| Literature DB >> 20090881 |
Cho-Il Kim1, Yoonna Lee, Bok Hee Kim, Haeng-Shin Lee, Young-Ai Jang.
Abstract
Onto the world-fastest ageing of society, the world-lowest fertility rate prompted a development of various policies and programs for a betterment of the population in Korea. Since the vulnerability of young children of low socio-economic class to malnutrition was clearly shown at the in-depth analysis of the 2001 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, an effort to devise supplemental nutrition care program for pregnant/breastfeeding women, infants and preschool children was initiated. The program was designed to offer nutrition education tailored to fit the needs of the participants and special supplementary foods, using USDA WIC program as a benchmark. Based on the dietary intake of those age groups, target nutrients were selected and their major food sources were searched through nutrient content of foods and dietary pattern analysis. As a result, we developed 6 kinds of food packages using combinations of 11 different food items. The amount of each item in a food package was determined to supplement the intake deficit in target nutrients. Nutrition education in NutriPlus(+) aims to improve the nutrition knowledge, attitude, and dietary behaviors of the participants, and is provided through group lessons, individual counseling sessions and home visits. Breastfeeding is promoted with top priority in education for the health of both mother and baby. The eligibility guidelines were set for residency, household income, age, pregnancy/breastfeeding and nutritional risk such as anemia, stunting, underweight, and/or inadequate nutrient intake. Income eligibility was defined as household income less than 200 percent of the Korean poverty guidelines. A pilot study to examine the feasibility of program implementation was run in 3 public health centers in 2005 and expanded to 15 and 20 in the following 2 years. The result of 3-year pilot study will be reported separately along with the ultimate nationwide implementation of the NutriPlus(+) in 2008.Entities:
Keywords: NutriPlus+; Nutrition care; children; infants; women
Year: 2009 PMID: 20090881 PMCID: PMC2808715 DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2009.3.3.171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Res Pract ISSN: 1976-1457 Impact factor: 1.926
Fig. 1Nutrient intake comparison among preschool children of 1-5 years by household income (KHIDI, 2005)
Comparison of nutrient intake among children of 1-2 years by household income (KHIDI & MOHW, 2003b)
*Lowest: Income<100% of Minimum Living Expenses (MLE) **Low: 100~199% MLE
***Middle: 200~299% MLE ****High: 300%~ MLE
Comparison of nutrient intake among children of 3-6 years by household income (KHIDI & MOHW, 2003b)
*Lowest: Income<100% of Minimum Living Expenses (MLE) **Low: 100~199% MLE
***Middle: 200~299% MLE ****High: 300%~ MLE
Fig. 2Change in total fertility rate (KNSO, 2009)
Proportion of children and women with nutrient intake less than 75% of RDA (KHIDI & MOHW, 2002) (unit: %)
Comparison of food group intake among children of 1-6 years in 2001 by household income and age (KHIDI & MOHW, 2003b) (unit: g)
*Lowest: Income<100% of Minimum Living Expenses (MLE) **Low: 100~199% MLE
***Middle: 200~299% MLE ****High: 300%~ MLE
Food source of target nutrients by food package (KHIDI, 2005)
Amount of food provided per person per day by food package (KHIDI, 2005)
Amount of target nutrient provided per person per day by food package (KHIDI, 2005)
Proportion of breastfeeding and bottle feeding by age during infancy of children under 3 years in 2001 (KHIDI & MOHW, 2002) (unit: %)
Mean duration of breastfeeding and age at introduction of complementary food during infancy of children under 3 years in 2001 (KHIDI & MOHW, 2002) (unit: %)
Distribution of children under 3 years in 2001 by age at introduction of complementary food during infancy (KHIDI & MOHW, 1999) (unit: %)
Comparison of nutrient intake per capita per day by household income (KHIDI & MOHW, 2003b)
*Lowest: Income<100% of Minimum Living Expenses (MLE) **Low: 100~199% MLE
***Middle: 200~299% MLE ****High: 300%~ MLE
Fig. 3Sample evaluation forms