In the rural areas of India, many deliveries up to (31%) are conducted by untrained functionaries. A 2010-11 report by ministry of health & family welfare, Govt. of India describes that 23% of newborns remains unweighted at birth since the deliveries are conducted at homes where weighing scales are not available and thus weighing of baby is not possible [1-2]

The birth weight of newborn not only shows the health of the newborn and the mother, the mortality and morbidity, but it also reflects the health of the community and country. Birth weight is strongly associated with newborn and child morbidity and mortality [3]

The birth weight of infants is an important parameter as it reflects the overall health of neonates and their chances of future growth and survival [4]. Birth weight has a direct connection with socio-economic, racial, clinical, individual, genetic, and geographical factors also. In remote places and villages of India, the facility of baby weighing may not be available for all home deliveries.

Males had a significantly higher occipto frontal circumference and chest circumference than females while females had a significantly higher mid-arm circumference than males with no significant difference in weight, length and mid-thigh circumference[5]. A significantly higher weight, chest circumference and mid-thigh circumference in urban than rural newborns with no significant difference in length, occipto frontal circumference and mid-arm circumference. A higher occipto-frontal circumference, chest circumference and mid-thigh circumference in newborns of primipara mothers but higher length and mid-arm circumference in newborns of multipara mothers with no significant difference in weight. A significantly higher weight and occipto frontal circumference in newborns of mothers with regular ante natal care than newborns of mothers with irregular antenatal care[6-7]. A higher length, mid-thigh circumference and chest circumference in newborns of mothers from high socioeconomic status group than newborns of those from other socioeconomic state groups.

The present study was performed on 200 newborn at Amaltas institute of medical science and Hospital, Dewas, For the duration two Years. Based on the newborn delivered in the institute during the study period and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The naked birth weight of the newborns was measured in supine position, soon after birth by digital scale with 10 gram subdivision. The newborn were divided into three different groups i.e. group I consisted of newborn weighing below 2.5 kg; group II included newborn weighing between 2.5-3.5 kg and group III consisted of newborns more than 3.5 kg. The newborn was placed supine position on an infantometer, with knee joints fully extended and soles of feet held firmly against the foot board and head touching fixed board. Crown heel length of the newborn is measured from a scale, which is set on the board.

Inclusion criteria-

(a) Full term newborn baby born from apparently healthy mothers in the Dewas and Ujjain region of Madhya Pradesh.

(b) Full term newborn baby who were born to anaemic mothers in the Dewas and Ujjain region of Madhya Pradesh.

Exclusion criteria-

(a) Neonates of high risk or complicated pregnancies by medical illness as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, infection, autoimmune disease.

(b) Neonates who had caput succedaneum and cephalhematoma.

(c) Neonates after 24 hours of birth were excluded from this study.

Table No. 1: Showing the Gender wise distribution of newborn according to their birth weight.

A larger number of male infants fall into the 2.5-3.5 kg category compared to female infants, indicating that males might be more likely to have a birth weight in this range. In contrast, fewer infants overall are in the less than 2.5 kg and greater than 3.5 kg categories, with males still generally having more births in these weight groups. This could point to gender-related patterns in birth weight distributions, though more data would be needed to confirm any significant differences.

Table No. 2: Mean male and female full-term Newborns.

Weight: Male infants have a higher average birth weight (2.87 kg) than female infants (2.64 kg).

Length: Males are also longer at birth on average (48.76 cm) compared to females (47.45 cm).

Head Circumference (HC): Average HC is larger in males (33.30 cm) than in females (32.53 cm), suggesting slightly larger cranial size.

Chest Circumference (CC): Males have a greater average chest circumference (31.57 cm) than females (30.94 cm).

Table No. 3: Distribution of newborns according to relationship with birth weight.

Although multipara mothers had more births in the sample (122 vs. 78), the average birth weight was a bit lower than in primipara births. The difference in birth weight between the two groups is modest, and both groups show relatively low variability (as seen in the SD).

Table No. 4: Distribution of newborns according to supplementary nutrition birth weight.

Mean Birth Weight: Babies whose mothers did not consume supplementary nutrition had a lower average birth weight (2.5935 kg). Babies whose mothers did consume supplementary nutrition had a higher average birth weight (2.9316 kg).

Standard Deviation: Birth weights in the "No" group show greater variability (SD = 0.47314) compared to the "Yes" group (SD = 0.36533), indicating more consistent birth weights among those who received nutrition.

Table No. 5: Distribution of newborns according to supplementary nutrition birth weight.

Longer consumption of supplementary nutrition from AWCs is associated with higher average birth weight. This trend highlights the potential effectiveness of sustained nutritional support during pregnancy. The findings reinforce the importance of consistent and extended access 

Birth weight (LBW) newborns number were significantly lower among mothers adding greater than sixty (>60) iron folic acid tablets in their diet at the time of pregnancy. The mean(+/-SD) birth weight of those babies related with mothers adding greater than sixty (>60) tablets of iron & folic acid in their diet at the time of pregnancy was 2.9007(+0.369)[8-10]. The birth weight of these newborns was bigger (159)gms compared with newborns related to those mothers not adding or <30 iron folic acid tablets in their diet. Significant positive correlation (χ2=352.53; P=0) was reported between maternal diet (contain iron folic acid supplementation/ tablets) and birth weight of newborns. Sahu et al., and Balarajan et al., also reported LBW of newborns was higher in mothers had consumed no or less than 30 IFA tablets during pregnancy [8-9]

Mother’s nutrition and weight gain during pregnancy is directly related to birth weight of newborn. In the present study, the mean(+/-SD) birth weight of newborns rises with rise in the maternal weight gain (BMI) at the time of pregnancy. Significant association between BMI of mothers and birth weight of newborns was found. Balarajan et al.[10] also reported significant association between BMI of mothers and birth weight of newborns.

Elizabeth et al., study showed that the birth weight ranged between 1.37- 5.35kg with a mean(+/-SD) of 3.05(+/-0.53) kg. They found 85 (12%) newborns having low birth weight (weight under 2.5 kg). Modibbo MH et al., in his study they were found that the birth weight ranged between 1.50 - 5.50 kg and mean(+/-SD) birth weight was 3.08 (+/- 0.55) kg. Taksande AM et al., studied total 520 newborns, they reported that the total mean(+/-SD) birth weight was 2.55(+/-0.40285)kg. The study done by Mukherjee S et al., they were include total 351 newborns and they found 182(51.8%) were low birth weight newborns and the mean birth weight was 2.09 (±0.81) kg . Work done by Gowri S et al., included total 600 newborn, the birth weight ranged from 0.7-3.88 kg, with the mean of 2.64 kg[11]. Manivannan G et al., study showed that 10 newborns (16.67 %) had weight below 2.5 kg. with minimum and maximum values of foot length 6.2cm and 8.7cm respectively. They reported mean birth weight 2.85 kg[12] . Kapoor A et al., found birth weight ranged from 1200 - 3600 gm and the mean birth weight was 2650.18 gm with the standard deviation of 377.89.

The determination of birth weight by measuring foot length is an easy and useful method for villages and remote areas especially in underdeveloped countries. The foot length can be easily measured by medical health care staffs and unprofessional birth attendants in the society. The foot length is useful in early identification of LBW newborns and malnutrition newborns which may help to decrease newborn mortality and morbidity.

Newborns with LBW are more chances to develop disabilities like poor growth and developmental delay. Maternal risk factors like Socio-economic status, weight, haemoglobin and parity are important risk factors for LBW newborns. The birth outcome was heavily affected with mother’s diet mainly energy and intake of iron, folic acid, calcium, protein and vitamin B12. Gestational age and maternal haemoglobin level before delivery also affected the birth outcomes. So, awareness of the adverse pregnancy outcomes is needed among pregnant mother.

1. Gowri, S., and G. V. Kumar. "Clinical Study of the Correlation of Foot Length and Birth Weight among Newborns in a Tertiary Care Hospital." International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, vol. 4, no. 3, 2017, p. 979.
2. Tersigni-Tarrant, M. A., and N. R. Shirley. Forensic Anthropology: An Introduction. CRC Press, 2012.
3. Neeluri, R., and K. Pamarthi. "Identification of an Anthropometric Surrogate to Low Birth Weight in Newborns: A Hospital Based Cross Sectional Study." International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, vol. 5, no. 5, 2018, p. 2066.
4. Kaushal, S. K., et al. "A Study of Maternal Factors and Birth Weight in a Border District of Uttar Pradesh." Indian Journal of Community Health, vol. 24, no. 2, 2012, pp. 86–90.
5. Modibbo, M. H., and M. G. Taura. "Regression Equations for Birth Weight Estimation Using Anthropometric Measurements of Hand and Foot of Hausa Newborn Babies in Kano-Nigeria." Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, 2013, pp. 186–189.
6. Tiemstra, J. D., and S. Kapoor. "Evaluation of Scrotal Masses." American Family Physician, vol. 78, no. 10, 2008, pp. 1165–1170.
7. Kaushal, S. K., et al. "A Study of Maternal Factors and Birth Weight in a Border District of Uttar Pradesh." Indian Journal of Community Health, vol. 24, no. 2, 2012, pp. 86–90.
8. Balarajan, Y., S. V. Subramanian, and W. W. Fawzi. "Maternal Iron and Folic Acid Supplementation Is Associated with Lower Risk of Low Birth Weight in India." Journal of Nutrition, vol. 143, no. 8, 2013, pp. 1309–1315.
9. Howson, C. P., et al. "Born Too Soon: Preterm Birth Matters." Reproductive Health, vol. 10, suppl. 1, 2013, p. S1.
10. Sahu, K. K., et al. "Incidence of Low Birth Weight and Effect of Maternal Factors on Birth Weight of Neonates in Rural Areas of Uttar Pradesh." International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, vol. 2, no. 3, 2015, pp. 707–715.
11. Gaur, N. L., et al. "The Correlation between Foot Length and Birth Weight among Newborns." Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 15, no. 11, 2021.
12. Risnes, K. R., et al. "Birthweight and Mortality in Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 40, no. 3, 2011, pp. 647–661.