| Literature DB >> 27016544 |
Altrena G Mukuria1, Stephanie L Martin2, Thaddeus Egondi3, Allison Bingham4, Faith M Thuita5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We designed and tested an intervention that used dialogue-based groups to engage infants' fathers and grandmothers to support optimal infant feeding practices. The study's aim was to test the effectiveness of increased social support by key household influencers on improving mothers' complementary feeding practices.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27016544 PMCID: PMC4807749 DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract ISSN: 2169-575X
FIGURE 1.Conceptual Model of Social Support Provided to Mothers Affecting Maternal, Infant, and Young Child Nutrition Practices
Cultural beliefs are mitigated by information and education on optimal nutrition practices. Provision of social support along with improved information and education of influencers (i.e., fathers and grandmothers) can impact maternal, infant, and young child feeding practices both indirectly by supporting mothers and directly by the influencers implementing optimal feeding practices themselves.
FIGURE 2.Study Timeline
Source: Thuita et al., 2015 31
Sample Sizes at Baseline and Endline, by Type of Participant
| Study Areas | No. of Participants | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mothers | Grandmothers | Fathers | Total | |||||
| Baseline | Endline | Baseline | Endline | Baseline | Endline | Baseline | Endline | |
| Father intervention area (Kitagwa) | 92 | 70 | NA | NA | 85 | 75 | 177 | 145 |
| Grandmother intervention area (Viguru) | 77 | 71 | 79 | 81 | NA | NA | 156 | 152 |
| Comparison area (Mambai) | 89 | 76 | 86 | 73 | 46 | 63 | 221 | 212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Expected sample (69 participants/group) | 207 | 138 | 138 | 483 | ||||
Baseline Characteristics of Study Sample Mothers
| Father Intervention Area (Kitagwa) n = 92 | Grandmother Intervention Area (Viguru) n = 77 | Comparison Area (Mambai) n = 89 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of mother, mean, years | 27.2 | 27.5 | 26.5 | .63 |
| Sex of child is male, % | 48.9 | 53.2 | 53.9 | .77 |
| Age of child, % | ||||
| 6 months | 37.0 | 31.2 | 29.5 | .27 |
| 7 months | 15.2 | 18.2 | 22.7 | |
| 8 months | 26.1 | 16.9 | 15.9 | |
| 9 months | 21.7 | 33.8 | 31.8 | |
| Parity, % | ||||
| 1 | 25.0 | 15.6 | 33.0 | .14 |
| 2–3 | 39.1 | 40.3 | 34.8 | |
| 4+ | 35.9 | 44.2 | 32.9 | |
| Marital status, % | ||||
| Married (ever) | 100.0 | 88.2 | 78.7 | .001 |
| Single/never married | 0.0 | 11.8 | 21.4 | |
| Mother’s education, % | ||||
| Primary completed | 38.5 | 48.1 | 55.1 | .001 |
| Secondary completed | 11.0 | 7.8 | 21.4 | |
| Mother’s occupation, % | ||||
| Subsistence farmer | 34.8 | 46.1 | 30.6 | .32 |
| Homemaker (no outside work) | 33.7 | 30.3 | 38.8 | |
| Outside work | 31.5 | 23.7 | 30.6 | |
| Spouse’s age, mean, years | 32.9 | 33.2 | 33.4 | .57 |
| Spouse’s education, % | ||||
| Primary completed | 31.3 | 47.1 | 48.6 | .03 |
| Secondary completed | 21.7 | 16.2 | 27.1 | |
| Spouse’s occupation, % | ||||
| Subsistence farmer | 18.7 | 30.9 | 16.9 | .09 |
| Employed | 81.3 | 69.1 | 83.1 | |
| Socioeconomic status, % | ||||
| Lowest quartile | 31.5 | 36.4 | 32.6 | .83 |
| Middle quartile | 31.5 | 31.2 | 37.1 | |
| Highest quartile | 37.0 | 32.5 | 30.3 |
Changes in Mothers’ Reported Infant Feeding Practices, by Intervention Area: Difference-in-Difference Analysis
| Father Intervention Area (Kitagwa) | Grandmother Intervention Area (Viguru) | Comparison Area (Mambai) | Father vs. Comparison Area | Grandmother vs. Comparison Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DiD | OR | DiD | OR | ||||||
| Adequate consistency of food consumed, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (32.2) | 77 (30.3) | 89 (31.4) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (68.1) | 71 (88.7) | 76 (45.8) | 21.5 | 2.4 | .06 | 44.0 | 9.8 | .001 |
| Minimum no. of meals provided in past 24 hours, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (71.7) | 77 (77.9) | 89 (64.0) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (70.0) | 71 (77.5) | 76 (64.5) | -2.2 | 1.3 | .59 | -0.9 | 1.5 | .47 |
| Dietary diversity (≥4 food groups), No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (44.6) | 77 (48.1) | 89 (44.9) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (85.7) | 71 (81.7) | 76 (72.4) | 13.6 | 2.3 | .11 | 6.1 | 1.5 | .42 |
| Minimum acceptable diet, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (39.1) | 77 (40.3) | 89 (31.5) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (58.6) | 71 (60.6) | 76 (46.1) | 4.9 | 1.2 | .71 | 5.7 | 1.2 | .66 |
| Animal-source foods consumed on ≥3 days in past 7 days, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (9.8) | 77 (14.3) | 89 (11.2) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (41.4) | 71 (42.3) | 76 (11.8) | 31.0 | 6.1 | .005 | 27.4 | 4.1 | .03 |
Abbreviations: DiD, difference-in-difference; OR, odds ratio.
Changes in Reported Social Support, by Intervention Area: Difference-in-Difference Analysis
| Father Intervention Area (Kitagwa) | Grandmother Intervention Area (Viguru) | Comparison Area (Mambai) | Father vs. Comparison Area | Grandmother vs. Comparison Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DiD | OR | DiD | OR | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| No. of support actions received, median | |||||||||
| Baseline | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
| Endline | 10.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | – | – | 4.0 | – | – |
| Any social support received, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (97.8) | 77 (94.8) | 89 (96.6) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (100.0) | 71 (100.0) | 76 (94.7) | 4.1 | – | – | 7.1 | – | – |
| 5+ social support actions received, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 92 (65.2) | 77 (58.4) | 89 (66.3) | ||||||
| Endline | 70 (97.1) | 71 (97.2) | 76 (72.4) | 25.8 | 13.6 | .002 | 32.7 | 18.4 | .001 |
|
| |||||||||
| Any social support provided by fathers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 85 (88.2) | NA | 46 (84.8) | ||||||
| Endline | 75 (100.0) | NA | 63 (90.5) | 6.1 | – | – | NA | NA | NA |
| 5+ social support actions provided by fathers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 85 (63.5) | NA | 46 (54.3) | ||||||
| Endline | 75 (98.7) | NA | 63 (52.4) | 37.1 | 46.0 | .001 | NA | NA | NA |
| 5+ physical support actions provided by fathers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 85 (18.8) | NA | 46 (21.7) | ||||||
| Endline | 75 (96.0) | NA | 63 (44.4) | 54.5 | 35.9 | .001 | NA | NA | NA |
| 3+ material support actions provided by fathers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 85 (38.8) | NA | 46 (45.7) | ||||||
| Endline | 75 (96.0) | NA | 63 (69.8) | 33.0 | 13.7 | .001 | NA | NA | NA |
|
| |||||||||
| Any social support provided by grandmothers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | NA | 79 (86.1) | 86 (94.2) | ||||||
| Endline | NA | 81 (97.5) | 73 (97.3) | NA | NA | NA | 8.4 | 2.9 | .36 |
| 5+ social support actions provided by grandmothers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | NA | 79 (60.8) | 86 (67.4) | ||||||
| Endline | NA | 81 (90.1) | 73 (86.3) | NA | NA | NA | 10.4 | 1.9 | .27 |
| 5+ physical support actions provided by grandmothers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | NA | 79 (60.8) | 86 (67.4) | ||||||
| Endline | NA | 81 (64.2) | 73 (38.4) | NA | NA | NA | 36.6 | 4.4 | .002 |
| 3+ material support actions provided by grandmothers, No. (%) | |||||||||
| Baseline | NA | 79 (10.1) | 86 (23.3) | ||||||
| Endline | NA | 81 (72.8) | 73 (57.5) | NA | NA | NA | 28.4 | 5.3 | .003 |
Abbreviations: DiD, difference-in-difference; OR, odds ratio.
(–): No values reported either because the indicator is reported in terms of median or because there is 100% response; in either case, logistic regression cannot be fitted.
Influence of Reported Social Support Received by Mothers on Infant Feeding Practices
| Min. No. of Meals | Min. Dietary Diversity | Min. Acceptable Diet | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (CI) |
| OR |
| OR (CI) |
| |
| No. of social support actions | 1.14 (1.00, 1.30) | .047 | 1.07 (0.95, 1.21) | .24 | 1.06 (0.94, 1.20) | .32 |
| Study site; ref: comparison area (Mambai) | ||||||
| Father intervention area (Kitagwa) | 2.94 (0.98, 8.83) | .055 | 0.4 (0.14, 1.15) | .09 | 0.95 (0.33, 2.71) | .92 |
| Grandmother intervention area (Viguru) | 5.07 (1.56, 16.50) | .007 | 0.38 (0.13, 1.13) | .08 | 1.00 (0.35, 2.90) | .99 |
| Support * Father intervention area | 0.85 (0.73, 1.00) | .045 | 1.15 (0.98, 1.34) | .08 | 1.04 (0.90, 1.21) | .58 |
| Support * Grandmother intervention area | 0.82 (0.70, 0.97) | .02 | 1.19 (1.01, 1.40) | .04 | 1.06 (0.91, 1.23) | .48 |
Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.The first row (number of social support actions) indicates the effect of increasing social support in all 3 study groups on the selected infant feeding practices. The second row (study site) compares the effect on infant feeding practices of the father intervention area vs. the comparison area and the grandmother intervention area vs. the comparison area, without specifically taking into account social support. The last set of rows (support * father intervention area; support * grandmother intervention area) takes into account the interaction effects of both intervention area and social support on infant feeding practices.
| Grandmother Dialogue Groups | Father Dialogue Groups |
|---|---|
|
Role of grandmothers in infant and young child feeding and maternal nutrition Overview of maternal and infant and young child nutrition and the local health situation Eating during pregnancy and breastfeeding Early initiation of breastfeeding Exclusive breastfeeding Complementary feeding Preparing food safely Responsive feeding What to do when a child falls ill Mother-to-child transmission of HIV Infant feeding and HIV Supporting mothers with HIV and their families (including referrals and promoting health seeking) Facilitation skills Effective family communication Infant feeding beliefs and myths |
Understanding gender Gender roles: behaviors and division of labor and child care in the home Healthy and unhealthy relationships Effective communication Thinking about fatherhood Family care Poor child health “problem tree” What your family eats Understanding maternal and child nutrition Supporting good infant feeding practices during the first 6 months of life Complementary feeding What to do when your child falls ill Mother-to-child transmission of HIV Infant feeding and HIV Disclosure of HIV status (role plays) Men, women, and caregiving Men’s role in health promotion |