drinking water (unimproved source versus improved source); toilet type (improved source or unimproved source), house material was aggregated from floor, wall and roofing materials (poor or good); type of birth (singleton or multiple); birthweight (average/higher range, small, very small); birth orders (1, 2–4, 4 +), birth intervals; (1st birth, < 36 months, 36 months +), postnatal care (no, yes); delivery mode (normal or caesarean); received tetanus injection (No, Yes).

Neighbourhood-level factors

We operationalized the term neighbourhood to describe clustering within the same geographical living environment. Neighbourhoods were based on sharing a common primary sample unit within the DHS data. The sampling frame for identifying the primary sample unit in the DHS-7 is usually based on two reasons. First, the primary sample unit is the most consistent measure of the neighbourhood across all the surveys30,31 and thus the most appropriate identifier of the neighbourhood for this cross-state comparison. Secondly, the sample size per cluster in the 2018 NDHS meets the optimum size with a tolerable precision loss. The following neighbourhood-level factors were included in the models: the place of residence (rural or urban area), neighbourhood poverty-, illiteracy- and unemployment rates. We categorised these rates into two categories: low and high, to allow for non-linear effects.

State-level factor

The 36 + 1 state-level data were collected from the reports published by the Nigeria National Population Commission14. We used the “percentage of rural population” in each state to categorise the states into three groups: 0% to 33.3% as low rural proportion; 33.4% to 66.7% as middle rural proportion and 66.8% to 100% as high rural proportion.

Collinearity

We diagnosed collinearity among the explanatory variables using a correlation matrix in an attempt to exclude highly correlated variables. As used in earlier studies, we set a cut off of r = 0.6. This cut-off has been described as having collinearity concern among highly correlated variables27,32. We found collinearity between household wealth status and housing material (r = 0.649), birth order and birth interval (r = 0.612) and between maternal age and birth order (r = 0.639). Housing material and birth order were removed from the multivariate analysis, as “household wealth index” and “maternal age” were adjudged more vital to investigate U5M and INM. Also, questions on who take decisions about healthcare utilization were asked from currently married women and those living with spouses which constitute 95% of all respondents. We considered the decision taking more important to U5M than marital status and therefore dropped marital status from the multivariable analysis.

Statistical analyses

Besides the descriptive statistics for the description of the outcomes and the distribution of the children characteristics, life table technique was implemented in Stata version 16 to estimate the infant and under-five mortality rates per 1000 livebirths. We implemented the Bayesian hierarchical Poisson model in the Mlwin 3.0533 module in Stata version 16 to analyse the compositional and contextual risk factors associated with infant and under-five mortality in Nigeria.

The Poisson and the Cox proportional hazard (CPH) models

The Poisson model is an approximate model for Cox proportional hazard (CPH). The likelihood function of the CPH models with normal random effects is proportional to the likelihood of the random effects in the Poisson models34,35. Studies have reported that CPH models with normal random effects can be estimated as generalized linear models with a binary Poisson count response and a specific offset parameter36,37. The approximation of the CPH to the Poisson model requires that each observation in the data should be split into multiple records based on the complete set of failure times in the data set to have a counting process format and that the offset should be the logarithm of the length of each time interval. The baseline hazard is modelled as a smooth function of time, in our case a 4th order polynomial38.

Typically, in the analysis of time-to-event data wherein interest is the investigation of the effect of p treatments (regarded as covariate effects on child mortality in this study). For the ith child, let xip be the covariates. A standard CPH model can be applied using appropriate mathematical maximization procedures39,40 in Eq. (1).

hit=h0teβ1X1i+β2X2i++βpXpi 1

where βj is a vector of the coefficients of the explanatory variables, h0t is the baseline hazard function, hth0t, the hazard ratio (HR). It is possible to split the follow-up time into k=1,,Ki intervals. Assuming a constant hazard within each of these intervals, the Poisson model can be applied as shown in Eqs. (2) and (3) as noted by Crowther et al.37.

dikPoissonμik 2
logμik=β1X1i+λk+logγik 3

where dik is the censoring indicator: 0 or 1 (child survived or died). This can be presented as a Poisson process for each child during each of the K intervals to count the numbers of occurrences within each interval of time. Ordinarily, dik does not follow a Poisson distribution, but the above computational process ensured the correct form of the likelihood for a piecewise exponential model37. The definition of βj remain the same, λk is the baseline hazard rate in kth time interval, γik is the time at risk, and forms part of the log(offset) in the linear predictor. By splitting the follow-up time at each unique event time and applying the Poisson model, an identical estimate of the treatment effect, βj, to that obtained from the CPH model could be obtained3438,41. Analytically, the procedure was carried out by splitting the follow-up time, count the numbers of events within each interval and estimate the effects of the model parameters. Among other literature, Royston et al. posited that an identical hazard ratio to that of the CPH model could be obtained by fitting a Poisson model on survival data after all the observed failure times might have been split into different intervals42.

MCMC Bayesian Hierarchical analysis

By extension, the models which allow for cluster-heterogeneity in the treatment effect can be applied to the survival data. The hazard function for the i th child, in the j th community nested in l. th state, can be formulated as shown in Eq. (4):

hijlt=h0teβoj+β1jlX1ijl++βpijlXpijl;β1jl=β1+b1j+b1l;b1jN0,τ2 4

where h0t remains as defined, β01 is constrained to be zero, β0j is the proportional effect on the baseline hazard function due to the jth community, β1 is the mean log hazard ratio for the effects of the covariates and b1j is the deviation of the log hazard ratio in the jth community from the population mean. It is on theasis that the model can be fitted using the Poisson-based Generalized Linear Model (GLMs) models. The 3-level Poisson model follows Eqs. (6) and (7).

dijkPoissonμijk 5
logμijk=βoj+β1Xij+λk+logγijk 6

Other numerical details have been described earlier37,4345. The following options were specified in the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis: Distribution: Poisson; link: log, thinning: 50, burning: 6000, chain: 50,000 and refresh: 500.

We specified a 3-level model for binary response reporting infants mortality and under-five mortality, for a child i (at level 1), in a neighbourhood j (at level 2) living in a state k (at level 3). For each of INM and U5M, five (5) different models were developed. First, the unconditional or empty model without any determinant variables. This model aimed to decompose the amount of variance in risk of INM and U5M between states and neighbourhoods (Model 1), Model 2 included only individual-level factor, model 3 included only neighbourhood-level factors and model 4 included only the state-level factors. The fifth model included all individual-, neighbourhood- and state-level factors simultaneously.

Each of the models was based on the hierarchical logistic regression model with mixed outcomes consisting of the fixed and random parts as shown in Eq. (7).

logγijk=β0+p=1tβpXpijkFixed+U0jk+V0kRandom 7

The risk that child i of neighbourhood j from state k will die (INM/U5M) is denoted by γijk, Uojk is the random effect of daughters neighbourhood j in state k and Vok is the random effect of state k, eijk is the noise such that eijk0,σe2, Uojk0,σU2 and Vok0,σV2 in a model containing t covariates.

We reported the measures of association as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with their 95% credible intervals (CrI). Measures of variations were explored using the intraclass correlation (ICC) and median incidence rate ratios (MIRR)46,47. The ICCs represents the percentage of the total variance in the risk of child mortality that is related to the neighbourhood and state levels (i.e. a measure of clustering of risk of child mortality in the same neighbourhood and state) and is the equivalent of the variance partition coefficient (VPC) which measures the proportion of total variance which are accounted for at the neighbourhood σU2/σU2+σV2+σe2 and the state σV2/σU2+σV2+σe2 levels. The MIRR is the estimate of the probability of child mortality attributable to neighbourhood and state context.

Results

Distribution of participating children, infant mortality and under-five mortality

As shown in Table 2, a total of 33,924 children data was available for analysis in the 2018 NDHS. Nearly two-fifths (39%) of their mothers were aged 30–39 years, 46% had no formal education, 39% had no access to media. About 51% of the children were males, 4% were of multiple births, 66% had drinking water from improved sources, 86% had average or higher birthweights while only 9% of the mothers could single-handedly make decisions on their healthcare access.

Table 2.

Distribution of children aged 0–59 months, infant mortality and under-five mortality by states in Nigeria.

States Number of neighbourhoods Number of children aRural Population Mortality per 1000 Livebirths
% bCategory INMR U5MR
Abia 36 641 79.5 High 66 75
Adamawa 35 962 73.9 High 81 130
Akwa Ibom 37 564 95.8 High 82 107
Anambra 39 856 16.3 Low 31 50
Bauchi 39 1,442 85.6 High 75 149
Bayelsa 35 570 71.4 High 27 37
Benue 38 908 89.1 High 40 60
Borno 38 1,099 65.3 Middle 46 86
Cross River 35 428 85.7 High 64 71
Delta 38 508 48.6 Middle 33 53
Ebonyi 36 1,012 13.1 Low 51 102
Edo 35 465 41.2 Middle 49 71
Ekiti 35 522 19.8 Low 86 120
Enugu 36 561 27.4 Low 61 78
FCT, Abuja 35 803 29.0 Low 48 79
Gombe 35 1,344 76.5 High 112 175
Imo 39 728 47.3 Middle 76 114
Jigawa 39 1,502 88.9 High 84 212
Kaduna 42 1,451 52.7 Middle 106 187
Kano 53 2,037 54.6 Middle 72 168
Katsina 40 1,555 79.8 High 60 171
Kebbi 35 1,397 83.2 High 116 248
Kogi 36 620 63.2 Middle 87 191
Kwara 35 694 30.2 Low 54 74
Lagos 52 807 0.0 Low 59 69
Nasarawa 35 834 77.2 High 82 140
Niger 38 1,219 74.2 High 69 110
Ogun 37 508 49.4 Middle 17 29
Ondo 36 542 52.2 Middle 41 96
Osun 36 498 23.3 Low 59 71
Oyo 42 656 28.3 Low 42 76
Plateau 35 797 71.4 High 80 131
Rivers 41 667 48.4 Middle 50 77
Sokoto 34 1,137 78.5 High 90 174
Taraba 35 1,112 83.8 High 71 139
Yobe 35 1,252 78.1 High 78 127
Zamfara 32 1,226 81.5 High 75 151
Total 1,389 33,924 70 131

aPercent rural forecast in 2017 14; bLow (0–33.3%); Middle (33.4 to 66.7%) High (66.8 to 100%); INMR Infant Mortality Rate, U5MR Under-five Mortality Rate.

The overall INMR was 70 per 1000 livebirths compared with U5MR of 131 per 1000 livebirth. The INMR among children from mothers aged 15–19 years and 25–29 years was 99 versus 63 per 1000 livebirth, no education (81) versus higher education (51), no media access (79) vs media access (64), multiple births (234) versus singletons (64), from households in the poorest wealth tertiles (80) versus richest (54), male (75) versus female (55), very small birthweights (149) versus average or higher birthweights (64). Also, women whose spouses alone made decisions on healthcare access and when the woman single-handedly make such situations had a U5MR of 77 versus 55, rural (76) versus urban (59) and states with a high proportion of the rural population (70) versus low proportion (53).

The U5MR among children whose mothers were aged 15–19 years and 25–29 years was 165 versus 117 per 1000 livebirth, no education (170) versus higher education (63), no media access (157) versus media access (110), multiple births (312) versus singletons (122), from households in the poorest wealth tertiles (169) versus richest (78), very small birthweights (194) versus average or higher birthweights (121) and male (136) versus female (122). Also, women whose spouses alone made decisions on healthcare access (96) versus and when the woman single-handedly made such decisions (150), rural (148) versus urban (94) and states with a high proportion of the rural population (147) versus low proportion (79) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Distribution of children aged 0–59 months, infant mortality and under-five mortality by individual-, neighbourhood- and state-level factors in Nigeria.

Characteristics Freq Percent Per 1000 livebirths
INMR U5MR
Mother Age
15–19 1,449 4.3 99 165
20–24 6,631 19.6 75 144
25–29 9,516 28.1 63 117
30–39 13,129 38.7 68 125
40–49 3,199 9.4 78 139
Mother Education
No formal education 15,734 46.4 81 170
Primary 5,063 14.9 71 126
Secondary 10,331 30.5 58 85
Higher 2,796 8.2 51 63
Media Access
No 13,186 38.9 79 157
Yes 20,738 61.1 64 110
Child Sex
Female 16,641 49.1 65 122
Male 17,283 51.0 75 136
Births
Single 32,663 96.3 64 122
Multiples 1,261 3.7 234 312
Delivery Mode
Normal 32,856 97.3 69 130
Caesarean 922 2.7 95 121
Wealth Quintile
Poorest 10,763 31.7 80 169
Middle 11,133 32.8 77 139
Richest 12,029 35.5 54 78
Drinking Water
Unimproved Sources 11,379 34.0 78 152
Improved Sources 22,101 66.0 66 117
Toilet Type
Unimproved Sources 16,553 49.4 73 146
Improved Sources 16,927 50.6 68 113
House materials
Poor 17,061 51.0 80 160
Good 16,419 49.0 60 100
Ethnicity
Hausa/Fulani 15,629 46.1 83 173
Yoruba 3,720 11.0 51 74
Igbo/Ibiobio 4,722 13.9 56 83
Others 9,853 29.0 66 110
Religion
Islam 21,536 63.5 78 157
Other Christian 9,372 27.6 60 91
Catholics 2,836 8.4 51 78
Others 181 0.5 45 45
Weight At Birth
Average/Higher rage 28,742 86.1 62 121
Small 3,695 11.1 99 166
Very Small 961 2.9 149 194
Birth Orders
1 6,573 19.4 74 119
2–4 15,709 46.3 59 111
5 +  11,642 34.3 83 160
Birth Intervals
1st Birth 6,573 19.4 74 119
 < 36 months 17,282 51.0 76 149
36 + months 10,002 29.5 55 99
Postnatal Care
No 17,146 79.1 59 110
Yes 4,525 20.9 29 65
Tetanus Injection
No 6,503 30.0 69 131
Yes 15,184 70.0 46 87
Who Decide healthcare access
Respondent 2985 9.3 55 96
Both 9562 29.7 60 98
Spouse 19,602 61.0 77 150
Problem accessing healthcare
Not a big problem 15,868 46.8 66 116
Big problem 18,056 53.2 74 140
Mother Employment
Employed 22,930 67.6 68 122
Unemployed 10,994 32.4 75 145
Region
North Central 4,582 13.5 65 110
North East 6,164 18.2 78 136
North West 12,459 36.7 85 187
South East 3,401 10.0 55 85
South South 2,945 8.7 51 70
South West 4,373 12.9 51 77
Neighbourhood level
Location
Urban 130,67 38.5 59 94
Rural 20,857 61.5 76 148
Community poverty rate
Low 17,246 50.8 68 121
High 16,677 49.2 78 139
Community illiteracy rate
Low 17,509 51.6 54 101
High 16,415 48.4 82 158
Community unemployment rate
Low 17,012 50.1 68 117
High 16,911 49.9 73 142
Community SES
Highest 7,739 22.8 52 77
2 6,454 19.0 62 94
3 6,241 18.4 70 124
4 6,937 20.5 86 169
Lowest 6,553 19.3 86 183
State Level
Rural population
Low 6,450 19.0 53 79
Middle 10,306 30.4 65 126
High 17,168 50.6 78 147
Total 33,924 100 70 131

INMR Infant Mortality Rate, U5MR Under-five Mortality Rate, SES socio-economic status.

As shown in Table 1, for both the INM and U5M, maternal age, maternal education, media access, sex of child, multiple births, household wealth index, sources of drinking water, housing material, ethnicity, religion, weight at birth, birth order, birth interval, postnatal care, and tetanus injection were associated with under-five mortality. Also, the person who decides healthcare access, having problems accessing healthcare, mother employment status, region, residence, community illiteracy, toilet types, unemployment and poverty rates, as well as the proportion of the rural population in each state were associated with U5M.

Distribution of infant and under-five mortality by states in Nigeria

The number of neighbourhoods in each state ranged from 32 in Zamfara to 53 in Kano while the number of participating children ranged from 465 in Edo to 2037 in Kano. The INMR was lowest in Ogun (17 per 1000 live births) and highest in Kaduna (106), Gombe (112) and Kebbi (116). Also, U5MR was lowest in Ogun (29) and highest in Jigawa (212) and Kebbi (248) as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2. Further categorization of the INMR and U5MR by states and regions are shown in Supplementary Table A while multiple bar chart showing the distribution of the INMR and U5MR by states are shown in Supplementary Figure A.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Distribution of infant and under-five mortality per 1000 live births by the States in Nigeria (NDHS 2018).

Infant mortality—measures of associations (fixed effects)

In the fully adjusted model, while controlling for the effects of individual-, neighbourhood- and state-level associated factors; maternal age, maternal education, multiple births, weight at birth, birth interval, who decides on healthcare access, problems accessing healthcare facilities, community illiteracy level, and proportion of the rural population within each state were associated with risk of infant mortality.

The risk of infant mortality increased by 29% (IRR (incidence risk ratio): 1.29, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): 1.01 to 1.58) among mothers aged 40–49 years compared with those aged 25–29 years. The children from multiple births were nearly thrice (IRR = 2.73, 95% CrI: 2.07 to 3.52) more likely to have infant mortality. The children from mothers with no education or with primary education were 89% (IRR = 1.89, 95% CrI: 1.22 to 2.78) and 80% (IRR = 1.89, 95% CrI: 1.19 to 2.77) respectively more likely to experience infant mortality than those whose mothers had higher education. The risks of INM was 25% and 49% higher among those with very small and small birthweights compared with those with average or higher birth weight. The risk of INM increases by 18 among children whose healthcare seeking decisions were made by their fathers alone compared with when mothers made such decisions. Community illiteracy increases risks of INM by 20% while children from the states with a high percentage of the rural population had a higher risk (IRR = 1.31, 95% CrI, 1.01 to 1.89) of INM compared with those from states with a low rural population (Table 3).

Table 3.

Individual compositional and contextual factors associated with infant mortality rate identified by multivariable Bayesian multilevel Poisson regression models.

Variables Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
Fixed effects IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI)
Individual-level factors
Maternal Age
15–19 1.11(0.72–1.60) 1.08(0.70–1.55)
20–24 0.86(0.68–1.07) 0.85(0.69–1.06)
25–29 Reference
30–39 1.22(0.96–1.56) 1.05(0.91–1.56)
40–49 1.97(1.25–3.21) 1.29(1.01–1.58)
Mother Education
No Education 1.97(1.25–3.21) 1.89(1.22–2.78)
Primary 1.92(1.22–3.02) 1.89(1.19–2.77)
Secondary 1.49(0.98–2.32) 1.47(1.00–2.20)
Higher Reference
Media Access (Yes) 1.02(0.87–1.21) 1.01(0.87–1.17)
Birth (Multiple) 2.78(2.12–3.59) 2.73(2.07–3.52)
Child Sex (Male) 1.08(0.94–1.24) 1.08(0.96–1.23)
Wealth Tertile
Poorest 1.34(0.99–1.81) 1.25(0.93–1.65)
Middle 1.31(1.01–1.65) 1.27(0.98–1.608)
Richest Reference
Improved water source 1.13(0.96–1.33) 1.12(0.94–1.31)
Improved Toilet type 0.96(0.80–1.14) 0.95(0.81–1.12)
Ethnicity
Yoruba Reference
Hausa/Fulani 1.54(0.97–2.49) 1.25(0.72–1.92)
Igbo/Ibiobio 1.73(1.08–2.69) 1.58(0.89–2.44)
Others 1.54(1.01–2.45) 1.28(0.76–1.98)
Weight At Birth
Average/Higher Reference
Small 1.26(1.01–1.54) 1.25(1.01–1.56)
Very Small 1.48(1.04–2.02) 1.49(1.06–2.01)
Birth Interval
First 1.51(1.16–1.95) 1.49(1.06–1.99)
 < 36 1.58(1.32–1.87) 1.57(1.32–1.85)
36 +  Reference
Decision on healthcare HC
Respondent alone Reference
Respondent & spouse 0.91(0.65–1.25) 0.91(0.66–1.19)
Spouse alone 1.05(0.77–1.41) 1.08(1.00–1.24)
Big problem accessing HC 1.18(1.01–1.38) 1.18(1.02–1.37)
Unemployed 1.08(0.91–1.26) 1.08(0.91–1.26)
Neighbourhood-level
Location (rural) 1.40(1.17–1.68) 1.11(0.88–1.37)
Community poverty 1.09(0.93–1.27) 1.04(0.89–1.23)
Community illiteracy 1.35(1.14–1.59) 1.20(1.01–1.40)
Community unemployment 1.14(0.96–1.35) 1.09(0.93–1.31)
State-level
Rural Population %
Low Reference
Average 1.31(0.82–1.93) 1.22(0.78–1.81)
High 1.88(1.27–2.69) 1.31(1.01–1.89)
Random Effects
State-level
Variance (95% CrI) 0.19(0.09–0.34) 0.07(0.01–0.15) 0.10(0.04–0.21) 0.14(0.06–0.27) 0.06(0.01–0.14)
VPC (%, 95% CrI) 5.20(2.63–8.73) 1.91(0.26–4.11) 2.88(1.13–5.63) 3.98(1.76–7.33) 1.82(0.149–4.18)
MIRR (95% CrI) 1.52(1.34–1.75) 1.28(1.09–1.45) 1.36(1.20–1.55) 1.42(1.26–1.64) 1.43(1.25–1.64)
Explained variation (%) 80.2(73.5–95.5) 70.3(63.5–80.5) 59.9(53.3–69.7) 81.3(72.9–97.6)
Neighbourhood-level
Variance (95% CrI) 0.19(0.10–0.29) 0.19(0.09–0.30) 0.15(0.04–0.27) 0.04(0.01–0.14) 0.18(0.06–0.31)
VPC (%, 95% CrI) 10.5(5.52–16.2) 7.34(2.88–12.2) 7.07(2.37–12.7) 4.99(1.78–11.1) 7.00(2.04–12.5)
MIRR (95% CrI) 1.51(1.35–1.68) 1.52(1.33–1.69) 1.44(1.22–1.63) 1.20(1.03–1.43) 1.51(1.27–1.70)
Explained variation (%) 9.01(7.46–39.8) 29.8(5.79–71.7) 83.5(50.3–99.5) 13.4(10.64–44.6)
Model fit statistics
Bayesian DIC 12,057.32 10,975.07 12,049.03 12,084.57 10,967.67
Sample size
State-level 37 37 37 37 37
Neighbourhood-level 1389 1389 1389 1389 1389
Individual-level 33,924 32,308 33,924 33,924 32,308

IRR Incidence Rate Ratio; CrI credible interval, MIRR median incidence rate ratio, VPC variance partition coefficient, DIC Deviance Information Criteria HC Health Care,

Infant mortality—measures of variations (random effects)

The full model is the best of all the models as it had the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). In Model V, there was a variation in the risks of INM across the states (σ2 = 0.06, 95% CrI: 0.01 to 0.14) and across the neighbourhoods (σ2 = 0.18, 95% CrI: 0.06 to 0.31). Going by the intra-state and intra-neighbourhood correlation coefficient, 1.82% and 7.00%, the variance in risk of INM could be attributed to state- and neighbourhood-level factors, respectively. The median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) estimates also confirmed evidence of societal contextual (MIRR = 1.43, 95% CrI: 1.25 to 1.64) and neighbourhood (MIRR = 1.51, 95% CrI: 1.27 to 1.70) phenomena shaping of INM. Compared with Model I, the total variation explained by the state- and neighbourhood-level factors were 81.3% and 13.4% respectively in Model V. The deviance and parameter chains for the full model is shown in Supplementary Figure B while the Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics at state and neighbourhood levels are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b respectively for infant mortality.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Figure 3

(a) Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics of Model 5 for Infant mortality at the state level. (b) Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics in Model 5 for Infant mortality at the neighbourhood level.

Under-five mortality—measures of associations (fixed effects)

In the fully adjusted model while controlling for the effects of individual-, neighbourhood- and state-level factors; maternal education, multiple births, household wealth status, birth interval, who decides on healthcare access, having a big problem getting to healthcare facility, community illiteracy level, and proportion of the rural population with each state were associated with the risk of U5M.

The risks of under-five mortality doubled (IRR = 2.14, 95% CrI: 1.51 to 3.03) among mothers with no education compared with those that had higher education. The children from multiple births were over 100% (IRR = 2.30, 95% CrI: 1.82 to 2.78) at the risk of U5M compared with the singletons. The risk of U5M increased in households in the poorest (60%) and middle (44%) wealth tertiles compared with those from the households in the richest tertiles. The risk of U5M increased by 8% among children whose healthcare seeking decisions were made by their fathers alone compared with when mothers make such decisions. Community illiteracy increases the risk of U5M by 19% while children from the states with a high rural population had a higher risk (IRR = 1.32, 95% CrI: 1.01 to 1.89) of U5M compared with those from states with a low rural population.

Under-five mortality—measures of variations (random effects)

In null model (Model I), there was a distinct variation in the risk of U5M across the states (σ2 = 0.34, 95% CrI: 0.20 to 0.58) and across the neighbourhoods (σ2 = 0.21, 95% CrI: 0.15 to 0.28). The estimated intra-state and intra-neighbourhood variance partition coefficient was 8.9% and 14.5% respectively, indicating that the variance in risks of U5M could be attributed to state- and neighbourhood-level factors. However, the full Model was the best of all the Models as it had the lowest Bayesian DIC. The MIRR estimates also confirmed evidence of societal (state) (MIRR = 1.43, 95% CrI: 1.25 to 1.64) and contextual (neighbourhood) (MIRR = 1.42, 95% CrI: 1.30 to 1.55) phenomena driving of U5M in Nigeria (Table 4).

Table 4.

Individual compositional and contextual factors associated with under-five mortality identified by multivariable Bayesian multilevel Poisson regression models.

Variables Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
Fixed effects IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI) IRR (95% CrI)
Individual-level factors
Maternal Age
15–19 1.16(0.86–1.54) 1.17(0.8–1.56)
20–24 1.00(0.85–1.15) 0.99(0.86–1.15)
25–29 Reference
30–39 1.01(0.89–1.14) 1.01(0.89–1.13)
40–49 1.12(0.94–1.33) 1.13(0.96–1.31)
Mother Education
No Education 2.18(1.54–2.95) 2.14(1.51–3.03)
Primary 1.96(1.39–2.64) 1.96(1.43–2.81)
Secondary 1.48(1.10–1.97) 1.48(1.09–2.04)
Higher Reference
Media Access (Yes) 0.99(0.89–1.09) 0.98(0.87–1.08)
Birth (Multiple) 2.33(1.90–2.81) 2.30(1.82–2.78)
Child Sex (Male) 1.08(0.98–1.19) 1.08(0.99–1.18)
Wealth Tertile
Poorest 1.71(1.40–2.08) 1.60(1.29–1.97)
Middle 1.48(1.26–1.74) 1.44(1.19–1.72)
Richest Reference
Improved water source 1.02(0.92–1.14) 1.02(0.91–1.15)
Improved Toilet type 0.96(0.84–1.08) 0.96(0.84–1.09)
Ethnicity
Yoruba Reference
Hausa/Fulani 1.36(0.90–1.98) 1.13(0.76–1.61)
Igbo/Ibiobio 1.21(0.79–1.77) 1.11(0.71–1.64)
Others 1.21(0.83–1.69) 1.01(0.68–1.43)
Weight At Birth
Average/Higher Reference
Small 1.09(0.93–1.26) 1.08(0.92–1.25)
Very Small 1.26(0.96–1.63) 1.27(0.98–1.62)
Birth Interval
First 1.39(1.16–1.67) 1.38(1.14–1.67)
 < 36 1.59(1.40–1.80) 1.58(1.40–1.77)
36 +  Reference
Decision on healthcare
Respondent alone Reference
Both respondent & spouse 1.02(0.82–1.25) 1.00(0.81–1.23)
Spouse alone 1.08(0.88–1.31) 1.08(1.01–1.28)
Big problem accessing HC 1.21(1.08–1.35) 1.20(1.07–1.34)
Unemployed 1.00(0.89–1.10) 1.00.89–1.10)
Neighbourhood-level
Location (rural) 1.44(1.26–1.64) 1.09(0.94–1.26)
Community poverty 1.12(1.01–1.25) 1.07(0.95–1.20)
Community illiteracy 1.33(1.17–1.50) 1.19(1.04–1.37)
Community unemployment 1.02(0.88–1.16) 1.02(0.90–1.17)
State-level
Rural Population %
Low Reference
Average 1.48(0.81–2.54) 1.29(0.88–1.90)
High 1.95(1.18–3.13) 1.32(1.01–1.89)
Random Effects
State-level
Variance (95% CrI) 0.34(0.20–0.58) 0.14(0.06–0.27) 0.23(0.12–0.42) 0.57(0.14–0.47) 0.14(0.05–0.27)
VPC (%, 95% CrI) 8.94(5.36–14.0) 3.99(1.90–7.25) 6.28(3.49–10.6) 14.0(4.03–11.6) 3.90(1.58–7.11)
MIRR (95% CrI) 1.75(1.52–2.07) 1.43(1.27–1.65) 1.58(1.40–1.85) 2.06(1.44–1.92) 1.43(1.25–1.64)
Explained variation (%) 58.7(53.1–66.7) 32.5(28.1–36.9) 66.3(19.5–26.5) 59.6(53.9–72.2)
Neighbourhood-level
Variance (95% CrI) 0.21(0.15–0.28) 0.13(0.06–0.20) 0.17(0.11–0.24) 0.21(0.14–0.29) 0.14(0.08–0.21)
VPC (%, 95% CrI) 14.5(9.42–20.8) 7.58(3.57–12.4) 10.8(6.53–16.7) 19.2(7.96–18.7) 7.74(3.83–12.6)
MIRR (95% CrI) 1.55(1.44–1.66) 1.41(1.26–1.52) 1.48(1.37–1.60) 1.55(1.43–1.67) 1.42(1.30–1.55)
Explained variation (%) 0 39.6(30.7–61.4) 20.7(14.7–27.4) 1.95(0.47–4.61) 35.4(26.1–47.8)
Model fit statistics
Bayesian DIC 25,728.52 23,499.27 25,701.66 25,729.19 23,495.44
Sample size
State-level 37 37 37 37 37
Neighbourhood-level 1389 1388 1389 1389 1388
Individual-level 33,924 32,308 33,924 33,924 32,308

IRR Incidence Rate Ratio; CrI–credible interval, MIRR–median incidence rate ratio, VPC – variance partition coefficient, DIC –Deviance Information Criteria HC Health care.

From the full model (Model V), it was estimated that if a child moved to another state or neighbourhood with a higher probability of U5M, the increase in their risk of U5M would be 3.90% (95% CrI: 1.58% to 7.11%) and 7.74% (95% CrI: 3.83% to 12.6%) respectively. Compared with Model I, Model V showed that the total variation in the risk of U5M explained by the state- and neighbourhood-level factors were 59.6% and 35.4% respectively. The deviance and parameter chains for the full model is shown in Supplementary Figure C while the Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics at state and neighbourhood levels are shown in Figs. 4a and 4b respectively for under-five mortality.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Figure 4

(a) Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics of Model 5 for under-five mortality at the state level. (b) Five-way MCMC graphical diagnostics in Model 5 for under-5 mortality at the neighbourhood level.

Discussion

In this paper, we identified and distinguished the contextual factors from the compositional factors associated with childhood mortality using hierarchical Poisson model approximation to Cox proportional hazard model using the Bayesian MCMC procedure. The procedure was carried out by (i) splitting the follow-up time into intervals, (ii) obtained the number of events within each interval and (iii) estimated the random and fixed effects of childhood mortalities. The Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression model used in estimating the factors associated with childhood deaths in Nigeria fitted the survival data.The estimates were robust and computation time reduced, similar to the conclusions of Crowther et al.37.

However, the MCMC graphical diagnostics, in some cases, showed correlations between successive simulated chains and low convergence rates. Particularly, the convergence of the model at the neighbourhood level for the infant mortality parameter estimates was low although with large lags but the auto-correlation function (ACF) plots of the neighbourhood estimates of the U5M and the ACF plot for both the infant mortality and U5M parameter estimates at the state level had large lag and achieved convergence. The outstanding case of the low convergence for the infant mortality estimates at the neighbourhood level is a limitation in this study. The low convergence could be attributed to low sample sizes within some clusters (neighbourhoods).

Overall, our analysis revealed abysmally high infant and under-five mortality rates nationally with the associated individual-, neighbourhood- and state-level factors. On controlling for these factors, INM and U5M was higher among children with first-order birth, less than three years birth interval; smaller birth weights, multiple births, fathers’ sole decision making on healthcare seeking, community illiteracy, living in states with average to higher rural proportion. Additionally, lack of and low maternal educational attainment and accessing healthcare being highly problematic care were predictors of INM and U5M. Older maternal age (40–49 years) was associated with an increased incidence of INM. Moreover, having secondary level education, poor and middle-income wealth tertiles were associated with an increased incidence of U5M. Community illiteracy and accessing healthcare being highly problematic had a marginal effect on both INM and U5M unlike fathers’ sole decision making on healthcare-seeking which had only a marginal effect on the increase in INM. Notably, child’s sex, rural residence, ethnicity and media access did not influence the incidence rate ratio of INM and U5M.

Proportionately, low maternal educational attainment and higher rurality of a state had twice influence on the occurrence of INM29,48,49. A study conducted by Yaya et al. reported a higher risk of childhood and U5MR with low maternal education, poor household wealth index and rural–urban disparity in Nigeria20.

Prior studies corroborated the relationship between older maternal age with both IMR and U5M20,50. The risk of increased INM and U5M were twice and thrice likely in birth plurality in this study. While the risk of INM was higher among children with small or very small birth weights it was not associated with U5M. The relationship between small birth size, a known feature of multiple births and INM has been established51. Prior studies corroborated the association between first-order birth and short birth intervals and increased risk of INM and U5M11,48,50,51.

Studies have indicated associations between both the INM and U5M and composite factors such as maternal age, mothers' education, place of residence, child's sex, birth interval and weight at birth11,21. Though prior study reported female infants are more likely than males to survive; child sex had no influence on these indices in this study 50. Biological and genetic factors have been hypothesized as probable underlying factors for the association between male gender and higher U5M48,52,53.

The spousal sole healthcare decision making and its influence on INM and U5M was established in this study. This has been a long time challenge in northern Nigeria. Similar findings have reported. For instance, Adhikari et al. reported infants whose mothers were involved in healthcare decision-making had 25% lower odds of dying in Nepal54. Maternal lack of decision making power on child healthcare without prior consent from the spouse or a representative household head, for example, the mother-in-law is rooted in socio-cultural and religious norms in northern Nigeria, a sensitive issue but needs to be addressed. Obasahon et al., in their analysis of 2013 Nigeria DHS reported that odds of utilizing antenatal care services increased about four-folds among women with higher decision-making autonomy55. A parallel can be drawn with child healthcare. There is a need to expand and accelerate male involvement in child healthcare. Women Influencing Health, Education, and Rule of Law (WIHER) in Bauchi state, Nigeria which engages men in their prime on gender equality is a step in the right direction and this could be adopted 56.

Media provides information including healthcare-related ones. Maternal use of traditional media such as newspaper/magazine, radio and television) is associated with a reduced risk of U5M27. There was no association between lack of media access and high INM and U5M in this study. Morakinyo et al. had earlier established in the analysis of 2008 and 2013 Nigeria DHS, that media access was a predictor of INM and U5M11.

Infant and under-five mortality rates exhibit high variability across the country21. Ogun state had the lowest INMR and U5MR while Kebbi state had the highest INMR and U5MR. Additionally, Anambra (South-East), Benue (North-Central), Bayelsa and Delta (South-South) had low INMR. Kaduna (North-West) and Gombe (North-East) had very high INMR. It is of extreme concern why states in the south (Ekiti and Imo) are still within the high INMR bracket and this brings to fore the need to mitigate the identified risk factors. Currently, there is no respite with INM, as no geopolitical region in Nigeria is exempted from high INM. Thus, these findings could drive initiatives for and access to optimal and skilled prenatal and natal care and other child survival strategies to reduce INM nationally unlike the prior perception that these indices are worst in northern Nigeria. Moreover, most states in the northern region still harbour the majority of high INMR, 14 out of 17 in this study. This may be due to a higher proportion of rurality in northern states. Adewuyi et al. reported in the context of rural residence that states in the north-eastern and north-western geopolitical regions had higher INMR51. In the final adjusted models, there was no link between place of residence and INM or U5M.

Jigawa had a very high U5MR. Bayelsa (South-South), Anambra (South-East) also had low U5MR. Notably, none of the states in the south is within the high U5MR region. Moreover, Borno (North-East) bedevilled with pervading insurgency and insecurity issues have middle-level INMR and low U5MR. Abysmally high INMR and U5MR in Northern Nigeria have been documented in prior Nigeria DHS reports and reasons adduced include low maternal literacy and educational status, unwholesome socio-cultural norms impacting on health care seeking, low acceptability of family planning practices and poor perception of child spacing, resistance to childhood immunization resulting in its low uptake, and insurgency16,17,20. Nationally, U5MR is on the increase in the last five years, unlike the abating trend earlier reported11,16.

A difference exists between rural and urban setting based on access to social amenities such as health infrastructure and level of available healthcare, good roads and water supply57. States with a higher rural population had higher INMR and U5MR. Access to healthcare utilization remains a predictor of INM and U5M. This reiterates the need for structural and manpower development as important factors in strengthening and improving health service delivery which is a building block in achieving SDGs 3.

There is a need to continue ongoing efforts to address high INM and U5M in Nigeria, especially in the northern states, to achieve child health-related sustainable development goals58. Moreover, it is equally important to have a better understanding of ongoing pregnancy and child health initiatives that are being implemented in Anambra and Ogun for others states in the South-East and South-West regions to leverage and implement to reduce current INM and U5M.

Study limitations and strengths

The study was based on a cross-sectional analysis and thus causality can not be ascertained. It should also be noted that this study was unable to cover neonatal mortality based on a time constraint and the complexity involve in its computation. The authors accepted that neonatal mortality, especially early neonatal mortality as one of the critical area that has not seen any improvement since 2008 in Nigeria16.

This analysis has, however, offered an in-depth view of the variability of incidence rates of INMR and U5MR across states and provides a vital opportunity for monitoring progress with the implementation of ongoing child survival strategies. The study will serve as a baseline for further research aiming at understanding the contextual factors associated with child mortality in Nigeria at a different level in the society. The results also provide baseline information for interventional research aiming at meeting the global agenda in the nearer future. Notably, this study identified differences in INMR and U5MR across states and thus, provides an opportunity for comparative informed decision making. Other states within the same geopolitical region could leverage effective interventions in a high performing state which resulted in low child mortality, to improve on their current child survival strategies and mortality indices. For instance, Ogun state has the lowest INMR and U5MR but Ekiti state within the same region had high indices. Ekiti state could learn and implement what worked and is working in Ogun state.

Conclusions

This study identified variability of INM and UM5 across states and regions in Nigeria, the highest being in the northern region based on the 2018 NDHS. The lack of and low maternal educational attainment and experience of problems accessing healthcare, first birth order and short birth interval; smaller birth weights, multiple births, fathers’ sole decision on healthcare seeking, community illiteracy, and living in states with average to higher rural population proportion were determinants of increased risk of high INM and UM5. Older maternal age-predicted INM while the increased U5M was linked to secondary level education, poor and middle-income wealth tertiles. The pervading high infant and under-five mortality rates call for urgent attention from the federal and state governments in Nigeria and developmental partners to address the identified drivers leveraging on lessons from other states with improved indices. Rural–urban disparity across the states calls for development, equity and optimal access across healthcare and social sectors to attain child health-focused SDG 3.2.

Supplementary Information

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to ICF Macro, USA, for granting the authors the request to use the DHS data.

Abbreviations

ACF

Auto Correlation Function

CrI

Credible Interval

DHS

Demographic Health Survey

DIC

Deviance Information Criteria

GLMs

Generalized Linear Model

ICC

Intraclass Correlation

INM

Infant Mortality

INMR

Infant Mortality Rate

IRR

Incidence Rate Ratio

MCMC

Monte Carlos Markov Chain

MIRR

Median Incidence Rate Ratio

NDHS

Nigeria Demographic Health Survey

NPC

National Population Commission

PACF

Partial Auto Correlation Function

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

U5M

Under-Five Mortality

U5MR

Under-Five Mortality Rate

VPC

Variance Partition Coefficient

Authors Contributions

A.F.F. conceived, designed the study and analysed the data and drew the Figures; S.M.A. contributed to the interpretation of results. O.A. and M.M.S. searched the literature, wrote the introduction and discussions. All authors wrote the initial draft, read and consented to the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.

Funding

The authors received no funding for this study.

Data availability

The data supporting this article is available at http://dhsprogram.com.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-021-92606-0.

References

  • 1.Fagbamigbe AF, Nnanatu CC. Modelling the spatial distribution and the factors associated with under-five mortality in Nigeria. Spat. Demogr. 2021;1:28. doi: 10.1007/s40980-021-00078-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alkema L, Chao F, You D, Pedersen J, Sawyer CC. National, regional, and global sex ratios of infant, child, and under-5 mortality and identification of countries with outlying ratios: A systematic assessment. Lancet Glob. Heal. 2014;2:e521–e530. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70280-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fotso, J. C., Ezeh, A. C., Madise, N. J. & Ciera, J. Progress towards the child mortality millennium development goal in urban sub-Saharan Africa: The dynamics of population growth, immunization, and access to clean water. BMC Public Health7, (2007). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 4.WHO. World Health Organization | Under-five mortality. (2018).
  • 5.Pedersen, J. & Liu, J. Child Mortality Estimation: Appropriate Time Periods for Child Mortality Estimates from Full Birth Histories. PLoS Med.9, (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 6.Adetoro GW, Amoo EO. A Statistical Analysis of Child Mortality : Evidence from Nigeria. J. Demogr. Soc. Stat. 2014;1:110–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu L, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet. 2016;388:3027–3035. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.UN IGME. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.UNICEF. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality - UNICEF DATA. Unicef Data (2019).
  • 10.Adebowale, S. A., Morakinyo, O. M. & Ana, G. R. Housing materials as predictors of under-five mortality in Nigeria: Evidence from 2013 demographic and health survey. BMC Pediatr.17, (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 11.Morakinyo OM, Fagbamigbe AF. Neonatal, infant and under-five mortalities in Nigeria : An examination of trends and drivers (2003–2013) PLoS ONE. 2017;12:0182990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.UNICEF. Child-Survival: Under-five Mortality. Child-Survival: 1 (2020). Available at: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/under-five-mortality/. (Accessed: 23rd April 2020)
  • 13.National Population Commission(NPC)[Nigeria] & ICF International. Nigeria Demograhic Health Survey, 2003. (2003).
  • 14.National Population Commission(NPC)[Nigeria] & ICF International. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018. (2019).
  • 15.National Population Commission(NPC)[Nigeria] & ICF International. Nigeria Demograhic Health Survey, 1990. (1990).
  • 16.National Population Commission(NPC)[Nigeria] & ICF International. Nigeria Demograhic Health Survey, 2013. (2014).
  • 17.National Population Commission(NPC)[Nigeria] & ICF International. Nigeria Demograhic Health Survey, 2008. (2008).
  • 18.Ezeh OK, Agho KE, Dibley MJ, Hall JJ, Page AN. Risk factors for postneonatal, infant, child and under-5 mortality in Nigeria: a pooled cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5:006779. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Akinyemi JO, Bamgboye EA, Ayeni O. Trends in neonatal mortality in Nigeria and effects of bio-demographic and maternal characteristics. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:36. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0349-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yaya S, et al. Prevalence and determinants of childhood mortality in Nigeria. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:485. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4420-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Adedini SA, Odimegwu C, Imasiku ENS, Ononokpono DN, Ibisomi L. Regional variations in infant and child mortality in Nigeria: a multilevel analysis. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2014;47:165–187. doi: 10.1017/S0021932013000734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bado, A. R. & Susuman, A. S. Women’s education and health inequalities in under-five mortality in selected sub-saharan African countries, 1990–2015. PLoS One11, (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 23.Yaya, S., Bishwajit, G., Okonofua, F. & Uthman, O. A. Under five mortality patterns and associated maternal risk factors in sub-Saharan Africa: A multi-country analysis. PLoS One13, (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 24.Adepoju A. Differential Pattern in Child Mortality Rate in Rural Nigeria. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2015;7:309–317. doi: 10.9734/ARRB/2015/9643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Van Malderen C, et al. Socioeconomic factors contributing to under-five mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a decomposition analysis. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:760. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7111-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mosley WH, Chen LC. An analytical framework for the study of child survival in developing countries. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1984;10:25. doi: 10.2307/2807954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yaya S, Uthman OA, Okonofua F, Bishwajit G. Decomposing the rural-urban gap in the factors of under-five mortality in sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from 35 countries. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6343-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fagbamigbe AF, Alabi O. Differentials and Correlates of Infants Mortality in Nigeria: A Comparative Survival Analysis between North East and South West Nigeria. Int. J. Trop. Dis. Heal. 2014;4:869–886. doi: 10.9734/IJTDH/2014/9597. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ezeh OK, Agho KE, Dibley MJ, Hall J, Page AN. Determinants of neonatal mortality in Nigeria: evidence from the 2008 demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:521. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Uthman OA. Influence of socioeconomic position and gender on current cigarette smoking among people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: disentangling context from composition. BMC Public Health. 2016 doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3637-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Uthman OA, et al. Does it really matter where you live? A multilevel analysis of factors associated with missed opportunities for vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2018;14:2397–2404. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1504524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Midi H, Sarkar SK, Rana S. Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2010;13:253–267. doi: 10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Charlton, C., Rasbash, J., Browne, W. J., Healy, M. & Cameron, B. MLwiN Version 3.05. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol. 1–3 (2020). Available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/software/mlwin/download/upgrades.html. (Accessed: 23rd April 2021)
  • 34.Ma R, Krewski D, Burnett RT. Random effects cox models: a poisson modelling approach. Biometrika. 2003;90:157–169. doi: 10.1093/biomet/90.1.157. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Feng S, Wolfe RA, Port FK. Frailty survival model analysis of the national deceased donor kidney transplant dataset using poisson variance structures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2005;100:728–735. doi: 10.1198/016214505000000123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Elghafghuf A, Stryhn H. Correlated versus uncorrelated frailty Cox models: A comparison of different estimation procedures. Biometrical J. 2016;58:1198–1216. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201500066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Crowther MJ, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of survival data using Poisson regression models. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012;12:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rabe-Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. Categorical Responses, Counts, and Survival. in Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata 1–23 (Stata Press, 2012).
  • 39.Fagbamigbe AF, et al. Survival analysis and prognostic factors associated with the timing of first forced sexual act among women in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Cote d‘Ivoire. Sci. African. 2019;4:e00092. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cox D. Regression Models and Life Tables (with Discussion) J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. 1972;34:187–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Elghafghuf A, Stryhn H, Waldner C. A cross-classified and multiple membership Cox model applied to calf mortality data. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014;115:29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Royston, P. & Lambert, P. C. Flexible Parametric Survival Analysis Using Stata: Beyond the Cox Model. (Stata Press, 2011).
  • 43.Browne, W. J. MCMC Estimation in MLwiN v3.03. (2019).
  • 44.Charlton, C., Rasbash, J., Browne, W. J., Healy, M. & Cameron, B. MLwiN Version 3.03. (2018).
  • 45.Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J. & Goldstein, H. A User’s Guide to MLwiN, v3.03. (2019).
  • 46.Snijders, T. A. B. & Bosker, R. J. Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. (Sage, 2012).
  • 47.Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2005;161:81–88. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Anyamele OD, Akanegbu BN, Ukawuilulu JO. Trends and disparities in infant and child mortality in Nigeria using pooled 2003 and 2008 demographic and health survey data. SAGE Open. 2015;5:2158244015611936. doi: 10.1177/2158244015611936. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Izugbara C. Whose child is dying? Household characteristics and under-5 mortality in Nigeria. SAJCH South African J. Child Heal. 2014;8:16–22. doi: 10.7196/sajch.660. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lawoyin TO. Risk factors for infant mortality in a rural community in Nigeria. J. R. Soc. Promot. Health. 2001;121:114–118. doi: 10.1177/146642400112100213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Adewuyi EO, Zhao Y, Lamichhane R. Risk factors for infant mortality in rural and urban Nigeria: evidence from the national household survey. Scand. J. Public Health. 2017;45:543–554. doi: 10.1177/1403494817696599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alonso V, Fuster V, Luna F. Causes of neonatal mortality in Spain (1975–98): influence of sex, rural-urban residence and age at death. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2006;38:537–551. doi: 10.1017/S0021932005026957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mekonnen, Y., Tensou, B., Telake, D. S., Degefie, T. & Bekele, A. Neonatal mortality in Ethiopia: trends and determinants. BMC Public Health13, (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 54.Adhikari R, Sawangdee Y. Influence of women’s autonomy on infant mortality in Nepal. Reprod. Health. 2011;8:7. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-8-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Obasohan PE, et al. Decision making autonomy and maternal healthcare utilization among Nigerian Women. Int. J. MCH AIDS. 2019;8:11–18. doi: 10.21106/ijma.264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.WIHER. Women Influencing Health, Education, and Rule of Lawtle. (2019).
  • 57.Aliyu AA, Amadu L. Urbanization, cities, and health: The challenges to Nigeria - A review. Ann. Afr. Med. 2017;16:149–158. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_1_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Okonofua F. Integrated maternal, newborn and child health (IMNCH) strategy: how has it advanced in Africa?/Stratégie intégrée de santé maternelle, néonatale et infantile (SISMNI): Comment a-t-elle avancé en Afrique? African J. Reprod. Heal./La Rev Africaine la Santé Reprod. 2013;17:9–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

The data used for this data is available at http://dhsprogram.com.

The data supporting this article is available at http://dhsprogram.com.


Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES