PREVALENCE OF ANAEMIA AMONG WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE IN MAHARASHTRA, INDIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Authors

  • Sushant Shamrao Chavan Author
  • Sarika Prashant Patil Author
  • Sachin Bhaurao Gathe Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4238/5x6n4218

Keywords:

Anaemia; Women of reproductive age; Maharashtra; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Public health; Anaemia Mukt Bharat

Abstract

Background: Anaemia among women of reproductive age (WRA, 15–49 years) remains a leading public health problem in India, with Maharashtra showing wide inter-regional variation despite sustained programmatic effort under Anaemia Mukt Bharat. A pooled, state-specific estimate synthesising primary field data alongside sub-national survey data has not been reported. Objective: To systematically review published literature and estimate the pooled prevalence of anaemia among women of reproductive age across Maharashtra. Methods: An electronic search of PubMed/PMC, ScienceDirect, DOAJ and Google Scholar-indexed sources was conducted (August 2026) for community-based studies reporting anaemia prevalence among WRA (15–49 years) in Maharashtra. Data were extracted independently and prevalence estimates were pooled using a random-effects (DerSimonian–Laird) model on the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine-transformed scale. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I². Results: Six studies, contributing eight prevalence data points (31,750 women; one study contributed five NFHS-4 regional subgroup estimates), met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of anaemia among WRA in Maharashtra was 43.8% (95% CI 39.4–48.2%), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 98.2%). Estimates ranged from 19.4% in a cantonment based cohort to 52.5% in the Khandesh region. Conclusion: Anaemia continues to affect two in five women of reproductive age in Maharashtra, with marked rural–urban and inter-regional variation. Region-specific, rather than uniform, anaemia-control strategies are warranted. Given the high observed heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted as an indicative pooled estimate rather than a precise state figure, and are best supplemented by a full multi-database systematic review before policy use.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-06

Issue

Section

Articles