You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Prevalence and socio-demographic factors associated with vitamin B12 deficiency and marginal vitamin B12 deficiency in a representative sample of pregnant women in Colombia

From: Vitamin B12 concentrations in pregnant Colombian women: analysis of nationwide data 2010

Characteristics Adequate B12 concentration Marginal vitamin B12 deficiency Vitamin B12 deficiency
  n %a, 95 % CIb n %a, 95 % CIb n %a, 95 % CIb
Total 697 40.1 (38.1–41.8) 737 41.3 (39.4–43.0) 347 18.6 (16.8–20.3)
Age (years)
13 to 17 101 42.2 (37.2–45.7) 94 39.4 (33.9–42.2) 50 18.4 (14.1–21.5)
18 to 29 435 39.6 (37.3–41.6) 489 42.3 (40.2–44.2) 218 18.1 (16.0–20.0)
30 to 49 161 40.3 (36.6–43.0) 154 39.5 (35.9–42.4) 79 20.2 (16.1–23.4)
Socioeconomic level
Level I 417 41.1 (38.7–43.1) 418 40.8 (38.4–42.9) 200 18.1 (15.8–20.0)
Level IIc 62 34.4 (28.3–38.5) 78 49.9 (44.6–53.5) 30 15.7 (10.5–19.3)
Level IIIc 48 48.6 (41.1–53.3) 51 33.0 (27.5–36.6) 25 18.4 (11.4–22.9)
Level IV or more 170 38.4 (35.1–41.0) 190 41.4 (38.4–43.9) 92 20.2 (16.9–22.9)
Geographic area
Atlantic (North) 190 47.0 (44.1–49.5) 179 42.6 (39.7–45.0) 67 10.4 (8.2–12.1)
Eastern 86 31.4 (28.1–33.9) 106 47.9 (43.1–51.4) 45 20.7 (16.2–24.0)
Central 164 50.3 (46.6–53.2) 131 32.5 (29.2–35.1) 65 17.2 (13.5–20.1)
Pacific (West) 49 19.8 (15.9–22.7) 108 46.8 (43.2–49.6) 73 33.4 (29.2–36.7)
Bogotác 46 45.9 (40.5–49.5) 39 39.1 (33.3–43.1) 15 15.0 (9.2–19.0)
National territories (South) 162 37.8 (34.1–40.6) 174 39.9 (36.4–42.7) 82 22.3 (17.6–26.0)
Urbanicity
Urban 441 40.7 (38.6–42.7) 481 41.0 (38.9–42.8) 224 18.3 (16.2–20.1)
Rural 256 38.0 (35.2–40.4) 256 42.4 (39.2–45.0) 123 19.6 (16.7–22.0)
Ethnic group
Indigenous 95 30.5 (24.9–34.2) 96 38.7 (31.7–43.3) 66 30.8 (23.8–35.4)
Black or Afro-Colombian 70 41.0 (35.8–44.8) 85 41.7 (37.6–44.7) 43 17.3 (13.0–20.5)
Others 530 40.5 (38.5–42.3) 554 41.4 (39.4–43.2) 234 18.1 (16.1–19.9)
  1. aAll women analysed by ethnic group were n = 1,773, another 8 appertained to “Raizal del archipiélago”, who were not analysed because this group do not have a representative sample
  2. bIt is not correct to calculate the percentages from the “n” presented in this table; these calculations were taken from weight from the values given to each subject
  3. cCoefficient of variation is more than 20 % deficiency prevalence therefore variation should be used with caution