| Literature DB >> 27846828 |
Kate Reinsma1, Godlove Nkuoh2, Emmanuel Nshom3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the recent international focus on maternal and child nutrition, little attention is paid to nutrition capacity development. Although infant feeding counselling by health workers increases caregivers' knowledge, and improves breastfeeding, complementary feeding, and children's linear growth, most of the counselling in sub-Saharan Africa is primarily conducted by nurses or volunteers, and little is done to develop capacity for nutrition at the professional, organizational, or systemic levels. The Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services Nutrition Improvement Program (NIP) has integrated a cadre of nutrition counselors into prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV programs, infant welfare clinics, and antenatal clinics to improve infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF). The study objective was to evaluate the effects of NIP's infant feeding counselors on exclusive breastfeeding (EBF), complementary feeding (CF), and children's linear growth.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27846828 PMCID: PMC5109805 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1899-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Data Collection
Participants with Selected Demographic Characteristics
| Caregivers with Children 0-5 Months | |||
| NIP = 61 | Non-NIP = 75 |
| |
| Marital Status | |||
| Married/Cohabitating | (51) 85% | (57) 76% | 0.19 |
| Singe/Widowed | (9) 15% | (18) 24% | |
| Biological Mother or Father | |||
| Yes | (57) 93.4% | (65) 86.7% | 0.20 |
| No | (4) 6.6% | (10) 13.3% | |
| Gender of Caregiver | |||
| Male | (0) 0% | (1) 1.3% | 0.36 |
| Female | (61) 100% | (74) 98.7% | |
| Religiona | |||
| Muslim | (10) 16.7% | (1) 1.3% | 0.00 |
| Christian | (50) 83.3% | (74) 98.7% | |
| Other | |||
| Occupationa | |||
| Self-employed | (18) 29.5% | (31) 41.3% | 0.02 |
| Civil Servant/Business | (6) 9.8% | (12) 16% | |
| Health worker | (10) 16.4% | (1) 1.3% | |
| Student | (7) 11.5% | (10) 13.3% | |
| Housewife/Farmer | (20) 32.8% | (21) 28% | |
| Location | |||
| Urban | (27) 44.3% | (35) 46.7% | 0.78 |
| Rural | (34) 55.7% | (40) 53.3% | |
| Region | |||
| Northwest | (41) 67.2% | (50) 66.7% | 0.95 |
| Southwest | (20) 32.8% | (25) 33.3% | |
| Child attended IWC elsewhere | |||
| Yes | (27) 44.3% | (26) 34.7% | 0.25 |
| No | (34) 55.7% | (49) 65.3% | |
| Mean Age of Caregiver | |||
| 27.2 | 27.33 | 0.89 | |
| Mean Sum of Economic Variable | |||
| 1.75 | 1.87 | 0.57 | |
| Mean number of years of education | |||
| 11.74 | 10.44 | 0.39 | |
| Number of months planning to breastfeeda | |||
| 21.88 | 13.28 | 0.02 | |
| Caregivers with Children 6-8 Months | |||
| NIP = 293 | Non-NIP = 340 |
| |
| Marital Status | |||
| Married/Cohabitating | (234) 81% | (269) 79.4% | 0.61 |
| Singe/Widowed | (55) 19% | (70) 20.6% | |
| Biological Mother or Fatherb | |||
| Yes | (263) 93.3% | (327) 97% | 0.03 |
| No | (19) 6.7% | (10) 3% | |
| Gender of Caregiver | |||
| Male | (3) 1% | (5) 1.5% | 0.73 |
| Female | (290) 99% | (335) 98.5% | |
| Religionb | |||
| Muslim | (71) 24.7% | (4) 1.2% | 0.00 |
| Christian | (215) 74.9% | (332) 98.8% | |
| Other | (1) .3% | (0) 0% | |
| Occupationb | |||
| Self-employed | (91) 31.1% | (160) 47.3% | 0.00 |
| Civil Servant/Business | (28) 9.6% | (58) 17.2% | |
| Health worker | (7) 2.4% | (3) 0.9% | |
| Student | (28) 9.6% | (47) 13.9% | |
| Housewife/Farmer | (139) 47.4% | (70) 20.7% | |
| Locationb | |||
| Urban | (180) 61.4% | (244) 71.8% | 0.01 |
| Rural | (113) 38.6% | (96) 28.2% | |
| Region | |||
| Northwest | (201) 68.6% | (241)70.9% | 0.53 |
| Southwest | (92) 31.4% | (99) 29.1% | |
| Child attended IWC elsewhereb | |||
| Yes | (68) 23.2% | (36) 10.6% | 0.00 |
| No | (225) 76.8% | (304) 89.4% | |
| Mean Age of Caregiver | |||
| 27.52 | 27.15 | 0.23 | |
| Mean Sum of Economic Variableb | |||
| 1.68 | 1.92 | 0.00 | |
| Mean number of years of education | |||
| 10.29 | 11.12 | 0.42 | |
| Number of months planning to breastfeedb | |||
| 29.59 | 20.93 | 0.00 | |
aSignificant difference between caregivers with children 0–5 months at NIP and non-NIP sites, p < .05
bSignificant difference between caregivers with children 6–8 months at NIP and non-NIP sites, p < .05
Differences in Exclusive Breastfeeding, Wasting, Stunting, and Complementary Feeding in Children 0–5 and 6–8 Months
| Children 0–5 months | ||
| NIP = 61 | Non-NIP = 75 | ( |
| Exclusive Breastfeeding | ||
| (55) 90.2% | (42) 56% | (19.36) 0.00a |
| Wasting | ||
| (5) 8.2% | (0) 0% | (4.87) 0.03b |
| Stunting | ||
| (13) 21.3% | (26) 34.7% | – |
| Complementary Feeding | ||
| – | – | – |
| Children 6–8 months | ||
| NIP = 293 | Non-NIP = 340 | ( |
| Exclusive Breastfeeding | ||
| – | – | – |
| Wasting | ||
| (8) 2.7% | (9) 2.6% | (0.00) 0.95 |
| Stunting | ||
| (37) 12.6% | (164) 48.2% | (92.08) 0.00c |
| Complementary Feeding | ||
| (208) 71% | (232) 68.2% | (0.56) 0.45 |
aSignificant for children 0–5 months at p < .00
bSignificant for children 0–5 months at p < .05
cSignificant for children 6–8 months at p < .00
Logistic Regression Estimates and 95% CIs for Stunting, Wasting, and Exclusive Breastfeeding for Children 0–5 months
| B (CI) | SE |
| Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | ||||
| Exclusive | 1.94 [1.10, 3.25]** | 0 | 0.00 | 6.94 [2.66, 18.12] |
| Wastingb | −18.82 [−19.64, −17.25]** | 0.54 | 0.00 | 0 |
| Stuntingc | 0.73 [0.02, 1.60] | 0.41 | 0.06 | 2.08 [0.94, 4.59] |
| Adjusted | ||||
| Exclusive | 1.94 [1.04, 3.93]** | 1.25 | 0.00 | 6.97 [2.30, 21.09] |
| Wastingb |
| 19.84 | 0.05 | 0.00 [0.00, 0.00] |
| Stuntingc | 0.73 [−0.21, 1.97] | 0.55 | 0.15 | 2.07 [0.82, 5.23] |
Adjusted for occupation, religion, number of months planning to breastfeed
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, SE standard error
** p < 0.001
aBase for exclusive breastfeeding is health worker, Christian, non-NIP
bBase for wasting is farmer/housewife, Christian, and NIP
cBase for stunting is health worker, Muslim, NIP
Logistic Regression Estimates and 95% CIs for Stunting, Wasting, and Complementary Feeding for Children 6–8 months
| B (CI) | SE |
| Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | ||||
| Wastinga | −0.20 [−1.36, .98] | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.82 [0.30, 2.21] |
| Stuntingb | 1.89 [1.49, 2.38]** | 0.23 | 0.00 | 6.62 [4.30, 10.18] |
| Complementary Feedingc | 0.07 [−0.27, .42] | 0.17 | 0.64 | 1.08 [0.75, 1.53] |
| Adjusted | ||||
| Wastinga | 0.26 [−1.57, 2.56] | 1.02 | 0.79 | 1.30 [0.37, 4.65] |
| Stuntingb | 1.71 [1.23, 2.32]** | 0.28 | 0.00 | 5.52 [3.37, 9.02] |
| Complementary Feedingc | 0.09 [−0.36, 0.57] | 0.22 | 0.65 | 1.09 [0.72, 1.66] |
Adjusted for occupation, religion, number of months planning to breastfeed, attended IWC elsewhere, Biological Mother or Father, urban location, economic status
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, SE standard error
** p < 0.001
aBase for wasting is student, Christian, Biological Mother, Rural location, NIP, attended IWC elsewhere
bBase for stunting is health worker, Christian, Biological Mother, Urban location, NIP, did not attend IWC elsewhere
cBase for complementary feeding is student, Christian, Biological Mother, Rural location, non-NIP, attended IWC elsewhere