| Literature DB >> 29404332 |
Gamuchirai Chakona1, Charlie M Shackleton1.
Abstract
The burden of food insecurity and malnutrition is a severe problem experienced by many poor households and children under the age of five are at high risk. The objective of the study was to examine household food insecurity, dietary diversity, and child nutritional status in relation to local context which influences access to and ability to grow food in South Africa and explore the links and associations between these and household socio-economic status. Using a 48-h dietary recall method, we interviewed 554 women from randomly selected households along a rural-urban continuum in three towns situated along an agro-ecological gradient. The Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) and the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) tools were used to measure household dietary diversity and food insecurity, respectively. Anthropometric measurements with 216 children (2-5 years) from the sampled households were conducted using height-for-age and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) as indicators of stunting and wasting, respectively. The key findings were that mean HDDS declined with decreasing agro-ecological potential from the wettest site (8.44 ± 1.72) to the other two drier sites (7.83 ± 1.59 and 7.76 ± 1.63). The mean HFIAS followed the opposite trend. Stunted growth was the dominant form of malnutrition detected in 35% of children and 18% of children were wasted. Child wasting was greatest at the site with lowest agro-ecological potential. Children from households with low HDDS had large MUAC which showed an inverse association among HDDS and obesity. Areas with agro-ecological potential had lower prevalence of food insecurity and wasting in children. Agro-ecological potential has significant influence on children's nutritional status, which is also related to household food security and socio-economic status. Dependence on food purchasing and any limitations in households' income, access to land and food, can result in different forms of malnutrition in children. Responses to address malnutrition in South Africa need to be prioritized and move beyond relying on food security and nutritional-specific interventions, but rather on nutrition-specific and sensitive programs and approaches; and building an enabling environment. Land availability, agriculture (including climate-smart agriculture especially in drier areas), and wild foods usage should be promoted.Entities:
Keywords: agro-ecological gradient; dietary diversity; food insecurity; malnutrition; rural–urban continuum; stunting; wasting; wild foods
Year: 2018 PMID: 29404332 PMCID: PMC5786884 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2017.00072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Location of study sites [adopted from Ref. (47)].
Figure 2South Africa’s agricultural regions.
Comparison of household characteristics in study sites [adopted from Chakona and Shackleton (47)].
| Variable | Richards Bay ( | Dundee ( | Harrismith ( | All ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent age (mean ± SD) (years) | 29 ± 9.0 | 33 ± 10.8 | 33 ± 9.9 | 32 ± 10 | |||
| Household size (mean ± SD) (number of people) | 7 ± 4.6 | 8 ± 4.2 | 6 ± 2.2 | 7 ± 4 | |||
| Male | 42 | 36 | 47 | 42 | |||
| Female | 58 | 64 | 53 | 58 | |||
| None | 41 | 20 | 9 | 23 | |||
| One income | 49 | 59 | 72 | 60 | |||
| Two or more incomes | 10 | 21 | 19 | 17 | |||
| Food expenditure (mean ± SD) (rand/week) | 196 ± 180 | 333 ± 253 | 323 ± 271 | 284 ± 246 | |||
| Wealth index | 2.6 ± 0.6 | 2.3 ± 1.0 | 2.5 ± 0.9 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | |||
| Households with land for own production (%) | 73 | 57 | 27 | 52 | |||
Figure 3Percentage of households consuming different food groups in three towns of South Africa.
Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) and the percentage of households with low, medium, and high HDDS in study sites (unlike superscripts indicate significant differences).
| Town | HDDS (mean ± SD) | Location | HDDS (mean ± SD) | Percentage of households | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Medium | High | ||||
| Richards Bay | 8.44 ± 1.72a | Urban | 8.43 ± 1.45a | 2 | 23 | 75 |
| Peri-urban | 8.26 ± 1.61a | 5 | 46 | 49 | ||
| Rural | 8.62 ± 1.33a | 2 | 21 | 78 | ||
| Dundee | 7.76 ± 1.63b | Urban | 8.18 ± 1.86a | 8 | 16 | 76 |
| Peri-urban | 7.57 ± 1.64a | 9 | 35 | 56 | ||
| Rural | 7.53 ± 1.55a | 7 | 45 | 48 | ||
| Harrismith | 7.83 ± 1.59b | Urban | 8.47 ± 1.26a | 4 | 18 | 78 |
| Peri-urban | 7.40 ± 1.64b | 9 | 42 | 48 | ||
| Rural | 7.60 ± 1.61b | 10 | 55 | 34 | ||
| All | 7.96 ± 1.60 | Urban | 8.38 ± 1.50a | 6 | 31 | 63 |
| Peri-urban | 7.73 ± 1.67b | |||||
| Rural | 7.93 ± 1.53b | |||||
Percentage of households who are food insecure and food secure classified using Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) (unlike superscripts indicate significant differences).
| Town | HFIAS (mean ± SD) | Location | HFIAS (mean ± SD) | Percentage of households | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severely food insecure | Moderately food insecure | Mildly food insecure | Food secure | ||||
| Richards Bay | 5.57 ± 6.98b | Urban | 3.02 ± 6.29a | 9 | 2 | 23 | 66 |
| Peri-urban | 5.49 ± 6.89a/b | 8 | 22 | 20 | 50 | ||
| Rural | 7.44 ± 7.07b | 14 | 19 | 35 | 32 | ||
| Dundee | 9.39 ± 7.13a | Urban | 5.37 ± 6.45a | 3 | 32 | 13 | 53 |
| Peri-urban | 11.37 ± 7.19b | 27 | 41 | 19 | 13 | ||
| Rural | 9.45 ± 6.67b | 15 | 42 | 30 | 13 | ||
| Harrismith | 6.43 ± 6.59b | Urban | 3.18 ± 6.02a | 4 | 16 | 7 | 73 |
| Peri-urban | 8.32 ± 6.46b | 13 | 36 | 29 | 21 | ||
| Rural | 6.74 ± 6.21b | 7 | 31 | 31 | 31 | ||
| Mean | 7.07 ± 7.06 | Urban | 3.74 ± 6.27a | 12 | 28 | 24 | 36 |
| Peri-urban | 8.38 ± 7.21b | ||||||
| Rural | 7.88 ± 6.67b | ||||||
Spearman correlations between Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) and Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and selected socio-economic indicators in the three towns studied (correlations are significant at p < 0.001a, p < 0.01b, and p < 0.05c).
| Town | HDDS vs. HFIAS | Household size | Food expenditure | Wealth index | Access to land | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richards Bay | −0.286c | HDDS | 0.054 | 0.101 | 0.132 | −0.038 |
| HFIAS | 0.068 | −0.058 | −0.096 | 0.141 | ||
| Dundee | −0.342b | HDDS | −0.077 | 0.337c | 0.278c | 0.079 |
| HFIAS | 0.195c | −0.354b | −0.337b | −0.057 | ||
| Harrismith | −0.474a | HDDS | −0.023 | 0.185b | 0.081 | 0.043 |
| HFIAS | −0.052 | −0.255a | −0.145a | −0.079 | ||
| All | −0.464b | HDDS | −0.058 | 0.066 | 0.109b | 0.132a |
| HFIAS | 0.050 | −0.073 | −0.105c | −0.038 | ||
Anthropometric measurements of children 2–5 years old and percentages of stunted and wasted children using height-for-age (HAZ) and mid-upper arm circumference, respectively (unlike superscripts indicate significant differences).
| Town/location | Mean ± SD | Severe stunting/wasting | Moderate stunting/wasting | Mild stunting/wasting | Normal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAZ | Richards Bay | −1.65 ± 1.88a | 23 | 22 | 19 | 36 |
| Dundee | −0.63 ± 1.83a | 10 | 13 | 16 | 61 | |
| Harrismith | −1.54 ± 2.18a | 25 | 14 | 13 | 48 | |
| Urban | −1.89 ± 1.32a | 24 | 19 | 10 | 48 | |
| Peri-urban | −0.82 ± 1.22a | 16 | 18 | 20 | 45 | |
| Rural | −0.68 ± 1.28a | 20 | 13 | 13 | 54 | |
| All | −0.93 ± 4.94 | 19 | 16 | 16 | 48 | |
| MUA C | Richards Bay | 159.4 ± 22.5a | 1 | 9 | 16 | 74 |
| Dundee | 151.6 ± 24.8a | 7 | 11 | 16 | 66 | |
| Harrismith | 145.0 ± 25.5b | 13 | 13 | 20 | 55 | |
| Urban | 149.8 ± 25.9a | 10 | 10 | 19 | 62 | |
| Peri-urban | 154.2 ± 26.1a | 5 | 15 | 13 | 66 | |
| Rural | 150.3 ± 23.2a | 9 | 5 | 21 | 65 | |
| All | 152.1 ± 24.9 | 7 | 11 | 17 | 65 | |