| Literature DB >> 26445058 |
Makiko Sekiyama1, Hong Wei Jiang2, Budhi Gunawan3, Linda Dewanti4, Ryo Honda5, Hana Shimizu-Furusawa6, Oekan S Abdoellah7, Chiho Watanabe8.
Abstract
Indonesia is facing household-level double burden malnutrition. This study aimed at examining (1) household-level double burden for the mother-child and father-child pairs; (2) risk of adiposity of double burden households; and (3) associated dietary factors. Subjects were 5th and 6th grade elementary school children (n = 242), their mothers (n = 242), and their fathers (n = 225) in five communities (1 = urban, 4 = rural) in the Bandung District. Questionnaires on socioeconomic factors, blood hemoglobin measurements, and anthropometric measurements were administered. For adults, body fat percentage (BF%) was estimated by bioelectrical impedance (BF%-BI) and by converting skinfold thickness (ST) data using Durnin and Womersley's (1974) formula (BF%-ST). Food frequency questionnaires were also completed. Double burden was defined as coexistence of maternal or paternal overweight (Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 23) and child stunting (height-for-age z-score <-2) within households. Maternal-child double burden occurred in 30.6% of total households, whereas paternal-child double burden was only in 8.4%. Mothers from double burden households showed high adiposity; 87.3% with BF%-BI and 66.2% with BF%-ST had BF% >35%, and 60.6% had waists >80 cm. The major dietary patterns identified were "Modern" and "High-animal products". After controlling for confounding factors, children in the highest quartile of the "High-animal products" dietary pattern had a lower risk of maternal-child double burden (Adjusted OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.21-1.04) than those in the lowest quartile. Given that the "High-animal products" dietary pattern was associated with the decreased risk of maternal-child double burden through a strong negative correlation with child stunting, improving child stunting through adequate intake of animal products is critical to solve the problem of maternal-child double burden in Indonesia.Entities:
Keywords: Indonesia; adiposity; double burden; food frequency questionnaire; malnutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26445058 PMCID: PMC4632419 DOI: 10.3390/nu7105399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Map of the study sites.
Characteristics of child, father, and mother subjects.
| Age | Height (cm) | HAZ a | Stunting (HAZ < −2) | Weight (kg) | BMI b (kg/m2) | Overweight (BMI ≥ 23) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD c | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | % | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | % | ||
| Child | 242 | 11.1 ± 0.86 | 132.8 ± 7.08 | –2.15 ± 1.01 | 57.9 | 27.9 ± 5.33 | 15.7 ± 1.73 | |
| Father | 225 | 41.6 ± 9.06 | 160.1 ± 6.35 | 54.1 ± 8.43 | 21.1 ± 2.68 | 18.7 | ||
| Mother | 242 | 36.9 ± 6.83 | 149.1 ± 4.97 | 53.1 ± 9.15 | 23.8 ± 3.67 | 53.7 |
a Height-for-age z-score; b Body mass index; c Standard deviation.
Maternal-child and paternal-child pair double burden.
| Non-Obese (%) | Obese (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Father | Mother | Father | Mother | ||
| 29.8 | 19.0 | 10.2 | 23.1 | ||
| 51.6 | 27.3 | 8.4 | 30.6 | ||
Factor loading matrix for the major factors (dietary patterns) identified by using food consumption data.
| Factor 1 (“Modern” Dietary Pattern) | Factor 2 (“High-Animal Products” Dietary Pattern) | |
|---|---|---|
| Rice | ||
| Potato | 0.322 | |
| Tofu/tempeh | 0.543 | |
| Fresh vegetable | –0.406 | |
| Cooked vegetable | –0.340 | |
| Indigenous fruit | 0.624 | |
| Non-native fruit | 0.420 | 0.593 |
| Egg | 0.559 | |
| Salted fish | –0.465 | |
| Freshwater fish | 0.557 | |
| Sea fish | 0.387 | |
| Chicken | 0.475 | 0.349 |
| Beef | 0.333 | 0.556 |
| Goat | 0.487 | |
| Duck | 0.258 | |
| Noodle | 0.473 | |
| Tea/coffee | –0.397 | |
| Milk | 0.524 | 0.261 |
| Meatball | 0.541 | |
| Fried sweets | 0.483 | –0.296 |
| Bread | 0.429 | |
| Snack | 0.462 |
Absolute values < 0.25 were not listed in the table; the first factor explained 16.7% of the total variance and the second factor explained 8.96% of the total variance.
Association of the two identified dietary patterns with child stunting, maternal overweight, and paternal overweight.
| Child Stunting | Maternal Overweight | Paternal Overweight | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||||||
| Model 1 a,c | Modern | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Q2–Q3 | 0.85 (0.45–1.61) | 0.623 | 2.60 (1.36–4.98) | 0.004 | 1.81 (0.68–4.80) | 0.232 | ||
| Q4 | 0.76 (0.37–1.57) | 0.459 | 3.53 (1.65–7.53) | 0.001 | 3.33 (1.19–9.30) | 0.021 | ||
| High-animal products | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | |
| Q2–Q3 | 0.59 (0.30–1.14) | 0.115 | 0.89 (0.48–1.66) | 0.708 | 2.83 (0.92–8.71) | 0.071 | ||
| Q4 | 0.38 (0.18–0.79) | 0.010 | 1.07 (0.52–2.21) | 0.853 | 6.16 (1.93–19.7) | 0.002 | ||
| Model 2 b,c | Modern | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Q2–Q3 | 1.03 (0.53–2.00) | 0.929 | 2.34 (1.20–4.57) | 0.013 | 1.28 (0.45–3.60) | 0.647 | ||
| Q4 | 1.01 (0.46–2.21) | 0.980 | 2.63 (1.12–6.17) | 0.026 | 1.00 (0.30–3.26) | 0.994 | ||
| High-animal products | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | |
| Q2–Q3 | 0.60 (0.30–1.19) | 0.143 | 0.92 (0.48–1.76) | 0.802 | 2.59 (0.78–8.54) | 0.119 | ||
| Q4 | 0.36 (0.16–0.80) | 0.012 | 0.95 (0.44–2.04) | 0.892 | 3.92 (1.13–13.6) | 0.032 | ||
a Unadjusted; b Adjusted for age, gender, and possession of goods for children; adjusted for age, possession of goods, and occupation for fathers and mothers; c For each dietary pattern, quartile values were separately calculated for child, mother, and father; associations between child dietary patterns and child stunting, between maternal dietary patterns and maternal overweight, and between paternal dietary patterns and paternal overweight were examined.
Age, gender, and physical characteristics of children and mothers from maternal-child double burden and maternal-child non-double burden households.
| Double Burden | Non-Double Burden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD a ( | Mean ± SD ( | ||||
| Child characteristics | |||||
| Age in months | 140.5 ± 8.94 | 138.0 ± 10.8 | 0.154 | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 32 | 83 | 0.834 | ||
| Female | 41 | 86 | |||
| Height (cm) | 129.8 ± 4.64 | 134.2 ± 7.54 | 0.000 | ||
| Weight (kg) | 26.7 ± 3.40 | 28.5 ± 5.90 | 0.055 | ||
| HAZ c | −2.72 ± 0.53 | −1.90 ± 1.06 | 0.000 | ||
| BMI | 15.8 ± 1.40 | 15.7 ± 1.86 | 0.217 | ||
| Waist (cm) | 56.6 ± 3.91 | 57.5 ± 5.74 | 0.364 | ||
| Hip (cm) | 69.1 ± 6.18 | 69.8 ± 5.96 | 0.264 | ||
| MUAC (mm) | 18.4 ± 1.44 | 19.0 ± 4.84 | 0.771 | ||
| Sum of skinfold thickness (mm) | 31.5 ± 7.34 | 31.8 ± 11.7 | 0.321 | ||
| Hb (g/dL) | 12.7 ± 1.55 | 13.1 ± 1.00 | 0.184 | ||
| Maternal characteristics | |||||
| Age | 35.7 ± 6.20 | 37.4 ± 7.03 | 0.074 | ||
| Height (cm) | 148.7 ± 5.25 | 149.3 ± 4.85 | 0.620 | ||
| Weight (kg) | 58.2 ± 6.87 | 50.9 ± 9.14 | 0.000 | ||
| BMI d (kg/m2) | 26.3 ± 2.29 | 22.8 ± 3.66 | 0.000 | ||
| Waist (cm) | 82.1 ± 9.38 | 75.5 ± 13.0 | 0.000 | ||
| Hip (cm) | 97.9 ± 10.4 | 91.8 ± 13.5 | 0.000 | ||
| WHR e | 0.86 ± 0.23 | 0.82 ± 0.16 | 0.016 | ||
| MUAC f (mm) | 28.2 ± 2.06 | 26.2 ± 5.87 | 0.000 | ||
| Sum of skinfold thickness (mm) | 86.5 ± 23.9 | 64.0 ± 28.6 | 0.000 | ||
| BF%-BI g (%) | 39.0 ± 5.51 | 32.9 ± 6.61 | 0.000 | ||
| BF%-ST h (%) | 35.1 ± 6.90 | 31.7 ± 6.80 | 0.000 | ||
| Hb i (g/dL) | 13.4 ± 1.30 | 12.6 ± 1.84 | 0.001 | ||
a Standard deviation; b Comparisons between double burden and non-double burden households were conducted using a t-test for maternal height, which was the only variable to fit a normal distribution; for other parameters, which did not fit a normal distribution, comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U-test; c Height-for-age z-score; d Body mass index; e Waist to hip ratio; f Mid-upper arm circumference; g Body fat percentage measured by bioelectrical impedance; h Body fat percentage calculated using skinfold thickness based on Durnin and Womersley’s (1974) formula [21]; i hemoglobin.
Socioeconomic characteristics and associations with maternal-child double burden.
| Double Burden | Non-Double Burden | Univariate | Multivariate a | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | Mean ± SD | % | Mean ± SD | OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |||
| Child characteristics | ||||||||
| Age | 11.2 ± 0.74 | 11.0 ± 0.90 | 1.34 (0.96–1.88) | 0.089 | 1.44 (1.00–2.08) | 0.051 | ||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 43.8 | 49.1 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||||
| Female | 56.2 | 50.9 | 1.24 (0.71–2.15) | 0.451 | ||||
| Maternal characteristics | ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| <30 year | 15.5 | 12.7 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||||
| 30–40 year | 54.9 | 44.6 | 1.01 (0.44–2.30) | 0.988 | ||||
| ≥40 year | 29.6 | 42.8 | 0.57 (0.24–1.36) | 0.202 | ||||
| Education | ||||||||
| No schooling/Elementary school | 23.6 | 51.9 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||
| Secondary school | 5.1 | 9.7 | 1.15 (0.53–2.47) | 0.727 | 1.29 (0.59–2.82) | 0.526 | ||
| >Secondary school | 1.3 | 8.4 | 0.33 (0.09–1.15) | 0.083 | 0.35 (0.10–1.27) | 0.111 | ||
| Height | ||||||||
| <145 cm | 22.5 | 15 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||||
| 145–149.9 cm | 32.4 | 38.9 | 0.55 (0.25–1.22) | 0.14 | ||||
| ≥150 cm | 45.1 | 46.1 | 0.65 (0.31–1.38) | 0.26 | ||||
| Parity | ||||||||
| 1–2 | 9 | 27.8 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||||
| 3–5 | 18.4 | 35 | 1.62 (0.88–3.00) | 0.123 | ||||
| ≥6 | 3 | 6.8 | 1.35 (0.49–3.74) | 0.558 | ||||
| Occupation | ||||||||
| Farmer | 5.1 | 6.3 | 1.00 (Reference) | – | 1.00 (Reference) | – | ||
| Merchant, services | 2.1 | 5.1 | 0.52 (0.14–1.89) | 0.322 | 0.59 (0.15–2.24) | 0.435 | ||
| Other wage labor | 0 | 0.8 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.999 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.999 | ||
| Housewife | 22.8 | 57.8 | 0.49 (0.22–1.12) | 0.091 | 0.45 (0.19–1.05) | 0.064 | ||
| Household characteristics | ||||||||
| Possession of goods | 3.53 ± 1.74 | 3.59 ± 1.82 | 0.98 (0.84–1.15) | 0.819 | ||||
a The variables that were associated with maternal-child double burden in the univariate analysis (p < 0.1) were entered into multivariate analysis; SD: Standard deviation; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Association of double burden with dietary patterns.
| Child Diet | Maternal Diet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||||
| Model 1 a | Modern | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Q2–Q3 | 1.07 (0.55–2.09) | 0.847 | 0.99 (0.50–1.95) | 0.972 | ||
| Q4 | 0.92 (0.42–2.03) | 0.841 | 0.92 (0.42–2.03) | 0.840 | ||
| High-animal products | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | |
| Q2–Q3 | 0.79 (0.41–1.51) | 0.479 | 1.36 (0.68–2.71) | 0.381 | ||
| Q4 | 0.48 (0.21–1.07) | 0.073 | 0.92 (0.40–2.08) | 0.834 | ||
| Model 2 b | Modern | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Q2–Q3 | 1.12 (0.57–2.21) | 0.740 | 1.01 (0.51–2.02) | 0.972 | ||
| Q4 | 0.98 (0.44–2.16) | 0.949 | 0.92 (0.40–2.11) | 0.839 | ||
| High-animal products | Q1 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | |
| Q2–Q3 | 0.81 (0.42–1.57) | 0.786 | 1.45 (0.72–2.95) | 0.300 | ||
| Q4 | 0.46 (0.21–1.04) | 0.064 | 1.01 (0.43–2.33) | 0.991 | ||
a Unadjusted; b Adjusted for child’s age and mother’s occupation, which were significantly associated with maternal-child double burden (Table 6); OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.