Following the publication of this article [1] it was brought to our attention that there is a recurring error in the ‘Results’ section of the ‘Abstract’ and the ‘Stunting’ section of the ‘Results’.The sentence: “…children were five times (OR: 5.5; CI: 3.37, 9.02; β = 1.71) more likely to be stunted at non-NIP sites compared to non-NIP sites” should instead read: “… children were five times more likely to be stunted at non-NIP sites compared to NIP sites”.