| Literature DB >> 29179758 |
Teklu Gemechu Abessa1,2, Liesbeth Bruckers3, Patrick Kolsteren4, Marita Granitzer5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies show that severe acute malnutrition (SAM) affects child development. However, to what extent SAM affects children of different ages at its acute stage is not well documented. This study was aimed at comparing the developmental performance of severely acutely malnourished children under six with that of age and gender-matched non-malnourished healthy children.Entities:
Keywords: Child development; Developmental performance; Severe acute malnutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29179758 PMCID: PMC5704634 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-017-0950-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Selection of study participants
Demographic characteristics [n(%)] of the participating children (N = 620)
| Nutritional status | Nutritional status | Nutritional status | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | SAMa | Healthyb | Characteristics | SAMa | Healthyb | Characteristics | SAMa | Healthyb |
| Sex | Ethnicity | Address | ||||||
|
| 155 (50) | 155 (50) |
| 15 (4.8) | 67 (21.6) |
| 52 (16.8) | – |
|
| 155 (50) | 155 (50) |
| 3 (0.97) | 38 (12.3) |
| 44 (14.2) | 310 (100) |
| Age group |
| 284 (91.6) | 132 (42.6) |
| 16 (5.2) | – | ||
|
| 12 (3.9) | 14 (4.5) |
| 1 (0.3) | 26 (8.4) |
| 39 (12.6) | – |
|
| 39 (12.6) | 49 (15.8) |
| 2 (0.6) | 14 (4.5) |
| 20 (6.5) | – |
|
| 53 (17.1) | 52 (16.8) |
| 0 (0) | 8 (2.6) |
| 42 (13.5) | – |
|
| 38 (12.3) | 36 (11.6) |
| 1 (0.3) | 2 (0.6) |
| 81 (26.1) | – |
|
| 30 (9.7) | 30 (9.7) |
| 3 (0.97) | 0 (0) |
| 10 (3.2) | – |
| 33–41 | 59 (19) | 53 (17.1) |
| 1 (0.3) | 12 (3.9) |
| 6 (1.9) | – |
| 42–53 | 52 (16.8) | 52 (16.8) |
| 0 (0) | 11 (3.5) | *SES | ||
| 54–65 | 27 (8.7) | 24 (7.7) | Maternal religion |
| 160 (51.6) | 9 (2.9) | ||
| Maternal education |
| 22 (7.1) | 134 (43.2) |
| 149 (48.1) | 289 (93.2) | ||
|
| 244 (78.7) | 26 (8.4) |
| 1 (0.3) | 46 (14.8) |
| 1 (0.3) | 12 (3.9) |
|
| 53 (17) | 123 (39.7) |
| 287 (92.6) | 113 (36.5) | |||
|
| 12 (3.9) | 149 (48) |
| 0 (0) | 6 (1.9) | |||
|
| 1 (0.3) | 12 (3.9) |
| 0 (0) | 11 (3.5) | |||
SAM a severely acute malnourished children, Healthy b non-malnourished children, mo month, *SES family socio-economic status through self-report by the caregiver
Three stepsb multivariable predictors of performance on five domains of child development
| Covariates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developmental Outcomes | eAge | Age2 | fNutri | Nutr#Age | Nutri#Age2 | |
| cFine motor | dIRR | 1.036 | 0.9997 | 0.7556 | 1.002 | – |
| 95%CI | [1.032, 1.039] | [0.9996, 0.9998] | [0.7094, 0.8047] | [1.001, 1.004] | – | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.008 | – | |
| cGross motor | dIRR | 1.042 | 0.9996 | 0.7263 | – | – |
| 95%CI | [1.038, 1.046] | [0.9996, 0.9997] | [0.7091, 0.7438] | – | – | |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | – | – | |
| cLanguage | dIRR | 1.050 | 0.9996a | 0.9778 | 0.9829 | 1.000a |
| 95%CI | [1.046, 1.054] | [0.9996, 0.9997] | [0.8610, 1.110] | [0.9753, 0.9906] | [1.000, 1.000] | |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.730 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| cPersonal social | dIRR | 1.053 | 0.9995 | 0.7015 | 1.006 | – |
| 95%CI | [1.049, 1.058] | [0.9994, 0.9996] | [0.6542, 0.7521] | [1.004, 1.007] | – | |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | – | |
| cSocial-emotional behavior | dIRR | 1.050 | 0.9995 | 3.087 | 0.9482 | 1.001a |
| 95%CI | [1.034, 1.067] | [0.9992, 0.9997] | [2.236, 4.261] | [0.9284, 0.9683] | [1.000, 1.001] | |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
a the estimate lies within the confidence interval when it is in five decimal digits
b Model in Step I analysis comprises age, sex and nutritional status of child, maternal religion; in step II, only significant terms in step I, age as a quadratic term, interactions of nutritional status with maternal religion, with age as a linear term and as a quadratic term were added to step I model; and in step III, non-significant terms in Step II model were dropped beginning from a non-significant interaction between nutritional status and age as a quadratic term
c Multivariable Poisson regression model was fitted; d Incident rate ratio, analogous to odds ratio, is obtained by exponentiating the coefficient in the Poisson model; e age of a child (in months); Age2, age squared
f ‘Nutri, nutritional status of child’: severely acute malnourished, coded as 1, ‘non-malnourished’ coded as 0 is a reference
Fig. 2Effects of nutritional status on (a)fine motor, (b) gross motor, (c) language, (d) personal social and (e) social-emotional development of under-six children
Fig. 3Developmental delay by SAM children on four domains compared to development of non-malnourished children
Social-emotional performance of SAM versus non-malnourished children at median ages on ASQ:SE
| aMedian age (in month) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 18 | 23.5 | 29.5 | 37.5 | 47.5 | 59.5 | |
| SAM children’s ASQ:SE score | 61.1 | 60.8 | 61.5 | 62.9 | 65.4 | 70.1 | 80.1 | 98.6 |
| bASQ:SE cutoff score | 45 | 48 | 50 | 50 | 57 | 59 | 70 | 70 |
| c Deviation from cutoff (%) | 16.1 (35.8%) | 12.8 (26.7%) | 11.5 (23%) | 12.9 (25.8%) | 8.4 (14.7%) | 11.1 (18.6%) | 10.1 (14.4%) | 28.6 (40.9%) |
| dDifference: SAM versus healthy | 34.5 (575%) | 27.3 (227.5%) | 20.6 (114.4%) | 15.5 (66%) | 11.6 (39.3%) | 10.5 (28%) | 18.1 (38.1%) | 42.3 (71.1%) |
ASQ:SE ages and stages questionnaires: social-emotional, SAM severely acutely malnourished
a The median of the age ranges on the eight age groups on ASQ:SE; b Child’s ASQ:SE score greater or equal to a cutoff score marks presence of problem behavior; c Deviation score is a distance of SAM child’s score from the cutoff score. Deviation percentage is calculated by dividing it by the cutoff score and then multiplying by hundred; d ‘Difference’ is calculated by referring to the healthy children (subtracting the social-emotional score of the non-malnourished children from that of SAM children); dividing the ‘difference’ by the median age at comparison and multiplying it by hundred gives its percentage
Delay in performance of SAM versus non-malnourished children at different ages on motor, language and personal social skills
| Age of SAM children | Delay (mo, %)a of SAM children | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine Motor | Gross Motor | Language | Personal Social | |
| 12 mo | 8 mo (200%) | 9 mo (300%) | 5 mo (71.4%) | 7 mo (140%) |
| 18 mo | 9 mo (100%) | 10 mo (125%) | 8 mo (80%) | 7 mo (63.6%) |
| 24 mo | 10 mo (71.4%) | 12 mo (100%) | 9 mo (60%) | 7 mo (41.2%) |
| 36 mo | 12 mo (50%) | 16 mo (80%) | 12 mo (50%) | 8 mo (28.6%) |
| 48 mo | 16 mo (50%) | 23 mo (92%) | 16 mo (50%) | 9 mo (23.1%) |
aThe delay in months (mo) is obtained for each domain by calculating the number of months SAM children lag behind to perform the same number of test items performed by the non-malnourished children. The percentage of delay is calculated by the delay score of the SAM children divided by the age at which non-malnourished children perform the same number of items multiplied by hundred