Registration of family vital events in a conflict-induced displacement setting.

Registration of family vital events in a conflict-induced displacement setting - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Popul Health Metr . 2026 Jun 2;24:40. doi: 10.1186/s12963-026-00480-7 Registration of family vital events in a conflict-induced displacement setting Orsola Torrisi 1, 2, ✉ , Linnea Zimmerman 3 , Shatha Elnakib 3 , Tofajjel Hossain 4 , Md Tanvir Hasan 5 , Sabina Faiz Rashid 5 , Tom WJY Traill 4 , Rumana Akter 4 , W Courtland Robinson 3 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Sociology, McGill University, Leacock Building, 845 Sherbrooke St W, Montreal, H3A 0G4 QC Canada 2 University Carlos III of Madrid, Calle Madrid, Getafe (Madrid), 126. 28903 Spain 3 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore , 21205 Maryland USA 4 Community Partners International, CA 580 California St Fl 16, Ste 1658, San Francisco, 94104-1068 USA 5 James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, 28 Mohakhali Commercial Area, Bir Uttom A K Khandakar Road, Dhaka, 1213 Bangladesh ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Oct 6; Accepted 2026 Apr 23; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13231634  PMID: 42231434 Abstract Background In many low- and middle-income countries, the registration of family-related vital events (marriages and births) remains incomplete, with consequences for women’s and their children’s ability to exercise fundamental rights. In humanitarian and displacement settings, the absence of documentation creates additional barriers to legal recognition, identification and protection, especially if the population is already at risk of statelessness, as in the case of the Rohingya, a minority ethnic group that has experienced genocide. Data and methods Drawing on unique primary survey data collected among Rohingya youth (aged 15–24) in refugee camps in Bangladesh, this study examines the prevalence, timeliness, and determinants of marriage registration with relevant camp authorities, as well as associations with birth registration. Results We find relatively high registration rates: approximately 65% of marriages and 58% of births are reportedly registered. Among young adults (aged 18+), few socio-demographic or locational factors are associated with marriage registration or its timeliness, but marriage-specific characteristics - including early marriage, spousal age gaps, and whether the union was arranged - emerge as important predictors. Marrying before age 18 remains linked to lower likelihood of union registration, regardless of marital duration, and to longer delays. Moreover, marriage registration strongly predicts the registration of births, with respondents in registered marriages being nearly three times as likely to register their child(ren)’s births and having about 50% higher odds of doing so in a timely manner. Registration of family events is more common and more timely among less economically disadvantaged households. Conclusions These findings provide initial insights into the factors influencing access to documentation among a population highly vulnerable to statistical and legal invisibility and underscore the interconnectedness of family-related vital events in contexts of forced displacement. Keywords: Marriage registration, Birth registration, Refugees, Displacement, Rohingya, Bangladesh Introduction The registration of vital events, including births, deaths, marriages, and divorces, is fundamental for good governance [ 54 ], provides essential data for understanding population trends [ 47 ] and the monitoring of progress across a wide range of global development and health goals, including 12 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [ 40 , 41 ]. The official recording of such events is also key to trustworthy identity systems, allowing individuals to exercise their rights, and access economic and social protection services [ 10 , 58 ]. This is especially important during humanitarian crises, when legal identity can offer protection and access to healthcare and assistance, particularly for women, girls and other vulnerable populations ([ 22 ]; Manby, [ 35 ]). In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however, civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems remain incomplete [ 1 , 29 ]. Among vital events, the registration of marriages is the least prioritised [ 50 ], receiving far less policy and research attention than birth and death registration [ 11 , 54 ]. Currently, there are no global estimates of marriage registration coverage, and few countries include relevant questions in their censuses [ 54 , 55 ]. Although large-scale surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) have piloted questions related to marriage registration, such initiatives have been recently discontinued due to U.S. funding cuts (DHS Program, [ 16 ]). As a result, evidence on the levels and determinants of marriage (non-)registration, as well as their implications for the registration of other vital events, such as births, is minimal and often not generalisable at the population level [ 11 , 31 , 43 ]. Yet, possessing formal documentation of marital unions is important for several reasons. First, marriage registration typically provides legal recognition of marital relationships and the necessary documentation to claim a wide range of rights under the law, including access to social protection and inheritance rights, as well as recognition of parental responsibilities, child custody, and kinship ties [ 14 , 49 ]. Marriage documentation can also help prevent child marriage and enables individuals to seek legal support in cases of domestic violence or divorce (CEDAW, [ 12 ]; [ 22 ]). This legal recognition is particularly important for girls and women, who are more exposed to events such as early motherhood, child and forced marriage, widowhood, unilateral divorce, gender-based discrimination, and human trafficking [ 20 , 46 ]. Attention to marriage (non-)registration is thus essential for promoting gender equality, sexual and reproductive health rights and inclusive development [ 55 ]. Second and relatedly, marriage (non-)registration has clear life-course and intergenerational implications. From a life-course perspective, marriage documentation represents an important institutional marker enabling individuals’ ability to navigate key transitions (e.g., divorce) and exercise rights throughout their lives [ 56 ]. Because family events are sequenced and institutionally inter-dependent, the legal recognition of marriage often conditions the documentation of other family events. Unregistered marriages can prevent the registration of births and access to birth certificates ([ 22 ]; Manby, [ 35 ]), which children often need to enter education or claim other health and social services [ 9 ], including registering their own marriages later in life [ 32 , 49 ]. These interdependencies between vital events can create cumulative disadvantage and perpetuate cycles of invisibility, in which exclusion is transmitted across generations [ 49 , 53 ]. Third, weak or delayed data on marriage registration makes it more difficult to monitor trends in family formation and living arrangements, including the timing and sequencing of key family transitions, thus affecting the planning of programmes that depend on reliable demographic data to ensure equitable social protection delivery [ 55 ]. In this sense, marriage registration does not only represent an individual legal status, but also constitutes population-level information through which researchers and policymakers can better observe, understand and respond to changing demographic landscapes [ 56 ]. These challenges become more acute in humanitarian settings. Like other state infrastructure, in such contexts, CRVS systems often collapse, are deliberately disrupted by warring parties, or become severely impaired [ 56 ]. In situations of displacement, migrants may lose their marriage certificates or have their documents destroyed as they flee their homes. Displacement worsens families’ socio-economic conditions and creates new barriers to completing legal and administrative procedures in often unfamiliar locations, making it difficult, if not impossible, to formally register marriages, especially in a timely manner ([ 35 ]; [ 55 ]). In some cases, refugees and displaced populations may also be reluctant to register vital events for fear of persecution by authorities (Brinham, 2025; [ 11 ]). Altogether, these factors increase the vulnerability of displaced girls and women to abuse and exploitation, and raise the risk of illegitimacy or statelessness for children born to unregistered couples [ 68 ]. Without proof of marriage, displaced families may face obstacles in accessing assistance, shelter, healthcare, and food as a recognised household unit ([ 44 ], [ 45 ]). At the same time, it is also possible that in displacement contexts, aid and humanitarian programmes may contribute to raising awareness of the importance of registration, encouraging compliance by linking registration to essential services, and in some cases, serving as the only channel by which refugees can obtain any form of identification. Some recent non-academic reports have underscored the importance of marriage and birth registration in contexts of cross-border displacement, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa region, (e.g., work by the Norwegian Refugee Council ([ 44 ], [ 45 ]) on Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan). Conversely, very little is known about the registration of vital events, including marriage, among displaced populations in South Asia, a region hosting over 3.6 million refugees and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, [ 66 ]). Here, a particularly significant case warranting study is that of the Rohingya refugees. Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority from Myanmar’s Rakhine State, have faced decades of displacement due to systematic racial and religious persecution in their homeland, culminating in a mass exodus to neighbouring Bangladesh in 2017. The distinctiveness of the Rohingya’s situation lies in their legal status: rendered stateless by Myanmar since the 1980s and largely excluded from official population statistics [ 4 , 34 ], they are also not formally recognised as refugees by the Bangladeshi government, which limits their access to legal documentation and civil registration. While humanitarian biometric systems and protocols for birth and marriage registration have been established in refugee camps (ACAPS, [ 2 ], [ 3 ]), little is known about how often these events are registered, what influences registration with camp authorities, and the interconnections between the registration of family vital events. Using unique primary survey data from Rohingya youths (15–24 years old) residing in Cox’s Bazar camps, this study investigates the prevalence and timeliness of marriage registration with camp authorities, its determinants, and its association with birth registration. Displacement and lack of identity documentation are common challenges affecting the well-being and protection of Rohingya communities and other displaced populations in South Asia. By examining the links between the registration of family vital events in a population long affected by statelessness, forced displacement and gender inequality [ 18 , 48 ], this study provides novel evidence on a neglected equity issue with important gendered, health, life-course and intergenerational dimensions, and encourages greater attention to registration in future research on refugee well-being. Displaced Rohingya in Bangladesh The Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority from Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State. Long marginalised on the basis of both ethnicity and religion [ 30 , 67 ], Rohingya were rendered formally stateless by the Myanmar government under the country’s 1982 Citizenship Law (UNHCR, [ 61 ]). 1 Lacking formal recognition by the government, the Rohingya have been excluded from national censuses and subjected to severe restrictions on documentation, including marriage and birth registration [ 4 , 15 , 23 ], and consequently, access to education, healthcare, livelihoods, and freedom of movement (HRW, [ 25 ]; [ 34 ]; MSF, [ 42 ]). For decades, the Rohingya have endured repeated episodes of violence, resulting in multiple waves of displacement (HRW, [ 24 ]). The largest exodus to neighbouring countries occurred in 2017, when the Myanmar government launched a military campaign involving mass killings, widespread sexual violence, and the destruction of entire villages in the Northern Rakhine State, in what has been formally recognised as a genocide ([ 38 ]; UNHCR, [ 63 ]). Bangladesh was the primary receiver of displaced Rohingya, with over 700,000 crossing into the country between August and September 2017, and predominantly settling on former forested hills in the southern district of Cox’s Bazar (UNHCR, [ 63 ]). Together with an estimated 200,000 who arrived in previous displacement waves [ 51 ], Bangladesh currently hosts nearly one million displaced Rohingya. Over 97% reside in 33 congested refugee camps located in the Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazila, two sub-administrative units of the Cox’s Bazar district (UNHCR, [ 63 ]). Among these, the Kutupalong Refugee Camp is the world’s largest refugee camp sheltering more than 600,000 Rohingya (comparable to a medium-sized city population) in an area of just 13 km 2 (UNHCR, [ 63 ]). While Bangladesh has consistently provided shelter to Rohingya fleeing persecution (UNHCR, [ 64 ]), its government considers their repatriation as the only acceptable durable solution to the issue. Moreover, Bangladesh is neither a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor the 1967 Protocol nor does it have any national legislation addressing refugee matters. Rohingya in the country are thus designated as “Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals” (FDMN) and are not officially granted refugee status. Consequently, Rohingya in Bangladesh do not enjoy basic rights (e.g., the right to work, freedom of movement, or access to many public services) that are typically guaranteed under international refugee law ([ 19 ]; UNHCR, [ 64 ]), and effectively remain reliant on humanitarian assistance for survival and documentation. In 2017, the government of Bangladesh suspended official birth registration for all children in Cox’s Bazar, including both Bangladeshi and Rohingya, citing concerns that Rohingya families might obtain documents to claim Bangladeshi citizenship (ACAPS, [ 2 ]; [ 17 , 57 ]). Although the country’s High Court issued a ruling in 2020 ordering the resumption of birth registration services, official birth registration remains unavailable to Rohingya families. Rohingya children are instead recorded through humanitarian biometric systems, which do not confer legal identity and, for example, do not allow access to education since enrolling in a Bangladeshi school requires identity documents, such as a birth certificate (UNHCR, [ 64 ]). Overall operational responsibility for registration of Rohingya and their children is maintained by a Bangladesh government agency under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief (the Office of the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner), while UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) personnel conducts registration activities [ 65 ]. As for marriage registration, the Government of Bangladesh formally delegated government-appointed Camp-in-Charge (CiC) officials to register and maintain marriage records of refugees in collaboration with UNHCR (UNHCR, [ 62 ]). CiC officials hold administrative authority, act as executive magistrates and effectively are the sole responsible for finalising the registration of vital events in the camps. The registration process has several steps: first, couples must complete religious formalities. Next, personnel from humanitarian organisations and Site Management staff operating in each camp verify the identities of the bride and groom, sometimes through household visits. This process includes verification of consent and age, since under the 2017 Bangladesh Child Marriage Restraint Act the minimum legal age at marriage is 18 for women and 21 for men. If all requirements are met, the organisation then submits a marriage application to the CiC official, who then conducts further verification. Once approved, the CiC official issues the marriage certificate and shares the details with UNHCR, which updates individuals’ Family Counting Number (FCN) and transfers the bride from her Family Attestation Card to the groom’s Attestation Card, officially recognising the marriage within the humanitarian system (InfoSheba, [ 27 ]). Besides age verification, marriage registrars check the nationality of both spouses before proceeding with registration given that mixed marriage between Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals are legally prohibited since 2014 [ 4 , 5 ]. While polygamy is legally permitted for Muslim men in Bangladesh upon approval of an Arbitration Council, there are no specific regulations governing this practice within the refugee camps (ACAPS, [ 3 ]; [ 4 ]). In practice, evidence suggests that child, early and arranged marriage are common among the Rohingya population, and that conditions in the camps have been conducive to increases in polygamy and ethnically mixed marriages, particularly involving young Rohingya girls (ACAPS, [ 3 ]; [ 28 , 37 , 59 , 69 ]). Moreover, since the implementation of CiC-officiated marriage procedures only effectively begun in mid-2020, many marriages occurred in the camps have taken place on verbal consent, following religious ceremonies, often lacking official recording [ 4 , 21 ]. Taken together, this governance context has likely implications for patterns of family events registration among displaced Rohingya in Bangladesh. On the one hand, being highly structured and centralised, the CiC-based registration system may, in principle, enhance oversight, standardisation, and support identification and protection, particularly with respect to age at marriage verification and consent to marriage. On the other hand, there is reason to expect its multi-step and discretionary nature to generate persistent non-registration and/or delays for unions that fall outside formal administrative criteria (e.g., marriages involving (female) minors and/or polygamous unions) and for the most socio-economically vulnerable households, who might lack both the knowledge and the resources to access registration services. Data Data for this study come from the Elrha’s Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC)-funded Early Marriage Early Childbearing study, a collaborative project between the Community Partners International (CPI), BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health (BRAC-JPG), and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The project formed part of a larger initiative aimed at providing evidence on changing patterns of early marriage and childbearing in contexts of displacement, including among Rohingya in Bangladesh. While not a core component of the original study design, the Bangladesh survey included questions on the registration of marriages and births, allowing to uniquely investigate prevalence, timeliness, correlates and linkages between vital events among male and female Rohingya youths. Data collection occurred between January and April 2023 through face-to-face interviews conducted by Rohingya data collectors across fifteen refugee camps in the Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazilas of Cox’s Bazar district. Of these camps, three were selected purposively due to practical and regulatory considerations, while the remaining twelve were chosen using probability proportional to camp size. Within the camps, sixty-three clusters were sampled with probability proportional to size, using blocks as clusters. Households were then randomly selected and screened for eligibility. Eligible households had to include at least one adolescent aged 15–24 years, regardless of marital status, who had lived in the shelter for at least one month and was an FDMN arriving during or after October 2016. This date was chosen to include all individuals associated with the most recent wave of displacement, including any who might have fled in anticipation of the 2017 raids. Upon confirming eligibility, interviewers obtained oral informed consent from young adults aged 18+, accommodating widespread illiteracy and the absence of a written Rohingya language. Eligible adolescents (aged < 18) were informed about the study and provided oral assent. Up to two young people per household were interviewed, with a quota sampling ratio of one male to two females. This sampling strategy was implemented to ensure sufficient statistical power for analyses focused on fertility and childbearing. The resulting sample provides broad coverage across camps and households, but does not constitute a fully representative sample of all refugees in Cox’s Bazar. A total of 1,565 adolescent females and 722 males were interviewed. For this study, the sample was restricted to 679 respondents (561 females; 118 males) who reported having ever been married. All analyses therefore pertain to ever-married Rohingya youth within the selected camps. Respondents completed questionnaires adapted from household and individual instruments commonly used and recommended for national censuses and large-scale household surveys (e.g., the DHS) (UNFPA, [ 60 ]). Specifically, respondents were asked to report about their current socio-economic status, background as well as their fertility and marriage histories. The marriage module included questions on current marital status, year of marriage, whether the union was arranged or self-initiated, whether it was polygamous, and its registration status, among other topics. Female respondents who reported having given birth were additionally asked about the location and year of childbirth, whether their first and last births had been registered with the camp authorities, and whether each registration occurred immediately after birth or later. Ethical approvals were granted by the Institutional Review Boards at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (FWA00000287) and BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University (IRB protocol no.: IRB-25 June’22–022), alongside authorisation from relevant government and camp authorities. Methods The analysis is descriptive in nature and comprises three steps. First, we describe the characteristics of ever-married Rohingya youths, including levels of marriage and birth registration, both for the overall sample and disaggregated by gender. We also describe marriage registration patterns by respondents’ age at interview and age at marriage, distinguishing between unions formed before or at/after age 18. We do this again for the full sample and separately for female respondents to whom the legal threshold of age 18 applies. Second, we use logistic regression models with robust standard errors to examine factors associated with two marriage registration outcomes. The first is a binary indicator capturing whether the current marriage - or, for the few respondents who are separated, divorced, or widowed, their first marriage - was reported as registered with the CiC officials. The second focuses on the timeliness of registration, distinguishing between marriages registered immediately after the ceremony versus those registered a year or more later. This second outcome is, by nature, examined only among those reporting marriage registration. In both analyses, we assess whether and how associations persist after adjusting for sets of covariates that reflect different dimensions of the marriage process and living context, namely individual characteristics (gender, education, and residence type in Myanmar), marriage- and birth-related variables (marital duration or time since first birth, child marriage, arranged marriage, polygamy, spousal age gap), and household and camp-level factors (father’s and partner’s education, sibship size, number of children had, current household wealth 2 and camp of residence 3 ). These analyses are restricted to respondents aged 18 + at the time of the survey and to 2017 onwards marriage cohorts ( n = 587). These restrictions more precisely condition the models on being “at risk” of marriage registration in the camps, given the procedural requirements explained in the previous section. Third, among Rohingya who reported having children, we use logistic regression to examine associations between marriage registration and birth registration as well as its timeliness, net of covariates. We examine these associations in the full sample and in the female subsample. Results Descriptive statistics Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the sample, by respondents’ gender. On average, respondents are aged 20 years old (SD = 2.0). The majority (43%) received no education, with females more likely to be low educated than men. Most Rohingya come from rural areas in Myanmar and reside in camps located in Southern Ukhia or Teknaf. Over 64% of respondents reported that their fathers received no formal education and more than half (54%) belong to a household classified in the lowest wealth tercile, especially females (57%). On average, respondents have about 6 siblings and have been married for just over three years. That is, most of them have married between 2020 and 23, and in Bangladesh (86%). About 40% married before age 18, with early marriage being more common among females. Most unions are arranged (81%), age-hypergamous (husband older than wife), but only about 5% of them are reportedly polygamous. Among female respondents, non-arranged/self-initiated unions are more likely to be polygamous than arranged marriages (10.6 vs. 4.8%, p-value = 0.024) and are modestly more prevalent among marriages contracted before age 18 (53 vs. 42.5%, p-value = 0.053), but do not differ on other dimensions, such as in terms of spousal age and educational composition. 65% of marriages were reportedly registered, with higher rates among women (66 vs. 60%). Registration rates are also higher among older respondents, especially those married at or after age 18 (Fig. 1 ). Specifically, among respondents married at age 18+, registration levels are relatively high already for those aged 18 at survey time (67%) and above 60% across most older ages (Fig. 1 , top panels). By contrast, among those who married before age 18 (bottom panels), registration rates are considerably lower for those currently aged 15–17 and only reach levels close to 60% among respondents aged 19+. This pattern provides some initial evidence of delayed registration once spouses reach legal eligibility, although marriage registration does not become universal after age 18 in either group. Even among legally eligible respondents (i.e., respondents aged 18 + at interview), a non-negligible share of marriages remains unregistered, particularly among those married as minors. Table 1. Sample descriptive characteristics by gender Female Male Total Age at last birthday 20.1 (2.0) 21.5 (1.7) 20.3 (2.0) Respondent’s education None 243 (43.3%) 47 (39.8%) 290 (42.7%) Primary 149 (26.6%) 20 (16.9%) 169 (24.9%) Madrasah 104 (18.5%) 7 (5.9%) 111 (16.3%) Secondary or higher 65 (11.6%) 44 (37.3%) 109 (16.1%) Rural residence in myanmar 460 (82.0%) 93 (78.8%) 553 (81.4%) Camp Northern Ukhia 121 (21.6%) 32 (27.1%) 153 (22.5%) Central Ukhia 140 (25.0%) 39 (33.1%) 179 (26.4%) Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 300 (53.5%) 47 (39.8%) 347 (51.1%) Father’s education None 361 (64.3%) 76 (64.4%) 437 (64.4%) Primary or more 133 (23.7%) 25 (21.2%) 158 (23.3%) Madrasah 62 (11.1%) 15 (12.7%) 77 (11.3%) Unknown 5 (0.9%) 2 (1.7%) 7 (1.0%) Partner’s education None 212 (37.8%) 45 (38.1%) 257 (37.8%) Primary 297 (52.9%) 51 (43.2%) 348 (51.3%) Secondary or higher 49 (8.7%) 22 (18.6%) 71 (10.5%) Unknown 3 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.4%) Wealth index (terciles) Lower 322 (57.4%) 43 (36.4%) 365 (53.8%) Middle 62 (11.1%) 40 (33.9%) 102 (15.0%) Upper 177 (31.6%) 35 (29.7%) 212 (31.2%) Number of siblings in origin family 6.2 (2.4) 6.6 (5.7) 6.2 (3.2) Currently married 545 (97.1%) 117 (99.2%) 662 (97.5%) Time since marriage (years) 3.5 (2.3) 2.8 (1.7) 3.4 (2.2) Married in Bangladesh 478 (85.2%) 107 (90.7%) 585 (86.2%) (First) marriage below age 18 249 (44.4%) 25 (21.2%) 274 (40.4%) Arranged marriage 457 (81.5%) 91 (77.1%) 548 (80.7%) Polygamous union 33 (5.9%) 2 (1.7%) 35 (5.2%) Spousal age gap F > M 20 (3.6%) 89 (75.4%) 109 (16.1%) M > F 509 (90.7%) 13 (11.0%) 522 (76.9%) F = M 32 (5.7%) 16 (13.6%) 48 (7.1%) Current marriage is registered 369 (65.8%) 71 (60.2%) 440 (64.8%) Timing of marriage registration 1 Immediately 210 (57.0%) 35 (49.3%) 245 (55.7%) Within a year or later 159 (43.0%) 36 (50.7%) 195 (44.3%) Number of children 1.1 (0.9) 1.0 (0.8) 1.1 (0.9) Any registered birth(s) 2 339 (60.4%) 58 (49.2%) 397 (58.5%) First birth is registered 332 (81.4%) 56 (65.9%) 388 (78.7%) Timing of first birth registration 3 Immediately 140 (42.2%) 21 (37.5%) 161 (41.5%) Within a year or later 192 (57.8%) 35 (62.5%) 227 (58.5%) Registered first birth in Bangladesh 3 320 (96.4%) 55 (98.2%) 375 (96.6%) Observations 561 118 679 Open in a new tab 1 Asked only to respondents who reported registering their union ( n = 440); 2 Asked only to respondents who reported having at least one child ( n = 494); 3 Asked only to respondents who reported having registered their first child ( n = 388) Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Share of registered marriages by respondent’s current age and age at marriage, all sample (left-side) and female subsample (right-side) More than half of marriages (56%) were reportedly registered immediately after being contracted. Marriages occurred when the spouse was aged 18 + are, as procedurally expected, more likely to be registered promptly than underage unions (Figure A1 ), although delayed registration is common among older respondents married in adult ages. Overall, the small number of reports of (immediate) registration of marriages among current minors should be interpreted with caution given small cell sizes, 4 the possibility of reporting error, rare CiC-approved exceptions or irregular administrative authorisations [ 28 ]. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Share of registered marriages registered immediately by respondent’s current age and age at marriage, all sample (left-side) and female subsample (right-side) On average, respondents have one child (SD = 0.9), reflecting both the young age of the sample and the relative recency of most marriages. Among those with one or more children ( n = 494), 58.5% report having registered at least the first or the last child. Nearly 79% report registering their first child, but less than half (41.5%) registered such birth immediately after the baby was born. Correlates of marriage registration Table 2 presents the results from logistic regression models predicting reported marriage registration among respondents aged 18 + and married in 2017 or later, in exponentiated form (Odds ratio (OR)). The models progressively adjust for individual socio-demographic factors (Model 1), current residence (Model 2), marriage-specific characteristics (Model 3), natal and household socio-economic conditions (Model 4). Models 5–6 report gender-specific estimates. Table 2. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting marriage registration among respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later All adult respondents Females Males Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE Female 1.383* 1.322* 1.007 0.929 [0.322] [0.308] [0.384] [0.380] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.129 1.032 1.007 0.834 0.882 0.478 [0.257] [0.241] [0.244] [0.221] [0.260] [0.369] Madrasa 1.172 1.171 1.067 1.031 1.313 0.568 [0.303] [0.310] [0.297] [0.316] [0.473] [0.640] Secondary or higher 1.296 1.278 1.109 0.791 0.659 1.179 [0.355] [0.354] [0.314] [0.265] [0.274] [0.774] Rural residence in Myanmar 0.718 0.672 0.619 0.725 0.867 0.566 [0.177] [0.171] [0.164] [0.204] [0.274] [0.381] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 1.081 1.187 1.413 1.648 1.152 [0.280] [0.327] [0.423] [0.613] [0.723] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 1.629* 1.534 1.528 1.391 2.004 [0.367] [0.357] [0.381] [0.398] [1.275] Time since marriage (years) 0.91 0.866 0.839* 1.086 [0.058] [0.066] [0.071] [0.249] (First) marriage below age 18 0.461*** 0.478** 0.421*** 0.805 [0.100] [0.108] [0.102] [0.688] Arranged marriage 2.005** 2.035** 1.895* 3.483 [0.466] [0.491] [0.531] [2.262] Polygamous union 0.809 0.803 0.57 [0.337] [0.377] [0.270] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 1.876 1.927 0.999 3.763 [0.805] [0.857] [0.623] [2.584] M > F 3.083** 2.942** 2.990* 0.746 [1.122] [1.106] [1.279] [0.694] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 0.801 0.927 0.305 [0.209] [0.276] [0.203] Madrasah 1.4 1.308 2.024 [0.481] [0.553] [1.658] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.807* 1.723* 2.111 [0.425] [0.446] [1.357] Secondary or higher 0.891 0.523 2.79 [0.318] [0.235] [2.345] Number of siblings in origin family 0.944 0.962 0.835 [0.038] [0.045] [0.097] Children ever born 1.202 1.255 0.881 [0.177] [0.205] [0.400] Wealth index (ref: Lower tercile) Middle 0.915 0.83 1.096 [0.261] [0.291] [0.671] Upper 1.631* 1.835* 1.155 [0.382] [0.513] [0.662] Observations 587 587 587 587 475 112 Open in a new tab The sample includes respondents aged 18 + at survey time and who married in or after 2017. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 Overall, marriage registration is largely unrelated to socio-demographic and locational factors. Although the odds of marriage registration are generally higher among females, this association becomes not statistically significant once marriage characteristics are accounted for (Model 3) and reverses in the fully adjusted specification (Model 4). Likewise, no pattern is observed by education level, origin area in Myanmar, and camp of residence. By contrast, marriage-specific characteristics appear to be stronger predictors of marriage registration. Adult respondents who married before age 18 remain significantly less likely to report their union as registered compared to those who married at 18 and older, particularly among females (Model 5; OR: 0.421; 95% CI: 0.261–0.678). This disadvantage does not depend on marital duration since models interacting the two variables show no significant interaction effect (not shown). Marital duration per se is not associated with marriage registration in the full sample, and only modestly and negatively among women who married at 18 and older ages (Table 6 ). The odds of marriage registration are higher in age-hypergamous than in age-homogamous couples, especially among female respondents. Registration is also significantly more likely in arranged marriages (Model 4; OR: 2.035; 95% CI: 1.268–3.327), but no significant differences emerge between monogamous and polygamous unions. Finally, while most household-level factors, including parental education, sibship size, and parity, are unrelated to marriage registration, we find that household wealth is somewhat positively associated with the odds of registration, particularly among women (Model 5; OR: 1.835; 95% CI: 1.061–3.317). Table 6. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting marriage registration stratified by age at marriage, female respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later Married above age 18+ Married below age 18 Model 1 Model 2 OR/SE OR/SE Respondent’s age 1.162 1.416* [0.146] [0.211] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.713 0.536 [0.728] [0.244] Madrasa 1.673 1.049 [0.805] [0.613] Secondary or higher 0.869 0.409 [0.526] [0.249] Rural residence in Myanmar 1.364 0.335* [0.638] [0.175] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 0.899 4.725* [0.483] [2.281] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 1.264 2.737* [0.543] [1.110] Time since marriage (years) 0.768* 0.743 [0.098] [0.133] Arranged marriage 1.784 2.056 [0.751] [0.866] Polygamous union 0.243 1.116 [0.184] [0.599] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 0.930 [0.646] M > F 2.933* 4.605 [1.574] [4.184] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 1.073 1.038 [0.466] [0.443] Madrasah 1.09 3.374 [0.564] [2.823] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.869 1.291 [0.684] [0.528] Secondary or higher 0.500 0.920 [0.274] [0.673] Number of siblings in origin family 0.912 1.023 [0.057] [0.076] Children ever born 1.316 1.158 [0.312] [0.314] Wealth index (ref: Lowest tercile) Middle 1.077 0.557 [0.458] [0.415] Upper 2.741* 1.811 [1.133] [0.738] Observations 306 169 Open in a new tab The sample includes female respondents who married in or after 2017. Note that these specifications control for respondents’ current age and marriage duration. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Timeliness of marriage registration Since forced displacement may influence not only whether unions are registered, but also when registration takes place, we next examine factors associated with delayed registration (one year or more after the wedding) among young adults who reportedly registered their unions (Table 3 ), and in the subsample of females. Table 3. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting delayed marriage registration among respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later All adult respondents Females Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE Female 0.701 0.655 0.729 1.129 [0.197] [0.185] [0.384] [0.578] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 0.969 0.885 0.883 0.826 0.789 [0.253] [0.232] [0.243] [0.241] [0.253] Madrasah 1.104 1.184 1.274 1.152 1.031 [0.322] [0.358] [0.403] [0.416] [0.402] Secondary or higher 0.758 0.653 0.704 0.692 0.961 [0.243] [0.218] [0.237] [0.261] [0.417] Rural residence in Myanmar 0.621 0.557* 0.617 0.577 0.54 [0.163] [0.150] [0.177] [0.178] [0.182] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 0.496* 0.427* 0.359** 0.425* [0.161] [0.148] [0.136] [0.184] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 0.822 0.874 0.789 0.789 [0.223] [0.245] [0.235] [0.266] Time since marriage (years) 1.213** 1.12 1.029 [0.088] [0.105] [0.107] (First) marriage below age 18 2.024** 2.078* 2.553** [0.551] [0.602] [0.764] Arranged marriage 1.006 1.12 1.056 [0.302] [0.342] [0.369] Polygamous union 0.665 0.668 0.532 [0.340] [0.353] [0.325] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 0.95 0.89 0.402 [0.501] [0.482] [0.338] M > F 0.575 0.511 0.367 [0.256] [0.234] [0.195] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 1.069 1.15 [0.323] [0.372] Madrasah 0.708 0.768 [0.257] [0.318] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.294 1.225 [0.365] [0.374] Secondary or higher 2.434* 2.463 [1.086] [1.371] Number of siblings in origin family 1.027 1.029 [0.051] [0.055] Children ever born 1.265 1.361 [0.231] [0.279] Wealth index (ref: Lower tercile) Middle 1.897 1.838 [0.662] [0.790] Upper 0.700* 0.639 [0.181] [0.181] Observations 394 394 394 394 324 Open in a new tab The sample includes respondents aged 18 + at survey time and who married in or after 2017. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 Again, we find socio-demographic characteristics to be largely unrelated to the timeliness of marriage registration, whereas child marriage still emerges as the strongest predictor. For child brides, the odds of experiencing delayed marriage registration are more than twice those of young adult respondents who married at age 18 or older (Model 5). 5 We also find that postponed marriage registration appears to be moderately less likely in Central Ukhia (5, 8E, 17, 18) than in Northern camps (1E, 1 W, 2E, 3, 4) in the same Upazila. Birth registration and timeliness Tables 4 and 5 assess the relationships between the registration of family-related vital events, specifically whether marriage registration predicts birth registration and its timeliness, respectively. We present results for first births only, since most respondents had one child and questions about registration were asked only in relation to the first and last birth. Relationships are nevertheless similar when we consider as outcome the registration of any birth, regardless of order (see Table 8 ). Table 4. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting first birth registration All adult respondents Females Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE Marriage is registered 1.933** 1.962** 2.886*** 2.967*** 2.416* [0.484] [0.499] [0.905] [0.974] [0.963] Female 2.286** 2.315** 1.736 2.215 [0.676] [0.680] [0.836] [1.406] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.169 1.199 1.338 1.42 1.900 [0.379] [0.406] [0.516] [0.539] [0.873] Madrasah 0.480* 0.459* 0.834 0.616 0.746 [0.149] [0.142] [0.325] [0.280] [0.404] Secondary or higher 1.104 1.135 1.433 1.488 0.895 [0.447] [0.462] [0.631] [0.763] [0.525] Rural residence in Myanmar 0.978 1.025 1.187 1.201 1.241 [0.285] [0.305] [0.422] [0.465] [0.554] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 1.497 0.968 1.632 1.484 [0.500] [0.391] [0.741] [0.832] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 1.153 1.194 1.595 1.25 [0.353] [0.428] [0.648] [0.651] Time since first birth (years) 3.449*** 4.390*** 4.933*** [0.716] [1.078] [1.633] (First) marriage below age 18 0.884 0.944 0.820 [0.301] [0.334] [0.296] Arranged marriage 1.864 2.344* 2.559* [0.655] [0.840] [1.136] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 2.127 2.988 1.22 [1.211] [1.929] [1.317] M > F 1.783 1.751 1.571 [0.972] [1.088] [1.271] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 0.946 1.362 [0.382] [0.618] Madrasah 0.968 0.903 [0.436] [0.460] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.018 0.773 [0.363] [0.311] Secondary or higher 2.733 2.268 [1.526] [1.608] Number of siblings in origin family 0.92 0.899 [0.070] [0.083] Children ever born 0.574 0.433 [0.253] [0.192] Wealth index (ref: Lower tercile) Middle 0.858 1.325 [0.361] [0.849] Upper 2.673* 2.806* [1.130] [1.340] Observations 422 422 422 422 339 Open in a new tab The sample includes respondents aged 18 + at survey time and who married in or after 2017. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 Table 5. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting delayed first birth registration among respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later All adult respondents Females Model 1 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE Marriage is registered 0.538* 0.546* 0.652* 0.653* 0.639 [0.141] [0.144] [0.181] [0.189] [0.211] Female 0.737 0.749 0.968 1.018 [0.245] [0.251] [0.446] [0.478] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.033 1.065 1.014 0.866 0.882 [0.291] [0.306] [0.301] [0.284] [0.314] Madrasa 1.665 1.658 1.851 1.359 1.772 [0.569] [0.568] [0.649] [0.493] [0.691] Secondary or higher 0.896 0.916 1.024 0.713 1.107 [0.313] [0.325] [0.375] [0.305] [0.599] Rural residence in Myanmar 0.65 0.66 0.661 0.625 0.57 [0.194] [0.200] [0.199] [0.202] [0.208] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 1.109 1.059 0.761 0.931 [0.375] [0.369] [0.291] [0.414] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 0.968 1.019 0.663 0.886 [0.285] [0.313] [0.234] [0.357] Time since first birth (years) 1.099 1.195 1.098 [0.103] [0.149] [0.154] (First) marriage below age 18 2.015** 2.177** 2.312** [0.534] [0.621] [0.717] Arranged marriage 1.288 1.202 1.092 [0.393] [0.387] [0.399] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 1.094 0.868 1.478 [0.699] [0.515] [1.341] M > F 0.626 0.506 0.401 [0.344] [0.258] [0.240] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 1.446 1.84 [0.500] [0.726] Madrasah 1.109 1.484 [0.449] [0.671] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.864* 1.464 [0.578] [0.501] Secondary or higher 2.840* 1.46 [1.242] [0.757] Number of siblings in origin family 0.968 0.959 [0.056] [0.063] Children ever born 0.692 0.708 [0.179] [0.194] Wealth index (ref: Lower tercile) Middle 0.756 0.747 [0.290] [0.329] Upper 0.411** 0.283*** [0.123] [0.097] Observations 332 332 332 332 275 Open in a new tab The sample includes respondents aged 18 + at survey time and who married in or after 2017. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 Table 8. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting first or/and last birth registration among respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later All adult respondents Females Model 1 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE OR/SE Marriage is registered 1.853* 1.884* 3.021** 3.086** 2.338 [0.470] [0.486] [1.038] [1.109] [1.054] Female 2.417** 2.463** 1.944 2.629 [0.720] [0.731] [1.022] [1.802] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 1.213 1.255 1.536 1.721 3.026* [0.401] [0.432] [0.601] [0.662] [1.423] Madrasah 0.490* 0.474* 1.028 0.815 1.191 [0.153] [0.148] [0.424] [0.380] [0.709] Secondary or higher 1.091 1.121 1.584 1.929 1.279 [0.446] [0.459] [0.754] [1.074] [0.831] Rural residence in Myanmar 1.033 1.07 1.344 1.358 1.606 [0.303] [0.319] [0.535] [0.570] [0.780] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 1.329 0.746 1.247 1.021 [0.452] [0.327] [0.615] [0.665] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 1.042 1.091 1.468 0.995 [0.323] [0.415] [0.627] [0.574] Time since first birth (years) 4.708*** 5.678*** 8.186*** [0.970] [1.413] [2.887] (First) marriage below age 18 1.03 1.106 0.948 [0.392] [0.423] [0.376] Arranged marriage 2.249* 2.807** 3.939** [0.849] [1.042] [1.996] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 1.916 2.532 0.723 [1.162] [1.675] [0.824] M > F 1.456 1.406 1.124 [0.818] [0.886] [1.006] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 0.86 1.465 [0.374] [0.739] Madrasah 0.938 0.864 [0.467] [0.484] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 0.864 0.536 [0.332] [0.242] Secondary or higher 2.408 1.671 [1.423] [1.265] Number of siblings in origin family 0.911 0.871 [0.068] [0.077] Children ever born 0.713 0.467 [0.409] [0.294] Wealth index (ref: Lower tercile) Middle 1.056 2.417 [0.449] [1.501] Upper 2.681* 2.905 [1.229] [1.580] Observations 422 422 422 422 339 Open in a new tab The sample includes respondents aged 18+ at survey time and who married in or after 2017. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Overall, estimates suggest a strong association between marriage and birth registration. Specifically, respondents whose marriage was registered are nearly three times more likely to have registered the birth of their first child (Model 4, Table 4 ; OR: 2.967; 95% CI: 1.560–5.645), and more modestly to have done so with no delay (Model 4, Table 5 ; OR: 0.653; 95% CI: 0.370–0.959). Respondents’ gender, education, origin and camp location are not associated with either outcome in fully adjusted models. Time elapsed since having had the first child, as well as being in an arranged marriage, are positively associated with birth registration (Model 4, Table 4 ), but not with its timeliness. While we find no difference in first birth registration by age at marriage, births to respondents who married before age 18 are more likely to be registered with delays of one or more years (Model 4, Table 5 ). Finally, families in the upper wealth tercile are both more likely to register their first birth and less likely to delay the process. Discussion and conclusion This study is the first to examine the prevalence, timeliness, and determinants of marriage registration and its link to birth registration within a displacement setting, drawing on primary survey data from young Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar. Due to their distinctive situation - being stateless in their homeland and not granted refugee status in their host country - Rohingya are particularly vulnerable to statistical, legal and social exclusion, and reliant on humanitarian infrastructure for livelihoods, shelter and documentation. Therefore, focusing on the registration of vital events in this population is especially important as it can guide improvements in existing documentation efforts and contribute to restoring identity, protection, and dignity amid displacement. Overall, our results indicate moderately high rates of registration: approximately 65% of displaced Rohingya reported their marriages had been registered with camp authorities, and nearly 60% indicated that at least their first or most recent birth had also been registered. These rates are considerable given the historical exclusion faced by this population, well-founded fears of persecution linked to official identification ([ 8 ]; [ 28 ], [ 28 ]), low levels of literacy, and the complexities involved in navigating multiple bureaucratic procedures within the camps (ACAPS, [ 3 ]). By comparison, the most recent DHS conducted in Bangladesh, the host country, estimates that approximately 42% of children under five had their births officially registered (ICF International, [ 26 ]). The relatively high rates observed among displaced Rohingya may be attributed to the efforts of humanitarian organisations and camp administrations to raise awareness, facilitate access to documentation, and incentivise registration by linking it to aid eligibility. The absence of significant differences in overall registration rates across camps, despite some evidence of delayed marriage registration in northern camps in Ukhia, further suggests a relatively uniform administration of registration services throughout the area, possibly also enforced through the highly controlled and restrictive nature of the camp environment in Cox’s Bazar [ 7 ]. Indeed, our findings do not imply the absence of challenges. The legal environment in Bangladesh continues to make it difficult for Rohingya refugees to register their marriages, for instance by excluding non-registered refugees from the system and prohibiting the registration of marriages with Bangladeshi citizens (UNHCR, [ 62 ]). However, our results suggest that humanitarian support systems can provide a foundation for vital event registration in contexts of displacement. Nevertheless, registration for both marriages and births remain far from complete coverage. Although some vital family events may eventually be registered, our results indicate that many marriages and most births are not recorded in a timely manner, and that delays are more common among already vulnerable groups. In particular, young adults who married before age 18 reported lower rates of marriage registration, and both their marriages and the births of their children were more likely to be registered late. The lower registration of marriages involving underage girls echoes the small existing evidence from other settings [ 31 ] and is not surprising, since marriage before age 18 is technically illegal in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, it remains common among Rohingya due to various factors, including protection concerns and socioeconomic pressures [ 39 ]. The observed delays in marriage registration are thus, at least in part, due to families postponing official registration until the bride reaches legal age and/or has her first child. This possibly reflects both formal adherence to the strong and consistent messaging from the CiC officials and local NGOs that 18 is the minimum legal age for female marriage [ 39 ], the incentive of accessing aid that is typically allocated based on household size [ 33 ] and the logistical and procedural ease of registering both events at the same time. The lack of an interaction between child marriage and marital duration nevertheless suggests that the marriage registration disadvantage associated with marrying underage does not diminish simply with exposure time, and specific interventions might be needed to provide legal documentation to such an already vulnerable group. A third important finding of our study relates to the nexus between the registration of family vital events [ 6 ]: marriage registration was the strongest and most consistent predictor of both birth registration and its timeliness. Although our data do not explicitly allow us to determine which event was registered first or whether they were registered concurrently, this result highlights the close linkage between family vital event registrations. This interconnection has significant life-course and intergenerational implications, as exclusion from one registration “level” can both deprive individuals, women in particular, of their rights over the life course (e.g., the ability to claim inheritance in the event of their husband’s death or access divorce proceedings) [ 56 ] and increases the likelihood of exclusion from the other, potentially creating cycles of invisibility that persist across generations [ 13 ]. Furthermore, this interdependence may have implications for aid distribution and access to humanitarian assistance, as the absence of marriage or birth registration can limit households’ access to the full set of entitlements available to them. This aspect is particularly salient given that we found evidence of inequalities in both marriage and birth registration by household wealth, with families in the upper tercile being more likely to register, often on time, both events. While this study offered a first step towards bringing attention to marriage and birth registration, and the interdependency between the registrations of vital events among populations already facing disadvantage and marginalisation, it nevertheless has several important limitations that warrant mention. First, all our outcomes relied on self-reported information. We did not verify reported registration and its date by asking respondents to show certificates or documentation. Therefore, it is possible that our results might overestimate the actual coverage of both marriage and birth registration. The lack of precise information on dates of registration also precluded a direct assessment of the temporal sequence between the registration of these events, and our results can only speak of associations. Future research should attempt to incorporate the verification of official documents and collect detailed chronological data to better understand the timing and order of registrations, thus moving closer to establishing causal sequences. Second, the sample size was not large enough to support more granular analyses, including more age-disaggregated analyses, investigations of camp-specific patterns and determinants or the construction of more detailed measures of timeliness of registration. Small cell sizes also meant that we could not analyse some outcomes among male respondents, and some patterns and associations remain uncertain and should be interpreted with caution. Third, the study was limited to selected camps, three of which were purposively chosen due to practical and regulatory considerations. This may limit the generalisability of our results and might have led to the omission of individuals most vulnerable to foregoing marriage registration, such as those living in less accessible or more strictly controlled camps, where conditions may be worse and humanitarian and registration support more limited. Finally, this study set out to provide a clear, descriptive account of how vital events are registered in an exceptionally complex and challenging setting. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that in situations like that of the Rohingya, registration is not a straightforward or universally welcomed process (Brinham, 2025). In such contexts, documents can hold meanings that go beyond legal protection, carrying the weight of past persecution or shaping how individuals are categorised and treated. For some refugees, the act of being recorded by state or humanitarian systems may raise fears about consent, data privacy, and the possible consequences of being formally identified. While this is outside the scope of this work, understanding these perspectives is essential and future qualitative research could help unpack these concerns and explore whether alternative systems could offer the advantages of formal documentation while minimising risks to dignity, safety, and well-being. Appendix See Fig. 2 Table 7. Estimates of logistic regression models predicting delayed marriage registration stratified by age at marriage, female respondents aged 18 + at survey time and married in 2017 or later Married above age 18+ Married below age 18 Model 1 Model 2 OR/SE OR/SE Respondent’s age 1.014 0.970 [0.124] [0.247] Respondent’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 0.648 0.795 [0.271] [0.478] Madrasa 0.845 2.026 [0.437] [1.719] Secondary or higher 0.758 2.768 [0.410] [2.755] Rural residence in Myanmar 0.384* 0.467 [0.166] [0.295] Camp (ref: Northern Ukhia) Central Ukhia 0.686 0.196 [0.379] [0.185] Southern Ukhia/Teknaf 0.866 1.033 [0.372] [0.887] Time since marriage (years) 1.165 0.887 [0.152] [0.249] Arranged marriage 1.651 0.436 [0.747] [0.265] Polygamous union 0.879 0.551 [0.689] [0.478] Spousal age gap (ref: F = M) F > M 0.477 [0.453] M > F 0.373 [0.251] Father’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary or more 0.956 1.112 [0.375] [0.709] Madrasah 0.32 2.138 [0.188] [1.692] Partner’s education (ref: None/unknown) Primary 2.240* 0.624 [0.889] [0.349] Secondary or higher 5.071* 0.601 [3.603] [0.673] Number of siblings in origin family 1.02 1.027 [0.066] [0.124] Children ever born 1.186 2.286 [0.304] [0.972] Wealth index (ref: Lowest tercile) Middle 2.869* 0.220 [1.330] [0.201] Upper 0.552 0.724 [0.189] [0.468] Observations 230 94 Open in a new tab The sample includes female respondents who married in or after 2017. Note that these specifications control for respondents’ current age and marriage duration. Exponentiated coefficients. Robust standard errors in brackets. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Author contributions Conceptualisation: O.T., Data collection:. T.H., T.T. Formal analysis: O.T Methodology: O.T. Project administration: O.T. Supervision: O.T., L.Z., S.E. Writing - original draft: O.T. Writing - review and editing: O.T., L.Z., S.E., C.R., T.H., S.F.R., M. T.H., R.A., T.T. Funding This research was funded, in whole, by Elrha’s Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC) Program (elrha.org/r2hc). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data availability Data are available upon reasonable request. Data can be made available on request by contacting the lead author. Declarations Human ethics and consent to participate All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (FWA00000287) and BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University (IRB protocol no.: IRB-25 June’22–022). Authorization was also granted by the NGO Affairs Bureau and relevant government and camp authorities. Due to widespread illiteracy and as Rohingya is not a written language, all participants provided verbal consent to participate. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes 1 The 1982 Citizenship Law established a stratified system of citizenship in Myanmar, distinguishing between full, associate, and naturalised citizens. Automatic recognition as a full citizen was limited to so-called “pure” nationals (Kachin, Kaya, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, and other ethnic communities believed to have settled in the country prior to 1823 AD). However, neither the 1982 law nor its 1983 implementing rules specified exactly which groups met the criteria. Only in the 1990s officials began referring to a list of 135 “national races” as those eligible. The Rohingyas were excluded from this list, even though another Muslim minority in Rakhine State, the Kaman or Kamein, was included. In contrast to full citizens, associate and naturalised citizenship required individuals to undergo a formal verification process and provided fewer rights and protections (for details, see McAuliffe [ 36 ]. 2 Specifically, we constructed a household wealth variable based on terciles of an asset-based index derived from binary indicators of ownership of durable goods reported by respondents in the household questionnaire. The index was constructed using principal component analysis, following a methodology analogous to that employed in the Demographic and Health Surveys (see: [ 52 ]). 3 In the absence of a standardised analytical categorisation and given small cell sizes, we adopt a camp classification based on official humanitarian planning maps (e.g., https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/109755 ), which reflect the geographic location of camps within Cox’s Bazar. Specifically, camps were grouped into three broad spatial clusters corresponding to Northern Ukhia (Camps 1E, 1 W, 2E, 3, and 4), Central Ukhia (Camps 5, 8E, 17, and 18), and Southern Ukhia/Teknaf (Camps 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 21). This categorisation allows us to account for spatial variation while balancing geographic differentiation with sufficient sample sizes. Nevertheless, the results reported in the following sections are robust to alternative categorisations, including specifications by Upazila and by camp size. 4 Indeed, note that only 35 respondents were aged 15–17 at interview time. Among these, 9 reported to have registered their marriage and 5 to have registered it immediately after the marriage was contracted. 5 We do not find salient differences in the predictors of marriage registration timeliness between women who married before age 18 and those who married at 18 or later when models are stratified by age at marriage (Table 7 ), with the exception of husbands’ education. This variable is positively associated with delayed registration only among women who married at 18 or later. However, we caution against overinterpretation given the small size of these subgroups. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. AbouZahr C, de Savigny D, Mikkelsen L, Setel PW, Lozano R, Lopez AD. Towards universal civil registration and vital statistics systems: The time is now. Lancet (London England). 2015;386(10001):1407–18. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60170-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. ACAPS. (2021). Bangladesh: Impact of the suspension of birth registration on the host community in Cox’s Bazar [Thematic Report]. The Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS). https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/bangladesh-impact-suspension-birth-registration-host-community-cox-s-bazar 3. ACAPS. (2022). ACAPS Thematic Report: Bangladesh - Protection implications of polygamous marriages in the Rohingya camps, 22 April 2022 - Bangladesh . The Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS). https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/acaps-thematic-report-bangladesh-protection-implications-polygamous-marriages 4. Ainul S, Ehsan I, Haque E, Amin S, Rob U, Melnikas A, Falcone J. Marriage and sexual and reproductive health of Rohingya adolescents and youth in Bangladesh: A qualitative study. Poverty Gend Youth. 2018. 10.31899/pgy7.1022. [ Google Scholar ] 5. Alam J. The Status and Rights of the Rohingya as Refugees under International Refugee Law: Challenges for a Durable Solution. J Immigr Refugee Stud. 2021;19(2):128–41. 10.1080/15562948.2020.1746872. [ Google Scholar ] 6. Ball J, Butt,Leslie,and, Beazley H. Birth Registration and Protection for Children of Transnational Labor Migrants in Indonesia. J Immigr Refugee Stud. 2017;15(3):305–25. 10.1080/15562948.2017.1316533. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Bhatia A, Mahmud A, Fuller A, Shin R, Rahman A, Shatil T, Sultana M, Morshed KAM, Leaning J, Balsari S. The Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar. Health Hum Rights. 2018;20(2):105–22. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Brinham N. (2025). Citizenship and genocide cards: IDs, statelessness and Rohingya Resistance in Myanmar . Taylor & Francis. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/94017 9. Brito S, Corbacho A, O. Rivas R. Birth Registration: The Key to Social Inclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean. IDB Publications. 2013. 10.18235/0012623. (Central America). [ Google Scholar ] 10. Cappa C, Gregson K, Wardlaw T, Bissell S. Birth registration: A child’s passport to protection. Lancet Global Health. 2014;2(2):e67–8. 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70180-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Castle S, Ortiz E, Setel P. (2020). Demand-side factors related to the registration of births, marriages, and deaths: A literature review. CRVS Working Paper Series, Issue 2 . https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/60226 12. CEDAW. (2013). General recommendation on article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Economic consequences of marriage, family relations and their dissolution) (CEDAW/C/GC/29). UN,. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/764504 13. Cheong AR, Baltazar MAK. Too precarious to walk: An integrated ‘three delays’ framework for modeling barriers to maternal health care and birth registration among stateless persons and irregular migrants in Malaysia. Genus. 2021;77(1):18. 10.1186/s41118-021-00129-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Chereni A. Underlying Dynamics of Child Birth Registration in Zimbabwe. Int J Children’s Rights. 2016;4(24). 10.1163/15718182-02404004. 15. Chowdhury MAK, Billah S, Karim F, Khan A, Islam S, Arifeen S. (2018). Report on Demographic profiling and needs assessment of maternal and child health (MCH) care for the Rohingya refugee population in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh . 10.13140/RG.2.2.35432.11520 16. DHS Program. (2025). Guide to DHS Statistics DHS-8: Marriage Registration . https://dhsprogram.com/Data/Guide-to-DHS-Statistics/Marriage_Registration.htm 17. Esveld BV. (2019). Are We Not Human? Hum Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/12/03/are-we-not-human/denial-education-rohingya-refugee-children-bangladesh 18. Faye M. A forced migration from Myanmar to Bangladesh and beyond: Humanitarian response to Rohingya refugee crisis. J Int Humanitarian Action. 2021;6(1):13. 10.1186/s41018-021-00098-4. [ Google Scholar ] 19. Frelick B. (2018). Bangladesh Is Not My Country. Hum Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/08/05/bangladesh-not-my-country/plight-rohingya-refugees-myanmar 20. Gaffney-Rhys R. International law as an instrument to combat child marriage. Int J Hum Rights. 2011;15(3):359–73. 10.1080/13642980903315398. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Guglielmi S, Mitu K, Seager J. Correction to: ‘I Just Keep Quiet’: Addressing the Challenges of Married Rohingya Girls and Creating Opportunities for Change. Eur J Dev Res. 2021;33(5):1431–2. 10.1057/s41287-021-00472-3. [ Google Scholar ] 22. Hanmer L, Elefante M. (2016). The role of identification in ending child marriage. World Bank . 23. Hickox K. Delivering Care to Isolated Rohingya. Medecins Sans Frontieres; 2009. 24. HRW. (2013). Burma: End ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ of Rohingya Muslims . Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/22/burma-end-ethnic-cleansing-rohingya-muslims 25. HRW. (2024). Myanmar: New Atrocities Against Rohingya . Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/22/myanmar-new-atrocities-against-rohingya 26. ICF International. (2022). The DHS Program STATcompiler. Funded by USAID. ICF International. http://www.statcompiler.com 27. InfoSheba. (2024). Marriage Registration and Issuing Certificates for Rohingya . https://www.infosheba.org/en-us/articles/16146656668189 28. Islam MM, Khan MN, Rahman MM. (2021). Factors affecting child marriage and contraceptive use among Rohingya girls in refugee camps. The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific , 12 . 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100175 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 29. Karlinsky A. International completeness of death registration. Demographic Res. 2024;50:1151–70. 10.4054/DemRes.2024.50.38. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Kolås Å. Rohingya identity, nationhood and the census. Social Identities. 2025;1–20. 10.1080/13504630.2025.2459075. 31. Kumari N, Ram R, Shekhar C. Determinants of under-registration of marriage among women in India: An exploratory study in Jhunjhunu district of Rajasthan. Clin Epidemiol Global Health. 2022;14. 10.1016/j.cegh.2022.100976. 32. Kusumaningrum S, Sumner C. (2014). Indonesia’s Missing Millions: AIPJ Baseline Study on Legal Identity . 10.13140/RG.2.2.27036.82567 33. Leigh J, Baral P, Edmier A, Metzler J, Robinson C, Skanthakumar T. (2020). Child marriage in humanitarian settings in South Asia: Study results from Bangladesh and Nepal. Kathmandu: UNFPA Asia Pacific Regional Office (APRO) and UNICEF . 34. Mahmood SS, Wroe E, Fuller A, Leaning J. The Rohingya people of Myanmar: Health, human rights, and identity. Lancet. 2017;389(10081):1841–50. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00646-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Manby B. (2016). Identification in the Context of Forced Displacement: Identification for Development . World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c84cd3e7-5079-5dac-8170-0631b18a498a/content 36. McAuliffe EL. The Ancestral Line is through the Father: The Gendered Production of Statelessness in Rural Myanmar. Law Social Inq. 2024;49(1):363–93. 10.1017/lsi.2022.74. [ Google Scholar ] 37. Melnikas AJ, Ainul S, Ehsan I, Haque E, Amin S. Child marriage practices among the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Confl Health. 2020;14(1):28. 10.1186/s13031-020-00274-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Messner N, Woods A, Petty A, Parmar PK, Leigh J, Thomas E, Curry D, Venters H, Gilbert A, Nelson T, Lester E. Qualitative evidence of crimes against humanity: The August 2017 attacks on the Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, Myanmar. Confl Health. 2019;13(1):41. 10.1186/s13031-019-0227-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Mieth K, Hasan, Tahia, Chakrabarty A, Lee K, Kaiser A, Hasan, Tanvir, Elnakib S, Jackson C, Robinson WC, Zimmerman LA. What other option did I have?– The effect of conflict and displacement on child marriage and early childbearing among displaced Rohingya adolescents. Confl Health. 2025;19(1):16. 10.1186/s13031-025-00656-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Mikkelsen L, Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Setel PW, de Savigny D, Lozano R, Lopez AD. A global assessment of civil registration and vital statistics systems: Monitoring data quality and progress. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1395–406. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60171-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Mills S, AbouZahr C, Kim J, Sarpong D. (2017). Civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) for monitoring the Sustainable development goals (SDGS) . https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/979321495190619598/civil-registration-and-vital-statistics-crvs-for-monitoring-the-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs 42. MSF. (2025). Rohingya refugee crisis in depth . Doctors without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). https://www.msf.org/rohingya-refugee-crisis-depth 43. Niamba L. (2020). Geographical and gender disparities in the registration of births, marriages, and deaths in the Nouna health and demographic surveillance system, Burkina Faso . http://hdl.handle.net/10625/60237 44. NRC. Registering rights: Syrian refugees and the documentation of births, marriages, and deaths in Jordan. Norwegian Refugee Council; 2015. 45. NRC. (2016). Update on Marriage Registration for Refugees from Syria: Understanding the Procedures and Identifying the Challenges Faced by Refugees when Registering Marriages in Lebanon . Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). https://grassrootsjusticenetwork.org/resources/update-marriage-registration-refugees-syria-understanding-procedures-identifying-challenges-faced-refugee-lebanon/ 46. O’Neil ML, Toktas S. Women’s Property Rights in Turkey. Turkish Stud. 2014;15(1):29–44. 10.1080/14683849.2014.891350. [ Google Scholar ] 47. Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Lopez AD, Mikkelsen L, de Savigny D, Lozano R, Wilmoth J, Setel PW. Are well functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems associated with better health outcomes? Lancet (London England). 2015;386(10001):1386–94. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60172-6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Priddy G, Doman Z, Berry E, Ahmed S. Gender-based violence in a complex humanitarian context: Unpacking the human sufferings among stateless Rohingya women. Ethnicities. 2022;22(2):215–32. 10.1177/14687968221078373. [ Google Scholar ] 49. Revenga Becedas R, Sant Fruchtman C, Dincu I, De Savigny D, Cobos Muñoz D. Addressing the Evidence Gap in the Economic and Social Benefits of Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems: A Systematic Review. Public Health Rev. 2022;43:1604560. 10.3389/phrs.2022.1604560. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Richards N. (2025, March 3). Civil Registration and Vital Statistics (CRVS) Systems & Gender Equity . UNESCAP Gender Data Analysis Workshop. https://crvs.unescap.org/event/crvs-gender-data-analysis-workshop-nadi-fiji 51. Roy Chowdhury A. International-domestic linkages in a developing-country context: The case of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh. Policy Stud. 2019;40(3–4):303–19. 10.1080/01442872.2018.1557623. [ Google Scholar ] 52. Rutstein SO. (2015). Steps to constructing the new DHS Wealth Index. Rockville, MD: ICF International , 6 . https://preview.dhsprogram.com/programming/wealth%20index/Steps_to_constructing_the_new_DHS_Wealth_Index.pdf 53. Sanders C, Burnett K. A Case Study in Personal Identification and Social Determinants of Health: Unregistered Births among Indigenous People in Northern Ontario. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4):567. 10.3390/ijerph16040567. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Silva R. Population perspectives and demographic methods to strengthen CRVS systems: Introduction. Genus. 2022;78(1):8. 10.1186/s41118-022-00156-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Silva R, Simelane S, Souza E. (2023). Marriage divorce registration and vital statistics: Where are we; where do we go from here . https://hdl.handle.net/10625/63029 56. Silva R, Snow R. (2019). Knowledge briefs on gender and CRVS: Life-course approach to CRVS: a crucial tool to advance gender equality . http://hdl.handle.net/10625/57774 57. Sultana ZZ, Arefin A, Hossain A. Addressing child protection issues in Bangladesh’s Rohingya and host community to improve children’s health. Lancet Reg Health - Southeast Asia. 2022;5:100070. 10.1016/j.lansea.2022.100070. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Szreter S. The Right of Registration: Development, Identity Registration, and Social Security—A Historical Perspective. World Dev. 2007;35(1):67–86. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.004. [ Google Scholar ] 59. Uddin MA. The Meaning of Marriage to the Rohingya Refugees, and Their Survival in Bangladesh. J Refugee Stud. 2021;34(2):2036–51. 10.1093/jrs/feaa054. [ Google Scholar ] 60. UNFPA. (2019). Technical Brief: Measuring disability, migration, and marriage registration—Recommended questions for inclusion in censuses . United Nations Population Fund. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/measuring-disability-migration-and-marriage-registration-recommended-questions-inclusion 61. UNHCR. (2007). Bangladesh: Analysis of Gaps in the Protection of Rohingya Refugees . UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),. https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/unhcr/2007/en/39061 62. UNHCR. (2019). Registration of the marriages and divorces of refugees . UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),. https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/rohingya-refugee-crisis-registration-marriages-and-divorces-refugees 63. UNHCR. (2021). Rohingya emergency . https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/rohingya-emergency 64. UNHCR. (2023). UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review – Bangladesh – UPR 44th Session (2023) . UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),. https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=12972&file=EnglishTranslation 65. UNHCR. Annual Results Report—2024 Bangladesh. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); 2025a. 66. UNHCR. (2025b, January 31). Refugee Data Finder . Migration Data Portal. https://www.migrationdataportal.org/regional-data-overview/southern-asia 67. Zawacki B. Defining Myanmar’s Rohingya Problem. Hum Rts Brief. 2012;20:18. [ Google Scholar ] 68. Zbeidy D. (2018). Marriage Registration among Palestinians and Syrians in Jordan . 10.1163/22131418-00603006 69. Zimmerman LA, Elnakib S, Ali A, Akter R, Hossain T, Traill T, Mieth K, Hasan, Tahia, Hasan T, Robinson WC. Family formation among adolescent Rohingya refugees; trajectories into adolescent marriage and childbearing in Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh. Confl Health. 2025;19(1):41. 10.1186/s13031-025-00683-z. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Data can be made available on request by contacting the lead author. Articles from Population Health Metrics are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.4 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Registration of family vital events in a conflict-induced displacement setting#252107
• Traumatic symptoms among syrian refugees in host countries: a comparative study of Jordan and Spain#395162
• Family Dynamics in the Face of Adversity: Exploring the Challenges of Parents Having Children With Special Educational Needs#422633
• 22 CFR Part 94 — International Child Abduction#507006
• Family History of Problem Drinking Is Associated With Reduced Sensitivity of Alcohol Demand to Next-Day Responsibilities: A Replication and Extension.#288857