| Literature DB >> 23237098 |
Stephanie Psaki1, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Tahmeed Ahmed, Shamsir Ahmed, Pascal Bessong, Munirul Islam, Sushil John, Margaret Kosek, Aldo Lima, Cebisa Nesamvuni, Prakash Shrestha, Erling Svensen, Monica McGrath, Stephanie Richard, Jessica Seidman, Laura Caulfield, Mark Miller, William Checkley.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stunting results from decreased food intake, poor diet quality, and a high burden of early childhood infections, and contributes to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although food insecurity is an important determinant of child nutrition, including stunting, development of universal measures has been challenging due to cumbersome nutritional questionnaires and concerns about lack of comparability across populations. We investigate the relationship between household food access, one component of food security, and indicators of nutritional status in early childhood across eight country sites.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23237098 PMCID: PMC3584951 DOI: 10.1186/1478-7954-10-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Popul Health Metr ISSN: 1478-7954
Selected household characteristics overall and by country (n = 789)
| | | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SES Indicators | Owns bank account (%) | 31 | 23 | 21 | 10 | 62 | 39 | 15 | 76 | 2 |
| People per room (mean)* | 1.7 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.7 | |
| Mean maternal education (years) | 6.4 | 3.7 | 7.8 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 3.3 | 7.8 | 10.1 | 5.3 | |
| Owns Mattress (%) | 58 | 66 | 98 | 1 | 99 | 13 | 82 | 66 | 39 | |
| Owns mobile phone (%) | 68 | 63 | 81 | 53 | 96 | 68 | 31 | 96 | 54 | |
| Owns radio or transistor (%) | 41 | 11 | 74 | 2 | 48 | 12 | 55 | 82 | 46 | |
| Has electricity (%) | 84 | 100 | 99 | 97 | 99 | 98 | 85 | 94 | 0 | |
| | Owns table (%) | 57 | 29 | 86 | 21 | 65 | 50 | 100 | 74 | 33 |
| Hygiene Indicators | Improved water source (%) | 86 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 100 | 98 | 65 | 28 |
| | Improved sanitation facility (%) | 72 | 100 | 100 | 37 | 100 | 74 | 84 | 84 | 1 |
| Food Access Insecurity Categories§ | Food secure (%) | 37.5 | 33.3 | 32.7 | 30.0 | 73.0 | 22.5 | 20.2 | 20.8 | 66.7 |
| Mildly insecure (%) | 11.4 | 15.2 | 9.2 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 12.2 | 27.3 | 9.4 | 6.1 | |
| Moderately insecure (%) | 27.5 | 33.3 | 11.2 | 29.0 | 12.0 | 48.0 | 29.3 | 40.6 | 17.2 | |
| Severely insecure (%) | 23.6 | 18.2 | 46.9 | 36.0 | 8.0 | 17.4 | 23.2 | 29.2 | 10.1 |
*People per room is the number of people who usually sleep in the house divided by the number of rooms in the house that are used for sleeping.
§Food access insecurity categories are based on the guidelines in Coates et al. 2007.
Figure 1Barplots of food access insecurity score by country; 2009–10.
Figure 2Box-percentile plots of height-for-age (HAZ) by country; 2009–10.
Figure 3Box-percentile plots of weight-for-height (WHZ) by country; 2009–10.
Relationship between socioeconomic status and nutritional indicators
| Sex | | | | | | | |
| Male | 406 | 42.1 | 0.95 | 6.7 | 0.50 | 19.5 | |
| Female | 382 | 41.9 | 5.5 | 28.0 | |||
| Age | | | | | | | |
| 24-35 months | 284 | 41.2 | 5.3 | 0.07 | 19.3 | 0.06 | |
| 36-47 months | 243 | 49.0 | 4.1 | 23.9 | |||
| 48-60 months | 262 | 36.3 | 8.8 | 27.9 | |||
| Water Source | | | | | | | |
| Not improved | 109 | 58.7 | 0.0 | 24.8 | 0.75 | ||
| Improved | 680 | 39.3 | 7.1 | 23.4 | |||
| Sanitation Facility | | | | | | | |
| Not improved | 218 | 49.5 | 6.4 | 0.81 | 25.7 | 0.39 | |
| Improved | 571 | 39.1 | 6.0 | 22.8 | |||
| Maternal education | | | | | | | |
| None | 135 | 57.0 | 5.2 | 0.15 | 22.2 | 0.59 | |
| 1-5 years | 174 | 43.1 | 9.1 | 26.4 | |||
| >5 years | 480 | 37.3 | 5.2 | 22.9 | |||
| Bank Account | | | | | | | |
| No | 545 | 42.2 | 0.83 | 6.6 | 0.36 | 28.3 | |
| Yes | 244 | 41.4 | 4.9 | 13.1 | |||
| People per room | | | | | | | |
| <2 | 433 | 35.3 | 10.1 | 20.0 | |||
| ≥2 | 356 | 50.0 | 2.8 | 26.9 |
§Severe food access insecurity is defined based on the guidance in Coates et al. 2007.
†p-values reflect results of t-tests and one-way ANOVA tests.
Final models exploring the relationship between food access insecurity score and two measures of growth faltering, controlling for indicators of SES
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept (Tanzania as reference) | −1.96 (<0.001) | −2.20 (<0.001) | 0.71 (0.003) | 0.51 (0.007) |
| Bangladesh | −0.09 (0.73) | −0.14 (0.53) | −1.02 (<0.001) | −1.04 (<0.001) |
| Brazil | 1.57 (<0.001) | 1.52 (<0.001) | 0.56 (0.02) | 0.55 (<0.001) |
| Peru | 0.16 (0.50) | 0.14 (0.51) | 0.30 (0.19) | 0.27 0.09) |
| India | 0.50 (0.03) | 0.48 (0.03) | −1.26 (<0.001) | −1.37 (<0.001) |
| Pakistan | 0.18 (0.48) | 0.14 (0.56) | −0.97 (<0.001) | −1.07 (<0.001) |
| Nepal | 0.18 (0.47) | 0.12 (0.55) | 0.33 (0.17) | 0.28 (0.06) |
| South Africa | −0.10 (0.68) | −0.16 (0.40) | 0.88 (<0.001) | 0.85 (<0.001) |
| Age | −0.005 (0.24) | | −0.01 (0.005) | −0.01 (0.004) |
| Sex | −0.03 (0.71) | | −0.08 (0.30) | |
| Water Source‡ | 0.38 (0.03) | 0.37 (0.03) | −0.16 (0.33) | |
| Sanitation Facility‡ | −0.03 (0.81) | | 0.12 (0.35) | |
| Maternal education (years) | 0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.06) | −0.005 (0.69) | |
| Bank account | −0.06 (0.57) | | −0.05 (0.62) | |
| People per room | −0.06 (0.03) | −0.06 (0.03) | −0.02 (0.53) | |
| Adjusted R2 | 20.3% | 20.6% | 35.1% | 35.2% |
Rows contain effect estimates and p-values in parentheses.
Dichotomous variables measuring access to improved facilities based on WHO standards.
Figure 4Relationship between food access insecurity score and height-for-age (HAZ); 2009–10. We fitted a smoothing spline to study the relationship between food access insecurity score and HAZ using a generalized additive model. The figure shows the fitted smoothing spline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.