Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 27;16(10):e0258378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258378

New estimations of child marriage: Evidence from 98 low- and middle-income countries

Mengjia Liang 1,*, Sandile Simelane 1, Satvika Chalasani 2, Rachel Snow 1
Editor: Bidhubhusan Mahapatra3
PMCID: PMC8550406  PMID: 34705836

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals include a target on eliminating child marriage, a human rights abuse. Yet, the indicator used in the SDG framework is a summary statistic and does not provide a full picture of the incidence of marriage at different ages. This paper aims to address this limitation by providing an alternative method of measuring child marriage. The paper reviews recent data on nuptiality and captures evidence of changes in the proportion married and in the age at marriage, in 98 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Using data collected from nationally representative Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, survival analysis is applied to estimate (a) age-specific marriage hazard rates among girls before age 18; and (b) the number of girls that were married before age 18 in 2020. Results show that the vast majority of girls remain unmarried until age 10. Child marriage rates increase gradually until age 14 and accelerate significantly thereafter at ages 15–17. By accounting for both single-year-age-specific child marriage hazard rates and the age structure of the population with a survival analysis approach, lower estimates in countries with a rapid decrease in child marriage and higher estimates in countries with constant or slightly rising child marriage rates relative to the direct approach are obtained.

Background

Marriage is typically studied among demographers as an established precursor to fertility or in the interest of its possible implications for fertility. However, child marriage, defined as a formal marriage or informal union in which one or both of the parties are under 18 years of age, has diverse implications for the lives of young girls who marry early as they are likely to be at greater risks of school drop-out and illiteracy, of poorer engagement and earnings in the work force, of less decision-making power, and of less control over valuable household assets [1, 2]; child marriage also impacts young brides’ early and long-term empowerment within marriage [1, 3]. In many countries, child marriage is one of the most common reasons for girls to dropout school [4, 5]. Sekine and colleagues found that married girls aged 15–17 in Nepal were 10 times more likely to drop out of school compared to their unmarried peers [6]. Hence, for a girl, marriage can mean the end of her education, can derail her chances of a vocation or career, and can steal from her the chance to make foundational life choices.

Child marriage is significantly associated with high fertility and poor pregnancy spacing, including a repeat childbirth in less than 24 months, multiple unwanted pregnancies, pregnancy termination, and sterilization [79]. Since child marriage so often leads to early childbearing or unintended pregnancy, it also significantly impacts the health of both young mothers and their children [7, 1012]. This is particularly salient as pregnancy complications, such as haemorrhage, sepsis, obstructed labour, and complications from unsafe abortions, are the leading cause of death among 15–19-year-old girls [13]. Girls who are married are also more exposed to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV [14, 15]. Significant association has also been identified between maternal child marriage and poor health outcomes of both infants and children, including greater risk of stunting and underweight [12, 16].

Child marriage is also a known risk factor for intimate partner violence [1721]. Using standardized data in 34 countries, Kidman (2016) showed that compared to women who married as adults, young women aged 20–24 years who married as children were at greater risk of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in the past 12 months [odds ratio (OR) 1.41 (1.30–1.52) for marriage before 15, and 1.42 (1.35–1.50) for marriage at 15–17] [22].

Child marriage is addressed under various international treaty bodies, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), as well as in landmark international agreements such as the International Conference of Population and Development Program of Action (ICPD-POA) and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. World leaders made a collective commitment to eliminate child marriage and included it as one of the targets for the sustainable development agenda 2030. Goal 5, “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) framework includes Target 5.3, which is “eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation”. It is worth noting that SDG Goal 5, and its associated targets, are an extension of a corresponding Millennium Development Goal–MDG Goal 3 –“promote gender equality and empower women”.

The indicator used to track progress towards eliminating child marriage in the SDG global framework is SDG indicator 5.3.1 “Proportion of women aged 20–24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before age 18”. While widely used and analyzed in population and development monitoring tools and studies, this indicator is only a summary statistic of the prevalence of child marriage and does not provide a full picture of the incidence of marriage and informal unions among girls at different ages of childhood. Moreover, the SDG summary measure focuses on the 20–24 age group, which is conditional on girls living until they are 20–24 years old. This selection bias is likely to result in an underestimation since girls who marry at a young age are less likely to live to the age of 20 and are thus excluded from the estimates, possibly due to the adverse health outcomes noted previously. This paper aims to reduce the limitations, provide an alternative measurement of child marriage, and further explore the dynamics of marriage among girls using survival analysis—in demography also called event history analysis.

Measurement of child marriage

Before comparing different sources of marriage data, a number of common conceptual and measurement issues need to be discussed, in particular, the definition of marriage. Both population and housing censuses (Hereafter, simply referred to as “censuses”.) and surveys tend to keep the description of marital status simple assuming respondents are reasonably certain about their current marital status. But in reality, people’s understanding of “marriage” and “being married” is varied across societies. The World Fertility Surveys (WFS) and Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) have focused on one specific aspect of the marital state–exposure to sexual intercourse–and consider cohabitation as the single most critical criterion defining a marriage. Hence, the differences in the definition of marriage between censuses and surveys may yield different tabulations of a country’s population by current marital status categories even if the survey and the census are conducted at the same time. One likely explanation of the difference is that the criterion of cohabitation (part of a union according to DHS definition) is not perfectly aligned with those who would have defined themselves as married to a census enumerator [23].

In addition to the haziness of the marriage definition, data collection on age at first marriage can be more challenging than on current marital status, as some women may not recall the date of their first marriage or not want to report the age of first marriage. Missing information includes age, month and year of first marriage. If any of the components of age, month, and year are absent or inconsistent, the answer is deemed incomplete [24]. According to a DHS methodological report assessing quality of age at date reports, using DHS surveys conducted since 2000 in 67 countries, 32 surveys were identified with at least 50% incompleteness in women’s reported age at first marriage [24]. Women’s reports of their age and date at first marriage have higher levels of incompleteness than their age and birthdate, by an average of approximately 31%, owing mostly to the omission of a month [24]. The accuracy of age at first marriage reporting may also be affected by recall bias or social desirability bias. Women aged 15–19 were less likely to report marriages before the age of 15 than women from the same birth cohort were interviewed five years later at ages 20–24, according to a study based on DHS data from nine African and Latin American countries [25]. The exact impact of the biases on child marriages estimates depends on the specific contexts including the underlying social and cultural differences across the societies. Fear of penalties may lead to overstatement of age at marriage in many countries because the legal age of marriage is older than the cultural norm [26]. Women in Bangladesh, on the other hand, have been shown to deliberately lower their age of marriage, probably because early marriage is socially desirable for women there [25, 27]. Nevertheless, an analysis of longitudinal DHS data from three rounds of a population-based cohort in eastern Zimbabwe found that, while many reports of age at marriage were deemed problematic, their inclusion did not result in artificial generation or suppression of trends [28]. The assessment of age reporting of the top-five countries with the largest number of child brides (India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ethiopia), accounting for more than 50% of the global number of child brides also shows data of acceptable quality with some age heaping in ages 10, 12 and 18.

The civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems should ideally provide real time records of vital events, notably, live births, deaths, and marriages and divorces [29]. In reality, most LMICs have hitherto not achieved fully functional and up to date CRVS systems. As a result, information on the levels, patterns and trends of demographic events is primarily derived from household-based enquiries, i.e. censuses and household surveys, often by using indirect estimation techniques. Data on nuptiality patterns is even more limited from CRVS systems because marriages and divorces are not accorded the same level of importance as births and deaths, and assessment of completeness of marriage and divorce registration is often unavailable [30]. This is itself a cause for action, because marriage registration is critically important for safeguarding rights of individuals, particularly women and girls. In the case of child marriage, the event may not be recorded in CRVS systems in countries where marriage under age 18 is considered illegal.

Currently, despite incomplete responses, nationally representative and standardized household surveys such as the DHS and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are the best sources of internationally comparable data on nuptiality patterns across countries and for the same country over time. This is in contrast to censuses wherein different countries use varied questions and different reference population groups when collecting information on marital behavior. For example, in a total of 144 countries that conducted a population census in the 2010 round of censuses (2005–2014) [31, 32], collected information on marital status, and had a census questionnaire accessible online for analysis, we found eight different reference populations for marital status questions. These include: all members of the household (58 countries); people aged 10 years and above (17 countries), 12 years and above (26 countries), 13 years and above (2 countries), 14 years and above (2 countries), 15 years and above (33 countries), 16 years and above (5 countries), and 18 years and above (1 country).

The lack of standardization of questions on marital behavior in censuses also reflects the fact that not all countries ask about the age at first marriage, and different countries capture different categories of marital status or define categories differently. For example, the category “living together as married/cohabiting” is not captured in all countries and the category “single” is defined differently across countries. In some countries “single” denotes people who have never married or have never been in union, while in other countries it is used to designate people who are single at the time of enumeration, regardless of whether or not they have been married in the past. Among the 144 countries in the 2010 round of censuses referred to above, less than half (43%) explicitly captured information on informal unions (cohabitation) and even fewer countries (18%) collected information on the age at first marriage among respondents who were ever married or ever in union at the time of enumeration.

The DHS and MICS address the limitations of the censuses and provide internationally comparable data on marital behavior because they use a standardized set of questions which are asked of the same reference population. The women’s modules of the DHS and MICS surveys specifically ask respondents the following questions in Table 1. The set of questions is consistent to a great extent across multiples rounds of DHS and MICS surveys covered in this study.

Table 1. Standard questions used for child marriage measurement in DHS and MICS women’s questionnaires.

DHS Phase 5–8 MICS Round 4–6
Q1 Are you currently married or living together with a man as if married? The pre-coded responses are:
(1) yes, currently married;
(2) yes, living with a man; and
(3) no, not in union;
If response = 1 or 2, move to Q4; if = 3, move to Q2 Are you currently married or living together with someone as if married? The pre-coded responses are:
(1) yes, currently married;
(2) yes, living with a partner; and
(3) no, not in union;
If response = 1 or 2, move to Q4; if = 3, move to Q2
Q2 Have you ever been married or lived together with a man as if married?
The pre-coded responses are:
(1) yes, formerly married;
(2) yes, lived with a man; and
(3) no;
If response = 1 or 2, move to Q3; if = 3, code as “never married/single” Have you ever been married or lived together with someone as if married?
The pre-coded responses are:
(1) yes, formerly married;
(2) yes, formerly lived with a partner; and
(3) no;
If response = 1 or 2, move to Q3; if = 3, code as “never married/single”
Q3 What is your marital status now: are you widowed, divorced or separated? Move to Q4 What is your marital status now: are you widowed, divorced or separated? Move to Q4
Q4 How old were you when you first started living with him (first husband/partner)? Ask to all ever-married and ever-in-union respondents How old were you when you first started living with your (first) husband/partner? Ask to all ever-married and ever-in-union respondents

Consequently, this paper examines the age-specific rates of early marriage among women in LMICs using the DHS and MICS data.

Methods

Although survival analysis techniques were designed for longitudinal data [33], their application to cross-sectional data is not uncommon in social sciences [34]. In mortality studies, for example, demographers differentiate between period (cross-sectional) and cohort (longitudinal) life tables on the basis of the type of data that are used to generate the life table. The computation of the period life tables is based on a synthetic cohort conceptualization, i.e. the life tables show what would happen to a real cohort if it were subjected, for all of its life, to the mortality conditions observed during a given year [35]. The estimation of age-specific marriage rates used in the present analysis is situated within this framework.

The data used in the present analysis are from the latest publicly available DHS and MICS surveys for 98 countries at the time of analysis and were collected between 2006 and 2020. DHS and MICS surveys are retrospective studies of population samples. All DHS and MICS microdata files are fully anonymized before we assessed them. The surveys are based on all-women samples, including both ever-married women and never-married women. Surveys that are based on ever-married sample in which only women who were ever-married or in union were interviewed are excluded from the analysis. The present analysis focuses on women aged 15–19 years at the time of the survey; weighted sample sizes of girls aged 15–19 years ranged from 194 in Barbados to 121,533 in India.

Estimation of age-specific marriage rates

Survival analysis, specifically, life table analysis, is applied to the latest available data on current marital status and age at first marriage among women aged 15–19 years in 98 countries to generate retrospective age-specific proportions of women who entered into marriage or consensual unions for the first time in the ages 0–17 years. The rationale for including women aged 15–19 years is that data among women 15–19 years old capture the most current incidence of child marriage at the time of the survey, while also assuring an acceptable sample size for each survey. As with the SDG summary measure, selection bias is likely to distort the results of survival analysis. However, the conditionality is mitigated to some extent because the analysis is based on the age group 15–19.

The proportions of women marrying at a single age are then converted to age-specific probabilities and conditional age-specific marriage rates for the same age range. Marriage is the event of interest. Survival time is assumed to begin at birth and ends when the individual gets married or in union before age 18. It is censored for women aged 15–17 who were still unmarried or not in union at the time of the survey.

Notationally, if x represents age in single years, the conditional rate of marriage for women at aged x—rx—is estimated as follows:

rx=dx/Lx

where dX = number of women who entered into marriage or union for the first time at age x;

Lx = number of women exposed to the risk of marriage/union between ages x and x+1. This is approximated as .5*(lx + lx+1).

lX = total number of women who reach age x still unmarried. The value of lx at age 0 (the radix) can be any number. The values for ages 1 to 17 are estimated as lx = lx-1 * px-1, where px-1 is the probability of surviving child marriage at age x-1, i.e. remaining unmarried.

Estimation of numbers of girls who were married in 2020

To estimate the absolute numbers of girls that were married in 2020, we assume that the age-specific probabilities and rates of child marriage that were observed in a given country at the time of the latest survey remain constant until year 2020. This assumption is based on the fact that for the majority of the 98 countries included in the study, the data used were collected between 2015 and 2020. Child marriages reported by girls aged 15–19 in a survey could have occurred as recently as the survey year or as far back as 19 years ago, contributing to marriage rates in years prior to the study. Therefore, for countries where the data are less recent, especially prior to year 2010, for example, Azerbaijan (2006) and Bolivia (2008), the assumption made may not hold if the countries experienced significant changes in child marriage levels and marriage patterns by age in recent years. Given that child marriage rates have been declining at varying speeds in most countries in recent decades [36, 37], the assumption is likely to overestimate the number of married children in 2020 in these countries. How quickly child marriage rates have fallen over time will influence the magnitude of this overestimation.

The retrospective age-specific proportions of married women are applied to the 2019 World Population Prospects’ (WPP) [38] estimates of the female population at single year ages (from 0 to age 17) in each country to derive expected numbers of women who were unmarried (at the risk of child marriage) in these countries in 2020. The age-specific marriage rates are applied to the estimated numbers of unmarried women to derive the number of women married at a given age, on the assumption that the age-specific marriage rates observed in the last DHS/MICS data apply in 2020.

The new estimates using the survival analysis are also compared with the estimates using a widely adopted direct method, referred to as “direct method” in this analysis. This direct method applies the SDG indicator “proportion of women aged 20–24 marrying before age 18” directly to the appropriate population group, in this case, the estimated number of women age 18 years in year 2020 from the 2019 WPP. A comparison of the direct method and survival analysis is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of differences between the direct approach and survival analysis approach.

Method Computation
Rate measure Universe
Direct approach Proportion of women aged 20–24 marrying before age 18/15 Applied to number of women aged 18/15 years
Survival analysis approach Retrospective age-specific marriage rate among women aged 15–19 Applied to number of unmarried women aged 0-17/0-14, (single year ages)

Results

Age-specific marriage rates

Observed marriage survival functions based on DHS and MICS data are presented in Fig 1. The data show that age-specific marriage rates vary greatly across countries. In all countries, the vast majority of girls remain unmarried until age 10. Child marriage is less prevalent in SDG region Northern America and Europe, and the highest levels in child marriage are observed in sub-Saharan African countries. In general, the rate of child marriage increases gradually until age 14 and accelerates significantly thereafter at ages 15, 16 and 17. Regional variations indicate that the rate of child marriage does not tend to escalate until 16 and beyond in European countries, relative to some sub-Saharan countries, where the rate accelerates as early as 12 years of age.

Fig 1. Observed marriage survival functions based on the latest publicly accessible data, by SDG region.

Fig 1

Analysis based on weighted data (n ranged from 194 in Barbados to 121,533 in India).

A detailed discussion of the pattern of age-specific rates of child marriage is provided below using data from 2 select countries with the highest prevalence of child marriage (Niger) and the largest number of child brides due to the overall population size of young girls (India).

Fig 2 provides country specific marriage survival curves for Niger and India. Niger has the highest child marriage rates in the world. Data obtained from the country’s 2012 DHS show that for every 100 girls that reach 14 years unmarried in a given year, 17 get married before their 15th birthday and this rate increases to 40 for every 100 girls between the 17th and 18th birthdays. Only 26% girls remain unmarried by age 18. This is in stark contrast to the situation in India, which has the largest absolute number of child brides, due to overall population size and age structure. Compared to Niger, age-specific marriage rates in India are much lower. Data from the India National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2015–16 show that 84% girls reach age 18 without being married and the age-specific marriage rate ranges from 1 child bride for every 100 girls between the 14th and the 15th birthdays to 9 brides for every 100 girls between the 17th and 18th birthday. Age-specific marriage rates also indicate that marriage happens at relatively older ages in India with a peak in the number of child brides around age 17, compared to a median survival time of 16.26 years in Niger.

Fig 2. Observed marriage survival functions in Niger and India, latest data.

Fig 2

Analysis based on weighted data (n ranged from 1830 in Niger to 121,533 in India).

Estimation of numbers of child brides

For the 98 LMICs covered in this study, survival analysis is also used to estimate the absolute number of girls marrying before age 18 in 2020. Differences between the new estimates using the survival analysis and the estimates using the direct method are assessed.

In the 98 LMICs, the survival method yields an estimated number of girls marrying before age 18, of 7,076 thousand, compared to 9,779 thousand using the direct method. A detailed comparison of the estimates is conducted to better understand the difference between estimates at the national level. The estimated numbers of girls marrying before age 18 and before age 15 using both survival analysis and the direct approach at the national level are shown in S1 Table. A sample of 17 countries are selected for the detailed comparison of estimated numbers of girls marrying before age 18 based on the following criteria: 1) the difference between the estimates is more than 10,000 if the direct estimate is higher, or more than 1,000 is the survival analysis estimate is higher; and 2) the survival analysis approach results in an estimate that is 30% lower than the estimate using the direct approach, or at least 1% higher. The 17 countries selected include Burundi, Ghana, Chad, Nepal, India, Philippines, Yemen, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia, Thailand, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia which have higher direct approach estimates, and Tanzania, Mozambique, and South Africa, with higher survival analysis approach estimates (see Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of estimates of girls marrying before age 18 in 2020 using direct approach and survival analysis approach, in 17 select countries.

Country Married before 18, among women age 20–24 (%) Direct approach Survival analysis approach Difference between results (000) Percentage difference in results (%) Average annual rate of population change (%)
Estimated number of girls marrying before age 18 (000) 2015–2020
Burundi 19 22 8 -14 -62 3.15
Ghana 19 58 34 -24 -41 2.19
Chad 61 108 65 -44 -40 3.04
Nepal 33 106 64 -41 -39 1.51
India 25 2987 1905 -1082 -36 1.04
Philippines 17 166 107 -58 -35 1.41
Yemen 32 98 64 -35 -35 2.37
Ethiopia 40 511 332 -179 -35 2.62
Kenya 23 133 87 -47 -35 2.32
Zambia 29 60 39 -21 -34 2.93
Thailand 20 88 60 -27 -31 0.31
Nigeria 43 902 631 -271 -30 2.59
Bangladesh 51 785 551 -234 -30 1.05
Indonesia 16 371 261 -110 -30 1.14
Tanzania 31 187 189 2 1 2.97
Mozambique 48 167 173 6 3 2.90
South Africa 4 17 18 1 8 1.37

As indicated in the methodology section above, the survival analysis approach is based on retrospective age-specific proportions of women who were married or entered into consensual unions for the first time in the ages 0–17 years using data collected on women aged 15–19, while the direct approach uses the marriage data collected on women aged 20–24 (see Table 2). As a result, varying child marriage rates across cohorts resulting from the rate of change in child marriage over time is likely to affect the difference in estimates resulting from the two approaches. We calculate the proportions of women marrying before age 18, among age groups 18–19, 20–24, and 25–29 years for comparison purpose (Fig 3). In the 14 countries with higher estimates using the direct approach (lower survival estimates), proportions of women aged 18–19 years marrying before age 18 are significantly lower than the proportions of women aged 20–24 years marrying before age 18, ranging from 14% lower in Bangladesh to 51% lower in Burundi, indicating possible rapid declines in the incidence of child marriage across cohorts. In comparison, in the 3 countries with higher survival estimates, we found that the child marriage proportions are unchanged or slightly higher, in age group 18–19 than age group 20–24, ranging from 5% higher in Tanzania to 42% higher in South Africa.

Fig 3. Proportion of women marrying before age 18, among women in age groups 18–19, age 20–24, and age 25–29 years, in select 17 countries.

Fig 3

The difference in survival analysis estimates and estimates using the direct approach at the country level are also driven by the different ways that these two approaches accommodate changes in age structure and population trends in the country. Average annual rates (AAR) of population change between 2015 and 2020 are presented in Table 3, indicating that the AAR between 2015 and 2020 ranges from 3.15% in Burundi to 1.04% in India and 0.31% in Thailand.

To better understand the contribution of age structure to our estimates in the 17 countries, Fig 4 presents the number of women aged 0–24 years by single-year age in each country. The 17 countries have vastly different age structures. In India, female population at age 0 is 11,505 thousand compared to 11,871 thousand for female population at age 17. In comparison, female population at age 0 in Mozambique is 540 thousand, 1.5 times the size of the population at age group 17, which is 358 thousand.

Fig 4. Age structure–number of women age 0–24 years (thousands), by single-year age, in 17 select countries, year 2020.

Fig 4

Because the survival analysis approach uses both single-year-age-specific child marriage hazard rates among girls aged 15–19 and the age structure of the population, it better captures how recent changes in child marriage rates and population growth in a country is impacting the number of girls at risk of early marriage. Driving by rapid decline in the incidence of child marriage, the survival analysis may result in lower estimates of child marriage in both countries that have lower rates of population growth and transitional age structures resulting from near constant but low fertility rates (in India, for example), and countries with high rates of population growth (in Burundi and Chad, for example). In countries with constant or slightly rising child marriage rates, the survival analysis yields higher estimates of child marriage in both countries with high rates (in Mozambique, for example) and low rates of population growth (in South Africa, for example). When using single-year-age-specific hazard rates among girls aged 18–19 for the survival analysis approach and the proportions of 18-19-year-olds marrying before age 18 for the direct approach, the survival analysis almost always produces higher estimates in countries with high rates of population growth due to sustained high fertility rates, very young (broad-based) age structures, and relatively high child marriage rates; and similar or lower estimates in countries with lower rates of population growth and transitional age structures resulting from low fertility rates as compared to the direct approach (data not shown).

Discussion

The overarching objective of this study was to present an alternate analytical approach for measuring the levels in child marriage and estimating the number of girls that are affected by child marriage. Currently, the widely used approach involves calculating the proportion of women aged 20–24 years who were married or entered into an informal union before age 15 and before age 18, which is also the official SDG indicator measuring the issue of child marriage (SDG 5.3.1). However, this indicator is only a summary statistic of the prevalence of child marriage, it does not provide a full picture of the dynamics of the incidence of marriage among children at different ages before they reach age 18. In this paper, we showed that by applying survival analysis techniques we can gain a better understanding, not only of the age patterns in child marriage rates, but potentially more precise estimates of the absolute numbers of girls at risk of child marriage.

The analytical power provided by survival analysis techniques in the study of child marriage is conceptually appealing from a policy and program point of view because it equips policy makers and program managers with granular information about age-specific risks in individual countries, and the changing numbers of girls at risk where population growth is especially high. Survival analysis has been previously applied in various life events [3941]. A similar approach has recently been applied to highlight age-specific risks of female genital mutilation (FGM), and the extent to which the pace of population growth in affected countries is changing the absolute numbers of girls at risk [42]. In both analyses, the rising absolute numbers of girls at risk is of crucial importance to policymakers, highlighting where accelerated interventions are needed to eliminate these practices by 2030.

A recent analysis of trends in 31 sub-Saharan African countries found that child marriage has decreased over time, but the decline has been concentrated among older adolescents [36]. This alternative approach allows for better understanding of trends in child marriage over time and is sensitive enough to detect recent declines, both small and large, to provide information for impact measurement of program interventions. More precise estimates of the number of girls affected also allow more efficient resource allocation.

More importantly, analyzing marriage by single-year ages allows us to see when child marriage accelerates, and thus to design and implement target interventions before the acceleration. From the results presented, it is clear that intervention around age 10, right before puberty, is critical in many high-prevalence countries. Relevant interventions include supporting girls to complete primary schooling and transition to lower secondary school, giving girls critical life skills including self-confidence and relationship skills, disseminating knowledge of their health as well as their rights, providing financial literacy, etc. [43, 44]. For example, the Empowerment and Livelihood for Adolescents (ELA) program in Uganda, which aimed to empower adolescent girls by providing 1) vocational training to start small-scale income-generating activities, and 2) life skills training and information on sex, reproduction, and marriage showed significant improvements in girls’ entrepreneurial skills, increased girls’ knowledge of and control over their bodies in terms of childbearing, relationship quality, and sexual intercourse, and changed girls’ aspirations of marriage and childbearing. Notably, girls in intervention communities were 6.9 percentage points less likely to be married or cohabiting two years later [45]. Where marriage accelerates at age 15, supporting girls to stay in school and complete secondary schooling is critical, in addition to supporting their access to sexual and reproductive health services, and providing them with financial services such as access to savings accounts. Young married girls who may be at particularly high risk of poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes will also require more targeted attention, separately from unmarried girls.

Evidence show that consistent minimum marriage age laws offer some protection against the exploitation of girls [46]. Data on age patterns of child marriage can serve as basis for assessing the implementation of existing minimum marriage age laws and advocating for such laws in countries where it is absent.

Although the study reached its aim of estimating age-specific marriage rates among girls before age 18 and the absolute numbers of girls that were affected by child marriage in 2020 in the 98 countries for which data were accessible, a few limitations need to be highlighted. First, data for the vast majority of countries included in the analysis were collected before the reference year 2020. Thus, if these countries experienced significant changes in the age pattern of child marriage in recent times, the assumptions made when estimating absolute numbers of girls affected by child marriage for 2020 may not hold. In light of the fact that child marriage has been decreasing at different rates in most countries over the last few decades [36, 37], the assumption is likely to overstate the estimated number of married girls in these countries in 2020. However, the estimated number of girls marrying before reaching the age of 18 using the direct approach is based on the same assumption and is likely to be inflated. Because of this, the comparison between the two approaches is considered to be appropriate.

Second, the results of the study are sensitive to the common measurement issues that are discussed in this paper. Errors in reporting on age at first marriage may include recall bias, social desirability bias, and survey completion issues. Recall bias occurs when individuals are unable to recall prior events or their timing. It can be more prevalent in older cohorts than in younger cohorts, since more time has passed between the survey and the occurrence of child marriage [47]. People’s understanding of “marriage” and “being married” may change over time due to social forces advocating for women’s empowerment, as well as anti–child marriage campaigns and the introduction or reform of minimum-age-at-marriage legislation [25, 36]. Thus, younger cohorts, such as females aged 15–19 included in the survival analysis, may feel more pressure to claim to be older at the time of their marriage than they really were, in comparison to older cohorts, such as females aged 20–24 included in the direct approach. However, these biases should be contextualized; for instance, understatement in age at first marriage among women in Bangladesh was identified perhaps due to the societal acceptability of early marriage for women in that country [27]. Assessment of the quality of age reporting in DHS surveys shows that women’s reporting on age at first marriage are more incomplete than other age reporting primarily due to missing month [24]. DHS performs extensive data imputations to address incomplete and inconsistent reporting [48]. While imputation on age at first marriage could lead to biased results, evidence show that when an age at first marriage is incomplete, it is typically because the age and year of birth were given but not the month, or the month was discordant with the year and age, necessitating the month’s imputation or modification. It is uncommon for age to need imputation [24].

Despite these limitations, this analysis makes an important contribution to the measurement of child marriage. In order to address the limitations associated with the collection and assessment of timely data on child marriage, we have the following recommendations. Countries should aim to strengthen their population data ecosystems to have fully functional CRVS systems that are complemented by regular census and household survey undertakings, as part of efforts to track progress in achieving the SDGs. Although the two statistical systems produce two different perspectives in respect to marriage–with censuses and household surveys presenting the household admission of who is married, and the administrative data presenting the state’s record of who is married in terms of the prevailing laws of the country–a national statistics system that is made up of regular censuses and household surveys, plus a fully functional CRVS system covering all marriage types is desirable.

Censuses should adopt the more comprehensive household survey approach of measuring marital status. Specifically, informal union should be recognized, and data on age at first informal union should be systematically collected. Furthermore, standard definitions of marriage and union should be adopted across censuses and surveys. In the 2020 census round currently underway, questions on the age at first marriage, and on the registration status of marriages by type are recommended [49, 50]; similar recommendations are applicable to relevant household surveys. Additionally, efforts should be made to improve data collection tools in order to minimize misreporting, as well as to develop techniques for correcting estimates based on self-reported data of women sampled in household surveys.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates an alternative method of estimating levels of child marriage using survival analysis approach and suggests that accounting for both single-year-age-specific child marriage hazard rates and the population age structure results in lower figures in countries with rapid decrease in child marriage and higher figures in countries with constant or slightly rising child marriage rates relative to the direct approach. The study highlights the program implications of precise single-year-age-specific child marriage hazard rates and advises that child marriage programs should target girls as young as age 10 in high-prevalence countries. Future research using the survival analysis approach to assess the evolution of child marriage should be prioritized. We recommend that the survival analysis methodology be more widely adopted for various progress monitoring and programme design purposes.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Proportion of women age 20–24 marrying before age 15 and before age 18, and estimated number of girls marrying before age 15 and before age 18 using survival analysis approach and direct approach, latest data in 98 countries.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Goleen Samari for her careful reading of the manuscript and her insightful comments and suggestions.

Data Availability

All data is taken from the publicly available Demographic and Health Surveys (http://dhsprogram.com) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (http://mics.unicef.org).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra

13 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-16939

New Estimations of Child Marriage: Evidence from 91 Low- and Middle-Income Countries

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an important body of work. As highlighted by both the reviewers, there are some methodological concerns that authors must address.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors used descriptive survival analyses to estimate age-specific risks for marriage in 91 countries based on DHS and MICS data. Their approach is an alternative way to quantify child marriage practices that has some advantages and disadvantages relative to other commonly used metrics. At this stage, I find that the authors have not sufficiently described their methods and have not thoughtfully considered sources of bias and their impact on their estimates. The manuscript needs to be strengthened in these regards before it is suitable for publication and could use editing for clarity throughout. My comments on specific sections of the paper follow.

Measurement of child marriage

The authors cite a source from 1993 to indicate a common refrain: that marriage in sub-Saharan Africa “is a process”. This assertion is problematic for many reasons. First, it implies that marriage practices have remained static for at least three decades. Second, it implies that marriage practices across this large and diverse region are uniform. Third, it implies that marriage processes in the region differ from processes elsewhere, which is somewhat misleading. For example, in North America it is common to become engaged and/or have children with a partner far in advance of a legal or religious ceremony. In China, legal registration often occurs substantially later than a ceremony. (Clearly, this is bit of a thorn in this reviewer’s side.) I recommend that the authors omit this outdated statement and simply acknowledge that perceptions of marital status vary across the societies. This would also seem more in line with the scope of this paper, which includes 91 countries from across the globe; the focus on Africa here seems unnecessary.

Incompleteness of reporting on age at marriage is an important data quality issue (lines 108-118) but the authors omit another equally important concern: the accuracy of the ages reported. The approach used in this paper assumes that, among those who did report how old they were at the time of their first marriage/cohabitation, the ages provided are perfect and unaffected by recall bias or social desirability bias. This is unlikely and its potential impact on the estimates in this study should be discussed. In addition, the DHS often imputes ages that are missing. What affect might that have on the measurement approach used in this study?

The authors include the language of the questions included in the DHS after line 160. The data used in their analyses cover the most recent three phases of the DHS women’s questionnaire (Phases 5-7). Has the language of these questions remained consistent across these phases? Is the language used in MICS surveys exactly the same?

Methods

In the first step of their analyses, the authors estimated the age-specific risk of child marriage in each country based on data from the most recent DHS or MICS. The ideal estimate would have been a conditional probability based on longitudinal data, i.e., conditional on remaining alive and unmarried until the day before your 12th birthday, what is the probability that you get married or begin cohabiting between your 12th birthday and the day before your 13th birthday? However, the structure of the data they are relying upon creates a few problems with this approach. First, the sample includes only those aged 18-19. This means that the probabilities they estimate are also conditional on having survived until the age of 18-19. This creates a selection bias. If girls who marry at very early ages are less likely to survive the experience, possibly as a result of the harms noted in the introduction, and die before reaching the age of 18, they will be omitted from these estimates. (This bias affects summary measures as well, which are conditional on surviving until the ages of 20-24, but should be discussed nonetheless.) The Kaplan Meier methodology that the authors use can handle censoring, so why not include all girls between 15 and 18 in the sample? This would reduce this conditionality to some degree.

Second, the time frame for the age-specific marriage rates is somewhat tricky to pin down. The authors suggest that these are the rates in the year of the most recent survey, but that isn’t really true. For example, an 18-year-old respondent to a 2010 DHS who reported that she married at the age of 13 is actually contributing to a marriage rate in 2005, since her marriage actually occurred five years prior. Again, this needs to be discussed and its implications for overestimation (see next paragraph) made transparent.

In the second step of their analyses, the authors applied the age-specific conditional probability estimates obtained for each country to estimates of the country’s population in 2017 to estimate the number of girls married in that year. They aptly note that this approach assumes that the age-specific probabilities remained unchanged between the year the marriages occurred and 2017. However, I would like to see more justification for the claim that this “…is a fairly reasonable assumption for the majority of the 91 countries included in the study because the data used were collected between 2010 and 2016.” They then raise concerns about countries in which the most recent survey was conducted prior to 2010. Is there something important about the distinction between 2009/2010? Likely not. I would also like to see the authors be more transparent about how this assumption is likely to affect their estimates. With very few exceptions, child marriage rates have been falling at different speeds across the globe in recent decades. Basing these counts on marriage rates from earlier years will therefore result in overestimates of the number of married children in 2017. The magnitude of this overestimation will vary depending on how quickly the nation’s child marriages rates have been falling over time.

I am confused by the language in lines 223-229, which seems to indicate that the age-specific probabilities derived from the first stage of the analysis were applied to the population estimates from the WPP twice. There would seem to be no need to use a two-stage estimation process at this point. For example, applying the probability of marriage at the age of 13 in Nigeria to the total number of 13-year-olds living in Nigeria in 2017 would give you an estimate of the number of married 13-year-olds in that year. If the authors did this differently, by first estimating the number of unmarried girls and then applying the age-specific probabilities to the estimated number of unmarried girls, this would seem to double count. This must be clarified.

Results

Figures 1 and 2 need work. First of all, probabilities cannot take values less than zero, but the x-axis includes -1. This needs to be corrected. Most of the space in this figure is wasted since marriage prior to the age of 10 is very rare. (And when it occurs in the data, is quite likely the result of inaccurate reporting or data entry error.) One way to adjust this would be to begin the risk period at the age of 10. Why are there vertical lines at 10 and 14 years? The right scale includes residual code that should be cleaned up (“Country code for naeu”, etc.). There are no countries from North America included in this study; the figure label and the text of the manuscript should be corrected to accurately reflect that.

Use of the term “hazard rates” (line 259, others) is somewhat confusing. This term has a precise definition associated with Cox proportional hazard models for survival analysis, which the authors did not use. I recommend the authors stick with the language of rates or conditional probabilities.

On Lines 329-354, the authors suggest that observed differences in the estimated number of girls married between the “survival analysis” and “direct” measurement approaches are attributable to changes in the age structure of populations within countries over time. As far as I can tell from what is written in the methods section of the paper, the authors estimated the number of girls married by simply multiplying the number of girls at each individual age by the age-specific marriage risk. To illustrate, if the risk of marriage at the age of 13 in India based on the 2015-16 NFHS was 0.03% and there were 1 million 13-year-old girls living in India in 2017 according to the WPP, they would estimate a total of 300 married 13-year-olds in 2017 (1 million * 0.0003 = 300). This process would be repeated for 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, etc. and summed to estimate a total number of married girls. As described above, this would almost certainly lead to overestimates of the number of girls married simply because age-specific marriage rates from earlier years are being applied to population estimates in later years, and in most contexts child marriage is becoming less common over time. Of course, if the population is growing, it is possible that the absolute number of married girls could increase over time even if the rates of child marriage are falling. However, it would be very challenging to parse apart how much of the observed differences in these numbers is attributable to the bias and how much is attributable to population growth. This is not discussed at all. I also wonder if the countries in which differences between estimation approaches were minimal were those in which the survey was conducted closer to 2017. (For example, the Indian NFHS was conducted in 2015-16 which would make estimates based on it likely more accurate for application to population estimates from 2017.) I would like to see the authors investigate this possibility.

There are no quantitative measures of the uncertainty around these estimates, such as 95% confidence intervals, anywhere in the paper. This would help with interpretation of differences between estimation strategies, such as in Figure 3. This is especially odd given that the authors note that limiting their sample to 18-19-year-olds reduced statistical power and widens confidence intervals (lines 419-421).

Given the biases that affect the estimates presented in this study and the fact that no validation study was conducted (and indeed would be very challenging to conduct), claiming that these estimates are “more precise” (lines 366, 383), “more reliable” (line 448) or “more accurate” (line 33) than other approaches to quantifying child marriage is an unjustified overstatement. All quantitative measures have pros and cons. Calculation of age-specific marriage rates is useful and the Kaplan Meier curves present more detailed information on the timing of marriage than is communicated in summary statistics. This is an important contribution and may be informative for context-specific interventions in this domain. However, the authors have neglected some important limitations of their approach relative to others. For example, they require strong assumptions about the stability of child marriage rates over time and are less readily interpretable by broad audiences. Greater transparency and humility about our imperfect attempts to measure this phenomenon would make this a much stronger paper.

Reviewer #2: This paper makes a major contribution to the field by proposing an alternative measurement of child marriage that captures recent estimates as against the standard indicator of proportion of 20-24 year-old women married by age 15/18 that has been often seen as capturing the 'incidence' of child marriage in the past. I would like to flag a few points to the attention of the authors.

1. Authors note that estimates of child marriage are produced for the year 2017, providing baseline estimates of child marriage at the dawn of the SDG tracking period which is a good rationale. However, I am wondering whether the authors could also provide an estimate for the year 2020 as it can help monitor the progress towards eliminating child marriage in the five years since the declaration of the SDGs. In fact, 23 of the 91 countries included in the study have survey data that cover the period between 2016-2020 at least from the DHS.

2. Authors have included 91 LMICs and a scan of DHS website suggests some important omissions, for example, South Africa, Tanzania, Guatemala and there are others too (Appendix Table 1), despite having data from DHS for the period that authors have relied for the analysis. I am wondering whether authors applied any exclusion criteria.

3. Authors note that to estimate the absolute numbers of girls that were married in 2017, they have assumed that the age-specific probabilities and rates of child marriage that were observed in a given country at the time

of the latest survey remain constant until year 2017, and that this was a fairly reasonable assumption for the

majority of the 91 countries included in the study. Trend data from DHS suggest that some of the included countries may have experienced noticeable decline (and in rare cases, an increase) even during a short-span of 5-6 years. I am wondering whether the authors could have projected different scenario based different level of rate of child marriage.

4. Authors have discussed the conceptual, methodological and data quality issues related to nuptiality data and authors have acknowledged this as a limitation. It would have been good if authors could reflect more on how such issues, particularly age misreporting may affect their estimated number of girls marrying before age 18;

5. Authors argue that data on age patterns of child marriage can serve as basis for assessing the implementation of existing minimum marriage age laws and advocating for such laws in countries where it is absent. While such laws can serve as a deterrent, marriage age misreporting around the legal age cannot be ignored.

6. Could authors also provide the estimated number of girls marrying before age 15 as an annexure?

7. Could authors include regional estimates as well?

8. Although child marriage is more prevalent among girls than boys, could the authors have estimated the incidence of child marriage among boys too?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alissa Koski

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 27;16(10):e0258378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258378.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Aug 2021

Dear Dr. Mahapatra, Dr. Koski and peer reviewer:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled New Estimations of Child Marriage: Evidence from 98 Low- and Middle-Income Countries to PLOS ONE. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers.

Please see below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from Reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: The authors used descriptive survival analyses to estimate age-specific risks for marriage in 91 countries based on DHS and MICS data. Their approach is an alternative way to quantify child marriage practices that has some advantages and disadvantages relative to other commonly used metrics. At this stage, I find that the authors have not sufficiently described their methods and have not thoughtfully considered sources of bias and their impact on their estimates. The manuscript needs to be strengthened in these regards before it is suitable for publication and could use editing for clarity throughout. My comments on specific sections of the paper follow.

Measurement of child marriage

The authors cite a source from 1993 to indicate a common refrain: that marriage in sub-Saharan Africa “is a process”. This assertion is problematic for many reasons. First, it implies that marriage practices have remained static for at least three decades. Second, it implies that marriage practices across this large and diverse region are uniform. Third, it implies that marriage processes in the region differ from processes elsewhere, which is somewhat misleading. For example, in North America it is common to become engaged and/or have children with a partner far in advance of a legal or religious ceremony. In China, legal registration often occurs substantially later than a ceremony. (Clearly, this is bit of a thorn in this reviewer’s side.) I recommend that the authors omit this outdated statement and simply acknowledge that perceptions of marital status vary across the societies. This would also seem more in line with the scope of this paper, which includes 91 countries from across the globe; the focus on Africa here seems unnecessary.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We use sub-Saharan Africa as an example to demonstrate the perceptions of marriage vary across the societies. However, in order to avoid an emphasis on the SSA, we have removed the statement as suggested.

Incompleteness of reporting on age at marriage is an important data quality issue (lines 108-118) but the authors omit another equally important concern: the accuracy of the ages reported. The approach used in this paper assumes that, among those who did report how old they were at the time of their first marriage/cohabitation, the ages provided are perfect and unaffected by recall bias or social desirability bias. This is unlikely and its potential impact on the estimates in this study should be discussed. In addition, the DHS often imputes ages that are missing. What affect might that have on the measurement approach used in this study?

Response: We appreciate the comment. We have included detailed discussions in both the background and discussion sections about the accuracy of the ages reported and the incompleteness of reporting, as well as their implications on the estimates.

The authors include the language of the questions included in the DHS after line 160. The data used in their analyses cover the most recent three phases of the DHS women’s questionnaire (Phases 5-7). Has the language of these questions remained consistent across these phases? Is the language used in MICS surveys exactly the same?

Response: Thank you. Standard questions used for child marriage measurement in both DHS and MICS women’s questionnaires are now included in Table 1.

Methods

In the first step of their analyses, the authors estimated the age-specific risk of child marriage in each country based on data from the most recent DHS or MICS. The ideal estimate would have been a conditional probability based on longitudinal data, i.e., conditional on remaining alive and unmarried until the day before your 12th birthday, what is the probability that you get married or begin cohabiting between your 12th birthday and the day before your 13th birthday? However, the structure of the data they are relying upon creates a few problems with this approach.

First, the sample includes only those aged 18-19. This means that the probabilities they estimate are also conditional on having survived until the age of 18-19. This creates a selection bias. If girls who marry at very early ages are less likely to survive the experience, possibly as a result of the harms noted in the introduction, and die before reaching the age of 18, they will be omitted from these estimates. (This bias affects summary measures as well, which are conditional on surviving until the ages of 20-24, but should be discussed nonetheless.) The Kaplan Meier methodology that the authors use can handle censoring, so why not include all girls between 15 and 18 in the sample? This would reduce this conditionality to some degree.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Selection bias is now discussed in both the background and methods sections. We chose the age group of 18-19 for the survival analysis in order to make a comparison to the second variant of the direct approach, namely the proportion of women aged 18-19 who married before reaching the age of 18. However, we agree that adding the years of 15-17 offers a number of benefits, which is made feasible by the life table analysis method we employed. Thus, we revised our survival analysis approach to include 15-17-year-old females.

Second, the time frame for the age-specific marriage rates is somewhat tricky to pin down. The authors suggest that these are the rates in the year of the most recent survey, but that isn’t really true. For example, an 18-year-old respondent to a 2010 DHS who reported that she married at the age of 13 is actually contributing to a marriage rate in 2005, since her marriage actually occurred five years prior. Again, this needs to be discussed and its implications for overestimation (see next paragraph) made transparent.

Response: Thank you. This issue is now discussed in both the methods and discussion sections

In the second step of their analyses, the authors applied the age-specific conditional probability estimates obtained for each country to estimates of the country’s population in 2017 to estimate the number of girls married in that year. They aptly note that this approach assumes that the age-specific probabilities remained unchanged between the year the marriages occurred and 2017. However, I would like to see more justification for the claim that this “…is a fairly reasonable assumption for the majority of the 91 countries included in the study because the data used were collected between 2010 and 2016.” They then raise concerns about countries in which the most recent survey was conducted prior to 2010. Is there something important about the distinction between 2009/2010? Likely not. I would also like to see the authors be more transparent about how this assumption is likely to affect their estimates. With very few exceptions, child marriage rates have been falling at different speeds across the globe in recent decades. Basing these counts on marriage rates from earlier years will therefore result in overestimates of the number of married children in 2017. The magnitude of this overestimation will vary depending on how quickly the nation’s child marriages rates have been falling over time.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The language regarding the assumption has been revised in accordance with the suggestions, and the issue of overestimation has now been discussed in both the methods and the discussion sections.

I am confused by the language in lines 223-229, which seems to indicate that the age-specific probabilities derived from the first stage of the analysis were applied to the population estimates from the WPP twice. There would seem to be no need to use a two-stage estimation process at this point. For example, applying the probability of marriage at the age of 13 in Nigeria to the total number of 13-year-olds living in Nigeria in 2017 would give you an estimate of the number of married 13-year-olds in that year. If the authors did this differently, by first estimating the number of unmarried girls and then applying the age-specific probabilities to the estimated number of unmarried girls, this would seem to double count. This must be clarified.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The conditional rate of first marriage at age x is applied to number of never married women at age x because they are the population at risk of first marriage at age x. Ever married women at age x were counted by conditional rates of first marriages at previous ages.

Results

Figures 1 and 2 need work. First of all, probabilities cannot take values less than zero, but the x-axis includes -1. This needs to be corrected. Most of the space in this figure is wasted since marriage prior to the age of 10 is very rare. (And when it occurs in the data, is quite likely the result of inaccurate reporting or data entry error.) One way to adjust this would be to begin the risk period at the age of 10. Why are there vertical lines at 10 and 14 years? The right scale includes residual code that should be cleaned up (“Country code for naeu”, etc.). There are no countries from North America included in this study; the figure label and the text of the manuscript should be corrected to accurately reflect that.

Response: Thank you. Figures 1 and 2 are re-produced to reflect the updated analysis and the suggestions. North America and Europe is cleared labeled as a SDG region.

Use of the term “hazard rates” (line 259, others) is somewhat confusing. This term has a precise definition associated with Cox proportional hazard models for survival analysis, which the authors did not use. I recommend the authors stick with the language of rates or conditional probabilities.

Response: Thank you. We used hazard rates in the life table analysis therefore this term is used in the manuscript. However, we changed “hazard rates” to “rates” in original line 259 to make it clearer.

On Lines 329-354, the authors suggest that observed differences in the estimated number of girls married between the “survival analysis” and “direct” measurement approaches are attributable to changes in the age structure of populations within countries over time. As far as I can tell from what is written in the methods section of the paper, the authors estimated the number of girls married by simply multiplying the number of girls at each individual age by the age-specific marriage risk. To illustrate, if the risk of marriage at the age of 13 in India based on the 2015-16 NFHS was 0.03% and there were 1 million 13-year-old girls living in India in 2017 according to the WPP, they would estimate a total of 300 married 13-year-olds in 2017 (1 million * 0.0003 = 300). This process would be repeated for 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, etc. and summed to estimate a total number of married girls. As described above, this would almost certainly lead to overestimates of the number of girls married simply because age-specific marriage rates from earlier years are being applied to population estimates in later years, and in most contexts child marriage is becoming less common over time. Of course, if the population is growing, it is possible that the absolute number of married girls could increase over time even if the rates of child marriage are falling. However, it would be very challenging to parse apart how much of the observed differences in these numbers is attributable to the bias and how much is attributable to population growth. This is not discussed at all. I also wonder if the countries in which differences between estimation approaches were minimal were those in which the survey was conducted closer to 2017. (For example, the Indian NFHS was conducted in 2015-16 which would make estimates based on it likely more accurate for application to population estimates from 2017.) I would like to see the authors investigate this possibility.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. Both the methods and discussion sections have now addressed the issue of overestimation. Kindly note that the estimated number of females marrying before reaching the age of 18 using the direct method is also based on the same assumption and is thus likely to be overstated. As a result, the comparison of the two methods is deemed acceptable. Similarly, the year of the survey is unlikely to affect the differences between the two approaches. We have also discussed in detail how the differences in survival analysis estimates and direct estimates at the country level are caused by both varying child marriage rates across cohorts due to the rate of change in child marriage over time and the distinct ways in which these two approaches account for changes in the country's age structure and population trends.

There are no quantitative measures of the uncertainty around these estimates, such as 95% confidence intervals, anywhere in the paper. This would help with interpretation of differences between estimation strategies, such as in Figure 3. This is especially odd given that the authors note that limiting their sample to 18-19-year-olds reduced statistical power and widens confidence intervals (lines 419-421).

Response: Thank you. We expanded our sample and included 15-17-year-olds. We hope to make a comparison with data for SDG indicator 5.3.1 and they are often reported as point estimates.

Given the biases that affect the estimates presented in this study and the fact that no validation study was conducted (and indeed would be very challenging to conduct), claiming that these estimates are “more precise” (lines 366, 383), “more reliable” (line 448) or “more accurate” (line 33) than other approaches to quantifying child marriage is an unjustified overstatement. All quantitative measures have pros and cons. Calculation of age-specific marriage rates is useful and the Kaplan Meier curves present more detailed information on the timing of marriage than is communicated in summary statistics. This is an important contribution and may be informative for context-specific interventions in this domain. However, the authors have neglected some important limitations of their approach relative to others. For example, they require strong assumptions about the stability of child marriage rates over time and are less readily interpretable by broad audiences. Greater transparency and humility about our imperfect attempts to measure this phenomenon would make this a much stronger paper.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the languages as per the suggestions.

Reviewer #2: This paper makes a major contribution to the field by proposing an alternative measurement of child marriage that captures recent estimates as against the standard indicator of proportion of 20-24 year-old women married by age 15/18 that has been often seen as capturing the 'incidence' of child marriage in the past. I would like to flag a few points to the attention of the authors.

1. Authors note that estimates of child marriage are produced for the year 2017, providing baseline estimates of child marriage at the dawn of the SDG tracking period which is a good rationale. However, I am wondering whether the authors could also provide an estimate for the year 2020 as it can help monitor the progress towards eliminating child marriage in the five years since the declaration of the SDGs. In fact, 23 of the 91 countries included in the study have survey data that cover the period between 2016-2020 at least from the DHS.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the analysis to include 58 new surveys that have become available since the original analysis. Currently, 98 LMICs are included in the study.

2. Authors have included 91 LMICs and a scan of DHS website suggests some important omissions, for example, South Africa, Tanzania, Guatemala and there are others too (Appendix Table 1), despite having data from DHS for the period that authors have relied for the analysis. I am wondering whether authors applied any exclusion criteria.

Response: Thank you. We have updated the analysis to include 58 new surveys that have become available since the original analysis. Microdata for South Africa, Tanzania, and Guatemala were not publicly accessible at the time of the original analysis, but are now included in the study. All surveys included in the study are based on all- women samples, and surveys based on ever-married samples are excluded.

3. Authors note that to estimate the absolute numbers of girls that were married in 2017, they have assumed that the age-specific probabilities and rates of child marriage that were observed in a given country at the time

of the latest survey remain constant until year 2017, and that this was a fairly reasonable assumption for the

majority of the 91 countries included in the study. Trend data from DHS suggest that some of the included countries may have experienced noticeable decline (and in rare cases, an increase) even during a short-span of 5-6 years. I am wondering whether the authors could have projected different scenario based different level of rate of child marriage.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer that recent changes will bias the estimation and the implication of our assumption is discussed in the methods and discussion sections. Our goal is to demonstrate an alternative method of estimating levels of child marriage using survival analysis approach. Future research using the survival analysis approach to assess the evolution of child marriage will be prioritized.

4. Authors have discussed the conceptual, methodological and data quality issues related to nuptiality data and authors have acknowledged this as a limitation. It would have been good if authors could reflect more on how such issues, particularly age misreporting may affect their estimated number of girls marrying before age 18;

Response: We appreciate the comment. We have included detailed discussions in both the background and discussion sections about the accuracy of the ages reported and the incompleteness of reporting, as well as their implications on the estimates.

5. Authors argue that data on age patterns of child marriage can serve as basis for assessing the implementation of existing minimum marriage age laws and advocating for such laws in countries where it is absent. While such laws can serve as a deterrent, marriage age misreporting around the legal age cannot be ignored.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added more discussions on the accuracy of the ages reported including age misreporting around the legal age in the background.

6. Could authors also provide the estimated number of girls marrying before age 15 as an annexure?

Response: Thank you. We have added the estimated numbers of girls marrying before age 15 in the annex table.

7. Could authors include regional estimates as well?

Response: Thank you. Our goal is to demonstrate an alternative method of estimating levels of child marriage using survival analysis approach and the comparison between the survival analysis and the direct approach is made at the national level. Future research using the survival analysis approach to generate regional estimates will be prioritized.

8. Although child marriage is more prevalent among girls than boys, could the authors have estimated the incidence of child marriage among boys too?

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Our objective is to show an alternative technique for assessing the prevalence of child marriage among girls via the use of survival analysis. We agree with the reviewer that child marriage among boys is an underexplored area, and further research using the survival analysis method to produce estimates should be prioritized.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Mengjia Liang

Corresponding Author

liang@unfpa.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra

27 Sep 2021

New Estimations of Child Marriage: Evidence from 98 Low- and Middle-Income Countries

PONE-D-21-16939R1

Dear Dr. Liang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alissa Koski

Acceptance letter

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra

18 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-16939R1

New Estimations of Child Marriage: Evidence from 98 Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Dear Dr. Liang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bidhubhusan Mahapatra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Proportion of women age 20–24 marrying before age 15 and before age 18, and estimated number of girls marrying before age 15 and before age 18 using survival analysis approach and direct approach, latest data in 98 countries.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data is taken from the publicly available Demographic and Health Surveys (http://dhsprogram.com) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (http://mics.unicef.org).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES