| Literature DB >> 27293557 |
Dieu T T Huynh1, Elvira Estorninos2, Maria Rosario Capeding2, Jeffery S Oliver3, Yen Ling Low1, Francisco J Rosales3.
Abstract
Nutrient deficiencies during childhood have adverse effects on child growth and health. In a single-arm 48-week long-term intervention, we previously reported the efficacy of oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) and dietary counselling on catch-up growth and growth maintenance in nutritionally at-risk Filipino children. The present analysis was done to assess the contributing effects of ONS to nutritional adequacy, dietary diversity, food intake and longitudinal growth. ONS (450 ml) was consumed daily providing 450 kcal (1880 kJ) and at least 50 % of micronutrient requirements among 200 children aged 3-4 years with weight-for-height percentiles between 5th and 25th (WHO Growth Standards). Weight, height and dietary intakes using 24-h food recalls were measured at baseline, and at weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48. Nutrient adequacy and dietary diversity score (DDS) were calculated. Generalised estimating equations were used to assess the effects of total nutrient intakes, DDS, ONS compliance and sociodemographic factors on longitudinal growth. The percentages of children with adequate intake of energy, protein, Fe, Ca and some vitamins at each post-baseline visit were improved from baseline, reaching 100 % for most nutrients. DDS was also increased from baseline and reached significance from week 16 onwards (P < 0·01). Male children, total energy intake and parental employment status were associated with weight-for-height percentile gain (P < 0·05), whereas higher parental education level and ONS compliance were significantly associated with height-for-age percentile gain over time (P < 0·05). Long-term ONS intervention did not interfere with normal food intake and helped promote nutritional adequacy and growth of Filipino children.Entities:
Keywords: DDS, dietary diversity score; Dietary diversity; FNRI, Food and Nutrition Research Institute; GEE, generalised estimating equation; HAP, height-for-age percentile; IDES, Individual Dietary Evaluation Software; Long-term supplementation; Longitudinal growth; Nutritional adequacy; ONS, oral nutritional supplementation; Oral nutritional supplementation; WHP, weight-for-height percentile
Year: 2016 PMID: 27293557 PMCID: PMC4891560 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2016.6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Fig. 1.Percentage of children with adequate nutrient intakes at baseline (░), and at weeks 4 (), 32 (=) and 48 (■). P values are from McNemar's test and controlled for multiple comparisons using step-down Bonferroni adjustment: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01, *** P ≤ 0·0001. † McNemar's test could not be performed since all values were adequate.
Fig. 2.Food group consumption at baseline (■) and each post-baseline visit: week 4 (×); week 16 (=); week 32 (▒); week 48 (░). P values are from McNemar's test and controlled for multiple comparisons using step-down Bonferroni adjustment: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01, *** P ≤ 0·0001.
Fig. 3.Mean dietary diversity score (DDS) at baseline and each post-baseline visit. , With milk or milk products/oral nutritional supplement (ONS); , without milk or milk products/ONS. P values are from the signed-rank test and controlled for multiple comparisons using step-down Bonferroni adjustment: * P = 0·0011, ** P = 0·008, *** P ≤ 0·0001, † P = 0·068.
Fig. 4.Percentage of children consuming a diet following the recommended macronutrient distribution at baseline and each post-baseline visit. P values are from McNemar's test and controlled for multiple comparisons using step-down Bonferroni adjustment: * P < 0·01, ** P < 0·001.
Generalised estimating equation (GEE) model of factors associated with weight-for-height percentile over the 1-year period (Estimates and 95 % confidence intervals)
| Factors | Estimate | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 14·37 | −7·85, 36·59 | 0·2050 |
| Visit | |||
| Baseline | 0 | ||
| Week 4 | 13·71 | 10·69, 16·73 | <0·0001 |
| Week 8 | 15·18 | 11·80, 18·56 | <0·0001 |
| Week 16 | 16·11 | 12·25, 19·97 | <0·0001 |
| Week 24 | 16·01 | 12·29, 19·73 | <0·0001 |
| Week 32 | 15·46 | 11·03, 19·89 | <0·0001 |
| Week 40 | 15·93 | 11·49, 20·37 | <0·0001 |
| Week 48 | 15·00 | 10·60, 19·40 | <0·0001 |
| Age at baseline (months) | 0·18 | −0·35, 0·71 | 0·5091 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 0 | ||
| Female | −2·19 | −4·24, −0·14 | 0·0365 |
| Highest parental occupation | |||
| Unemployed | 0 | ||
| Self-employed | −8·64 | −15·86, −1·42 | 0·0191 |
| Government or military | −14·21 | −22·65, −5·77 | 0·0010 |
| Private sector | −7·96 | −13·38, −2·55 | 0·0039 |
| Visit × sex interaction | |||
| Baseline × male | 0 | ||
| Baseline × female | 0 | ||
| Week 4 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 4 × female | −4·42 | −8·31, −0·53 | 0·0260 |
| Week 8 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 8 × female | −3·20 | −7·61, 1·21 | 0·1546 |
| Week 16 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 16 × female | −3·34 | −8·09, 1·42 | 0·1690 |
| Week 24 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 24 × female | −4·31 | −8·90, 0·28 | 0·0658 |
| Week 32 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 32 × female | −6·41 | −11·77, −1·04 | 0·0192 |
| Week 40 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 40 × female | −4·92 | −10·62, 0·79 | 0·0912 |
| Week 48 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 48 × female | −4·58 | −10·37, 1·20 | 0·1205 |
| Energy intake (100 kcal) | 0·25 | 0·09, 0·41 | 0·0027 |
* P value is from the GEE analysis.
Generalised estimating equation (GEE) model of factors associated with height-for-age percentile over the 1-year period (Estimates and 95 % confidence intervals)
| Factors | Estimate | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −82·75 | −186·54, 21·05 | 0·1182 |
| Visit | |||
| Baseline | 0 | ||
| Week 4 | 0·12 | −0·56, 0·80 | 0·7246 |
| Week 8 | 1·03 | −0·11, 2·18 | 0·0776 |
| Week 16 | 2·16 | 0·70, 3·63 | 0·0038 |
| Week 24 | 2·88 | 1·31, 4·45 | 0·0003 |
| Week 32 | 3·43 | 1·73, 5·12 | <0·0001 |
| Week 40 | 3·74 | 1·95, 5·54 | <0·0001 |
| Week 48 | 3·99 | 1·82, 6·17 | 0·0003 |
| Age at baseline (months) | −0·72 | −1·34, −0·11 | 0·0214 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 0 | ||
| Female | −0·90 | −5·68, 3·89 | 0·7130 |
| Highest parental education | |||
| High school | 0 | ||
| College/university or higher | 4·95 | 0·35, 9·54 | 0·0348 |
| Visit × sex interaction | |||
| Baseline × male | 0 | ||
| Baseline × female | 0 | ||
| Week 4 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 4 × female | −0·39 | −1·31, 0·53 | 0·4080 |
| Week 8 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 8 × female | −0·88 | −2·33, 0·58 | 0·2372 |
| Week 16 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 16 × female | −1·59 | −3·61, 0·42 | 0·1217 |
| Week 24 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 24 × female | −1·56 | −3·69, 0·57 | 0·1505 |
| Week 32 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 32 × female | −1·78 | −3·95, 0·40 | 0·1089 |
| Week 40 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 40 × female | −2·01 | −4·27, 0·25 | 0·0816 |
| Week 48 × male | 0 | ||
| Week 48 × female | −2·44 | −5·09, 0·21 | 0·0714 |
| Overall ONS compliance | 1·25 | 0·18, 2·32 | 0·0221 |
ONS, oral nutritional supplementation.
* P value is from the GEE analysis.