Scoping review shows high anaemia prevalence in pregnancy in Tanzania, indicating need for improved antenatal care and nutrition.
Background: Anaemia in pregnancy is a major public health concern in Tanzania, affecting maternal and neonatal outcomes. This scoping review synthesises existing evidence on the prevalence, risk factors, and perinatal outcomes to inform policy and programmes. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect for studies published between 2010 and 2025 on anaemia among pregnant women in Tanzania. Eligible studies reported on prevalence and/or associated factors. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed study quality using PRISMA guidelines. A narrative synthesis was used to thematically group and interpret the findings. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with anaemia prevalence ranging from 20% to 83.5% and a pooled estimate of 52.6% (95% CI: 41.6–63.4). Key risk factors included young maternal age, low education and socioeconomic status, high gravidity, poor dietary diversity, short inter-pregnancy intervals, inadequate ANC attendance, and maternal infections such as HIV and malaria. Protective factors included being married, higher education, adequate ANC visits, facility delivery, and use of anti-malarial drugs, health insurance, food security, and a positive attitude towards anaemia prevention. Anaemia was linked to adverse outcomes such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and reduced newborn anthropometric indices, though some studies found no significant association. Conclusion: Anaemia in pregnancy in Tanzania exceeds the WHO threshold of 40%, representing a serious public health problem that requires targeted interventions, including improved nutrition, antenatal care, and maternal health education, to reduce adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sichalwe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: