| Literature DB >> 29602868 |
Neena Shah More1, Anagha Waingankar1, Sudha Ramani1, Sheila Chanani1, Vanessa D'Souza1, Shanti Pantvaidya1, Armida Fernandez1, Anuja Jayaraman2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated an adaptation of a large-scale community-based management of acute malnutrition program run by an NGO with government partnerships, in informal settlements of Mumbai, India. The program aimed to reduce the prevalence of wasting among children under age 3 and covered a population of approximately 300,000.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29602868 PMCID: PMC5878065 DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract ISSN: 2169-575X
Overview of Program Activities
| Activity | Description of Activity |
|---|---|
| Growth monitoring | SNEHA and ICDS frontline health workers jointly mobilized caregivers to bring children to the Anganwadi centers for monthly growth monitoring. The weight and height of all children in the community ages 0 to 6 years was measured. SNEHA frontline health workers used a mobile application to calculate weight-for-height nutrition grades and track information for children under age 3. Monthly growth monitoring enabled SNEHA frontline health workers to screen for severely and moderately wasted children and identify children at risk, including children faltering into malnutrition. |
| Home visits by SNEHA frontline health workers | SNEHA frontline health workers visited the homes of pregnant women and specific target groups of children under age 3 (severely wasted, moderately wasted, 0–6 months of age, and sick children). Caregivers, typically mothers, were counseled on various topics, including nutritious food habits and choices, age-appropriate nutrition, lactation and weaning, immunization, hygiene, and access to health services. SNEHA frontline health workers were trained on the topics of counseling and effective communication skills. Each target group had a specific protocol for the nature and frequency of visits, and program officers monitored the frequency and quality of the home visits. |
| Community-based medical nutrition therapy distribution | Medical nutrition therapy is a nutrient-dense dietary supplement for treating severely malnourished children. The peanut- and milk-based preparation was provided by the MCGM NRRC. Severely wasted or severely underweight and wasted children ages 7 to 36 months who have passed an appetite test and had no medical complications were eligible for medical nutrition therapy. Children were screened for complications by a pediatrician at a health camp or the NRRC before medical nutrition therapy treatment was initiated. Children were typically prescribed an 8-week treatment protocol with doorstep delivery of supplements and monitoring of consumption by SNEHA frontline health workers. |
| Health camps | Periodic health camps were organized by SNEHA in community spaces where a pediatrician checked wasted and sick children referred by SNEHA frontline health workers. Doctors validated the nutrition grade of the child, screened for complications, treated illnesses, prescribed medical nutrition therapy, and referred children for inpatient care. Other children also accessed the camps for minor ailments. |
| Referrals for MCGM and ICDS health services | Health posts are primary health facilities run by MCGM and responsible for numerous health prevention and promotion activities including distribution of iron-folic acid tablets and vitamin A syrup, deworming drives, immunizations, and detection and treatment of tuberculosis, leprosy, and malaria. SNEHA frontline health workers referred cases of illness and immunization to health posts and facilitated participation in deworming and vitamin A drives. The NRRC health facility is a center for inpatient and outpatient management of children with severe acute malnutrition; the NRRC validated the anthropometry conducted by SNEHA frontline health workers, conducted appetite tests and prescribed medical nutrition therapy, admitted and treated children with minor complications, and further referred children with severe complications to LTMGH, the tertiary MCGM hospital. SNEHA frontline health workers also referred children for services provided by ICDS including cooked meals and take-home rations. |
| Group meetings and community events | Health behavior change activities were conducted in the community, in partnership with MCGM and ICDS, through games, group discussions, celebrations, cooking demonstrations, and screening of educational movies. Events included breastfeeding initiation ceremonies, baby shower celebrations, and International Breastfeeding and Nutrition week. Every 6 months, mothers whose children recovered and remained recovered from severe wasting were celebrated in the community. |
Abbreviations: ICDS, Integrated Child Development Services; LTMGH, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital; MCGM, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; NRRC, Nutrition Research and Rehabilitation Center; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
FIGURE 1.Organogram of SNEHA CMAM Program, January–March 2016
Abbreviations: CMAM, Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition; M&E, monitoring and evaluation; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
Data Collection Methods for the Qualitative Study
| Category | Details | Themes Explored |
|---|---|---|
| Senior staff | Program head (discussion), implementation management (n=3), health camp doctor (n=1) | General experiences with the program, its conceptualization and its components, changes in the program, perceived achievements and challenges, working in partnerships, and sustainability under different models of implementation. |
| Field team | SNEHA frontline health workers (n=6), SNEHA program officers (n=3) | Sharing typical work-week activities and roles played, experiences, perceived achievements and challenges faced, and case illustrations. |
| Community | Total interviews: 24 | Stories of interaction and familiarity with the program, perspectives (positive and negative) on various activities, suggestions for the program. |
| Field team (SNEHA frontline health workers) | 3 focus group discussions, with 6 SNEHA frontline health workers per group | Protocols, time allocation to different activities, interaction with the community, program officers, and senior management. |
| Home visits by SNEHA frontline health workers | Over 2-week period: 8 visits, approximately 20 minutes each | General processes, nuances of interaction with the community, process through which the SNEHA frontline health workers communicate information. |
| Growth monitoring | Over 2-week period: 4 sessions, half a day each | Growth monitoring process in the Anganwadi centers, community mobilization, and management of crowd during weighing and taking of measurements. |
| Site visit | NRRC and urban health post, 1-time observation | Crowd, physical infrastructure, placement of SNEHA staff at the NRRC, general familiarity of the field staff with the place. |
| Descriptive monitoring data | Already exists in the program | Size and coverage of the program—number of beneficiaries, number of children monitored, number of home visits recorded. |
| Case stories | Already existed in the program to document successful cases to promote best practices. About 140 stories were recorded in 2015; we selected 46 diverse cases, translated them into English, and analyzed them. | Interaction of the field team with caregivers, process of identification of malnutrition, intervention with the family. |
Abbreviation: SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
Household Demographics in Intervention and Comparison Areas at Endline, October–December 2015
| Intervention (N=3,455) | Comparison (N=2,122) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, months, mean | 16.3 | 16.8 |
| Female, % | 46.3 | 47.6 |
| Low birth weight (<2.5 kg), % | 21.5 | 21.3 |
| Education, % | ||
| Illiterate, primary, informal | 20.1 | 21.2 |
| Secondary (grades 5–10) | 56.7 | 57.7 |
| Higher secondary and above (grade 11 and above) | 23.2 | 21.0 |
| Not employed, % | 93.8 | 94.9 |
| Body mass index, mean | 22.8 | 22.3 |
| Place of birth, % | ||
| South India | 7.7 | 2.4 |
| North and Central India | 17.5 | 29.2 |
| East and Northeast India | 12.0 | 5.1 |
| West India | 14.5 | 25.9 |
| Mumbai | 48.4 | 37.4 |
| Age at marriage, mean | 20.3 | 19.9 |
| Years of residence in Mumbai, % | ||
| Less than 1 year | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| 1–5 years | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| 6 or more years | 92.1 | 93.3 |
| Treatment of drinking water, | 32.9 | 32.1 |
| PPI: Likelihood below US$2.16/day/PPP line, % | 71.4 | 73.7 |
| Private toilet, % | 20.4 | 15.8 |
| Food insecurity, | 21.7 | 18.1 |
| Religion, % | ||
| Muslim | 45.2 | 37.5 |
| Hindu | 49.9 | 57.1 |
| Other | 5.0 | 5.5 |
Abbreviations: PPI, Progress out of Poverty Index; PPP, purchasing power parity.
Pearson chi-square for categorical variables and t tests for means.
P≤.05; ** P≤.01; *** P≤.001.
Total sample sizes may vary due to missing values generated from data cleaning.
Treatment of drinking water includes chlorine, use of filter, solar disinfection, and boiling.
Question: “In the last month did you worry that your household would not have enough food?”
Wasting, Socioeconomic Status, and Coverage of Services in Intervention and Comparison Areas at Baseline (March–July 2014 for Intervention, September–November 2014 for Comparison) and Endline (October–December 2015)
| Baseline | Endline | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention (N=2,578) | Comparison (N=2,092) | Intervention (N=3,455) | Comparison (N=2,122) | |
| Wasting, % | 18.0 | 16.9 | 13.0 | 16.0 |
| Severe wasting, % | 3.8 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 3.9 |
| Moderate wasting, % | 14.2 | 13.6 | 10.6 | 12.1 |
| PPI: Likelihood below US$2.16/day/PPP line, % | 72.6 | 77.3 | 71.4 | 73.7 |
| Child received any service from SNEHA in previous month, % | 2.2 | 1.6 | 86.0 | 0.8 |
Abbreviations: PPI, Progress out of Poverty Index; PPP, purchasing power parity; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
Pearson chi-square tests comparing baseline intervention to baseline comparison areas and endline intervention to endline comparison areas.
P≤.05; ** P≤.01; *** P≤.001.
Total sample sizes may vary due to missing values.
Multi-Level Logistic Regression Analysis of Household Demographics Associated With Wasting at Endline, October–December 2015
| Null Model (N=5,524) | Unadjusted OR (N=5,524) | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β° (SE) | 0.154 (0.008) | 0.180 (0.013) | 1.122 (0.261) | 1.551 (0.798) | 0.673 (0.463) |
| Resides in intervention area | |||||
| Age, months | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | ||
| Female | |||||
| Birth weight | |||||
| Education | |||||
| Illiterate, primary, informal | 1 | 1 | |||
| Secondary (grades 5–10) | |||||
| Higher secondary (grade 11 and above) | 0.82 (0.62, 1.09) | ||||
| Not employed | 1.05 (0.67, 1.66) | 1.04 (0.66, 1.64) | |||
| Body mass index, mean | |||||
| Place of birth | |||||
| South India | 1 | 1 | |||
| North and Central India | 1.34 (0.87, 2.06) | 1.34 (0.86, 2.07) | |||
| East and Northeast India | |||||
| West India | 1.23 (0.80, 1.89) | 1.21 (0.78, 1.87) | |||
| Mumbai | 1.22 (0.82, 1.83) | 1.29 (0.86, 1.95) | |||
| Age at marriage, mean | 1.02 (0.995, 1.05) | ||||
| Years of residence in Mumbai | |||||
| Less than 1 year | 1 | ||||
| 1–5 years | 1.11 (0.52, 2.33) | ||||
| 6 or more years | 0.92 (0.47, 1.81) | ||||
| Treatment of drinking water | 0.89 (0.74, 1.08) | ||||
| PPI: Likelihood below the US$2.16/day/PPP line | |||||
| Private toilet | 0.89 (0.70, 1.14) | ||||
| Food insecurity | 1.09 (0.88, 1.35) | ||||
| Religion | |||||
| Muslim | 1 | ||||
| Hindu | |||||
| Other | 1.12 (0.73, 1.73) | ||||
| SD (SE) | 0.433 (0.061) | 0.416 (0.061) | 0.356 (0.072) | 0.330 (0.077) | 0.325 (0.078) |
| Intracluster correlation coefficient | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
Abbreviations: PPI, Progress out of Poverty Index; PPP, purchasing power parity; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.
Statistical significance is calculated using mixed-effects logistic regression models.
* P≤.05; ** P≤.01; *** P≤.001.
Model 1 adjusted for child characteristics; Model 2 adjusted for child and maternal characteristics; and Model 2 adjusted for child, maternal, and household characteristics.
Treatment of drinking water includes chlorine, use of filter, solar disinfection, and boiling.
Question: “In the last month did you worry that your household would not have enough food?”
Secondary Outcomes in Intervention Areas and Comparison Areas at Baseline (March–July 2014) and Endline (October–December 2015)
| Baseline | Endline | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Areas | Intervention Areas | Comparison Areas | ||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding (0–23 months) | 1899 | 37.0 | 2417 | 37.2 | 1424 | 49.5 |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 488 | 48.6 | 679 | 66.6 | 385 | 66.0 |
| Continued breastfeeding | 315 | 74.0 | 456 | 79.2 | 314 | 83.1 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 398 | 48.0 | 408 | 51.5 | 252 | 57.5 |
| Introduction of solid foods | 293 | 51.5 | 304 | 53.3 | 181 | 56.9 |
| Minimum dietary diversity (6–23 months) | 1502 | 26.9 | 1863 | 35.0 | 1115 | 30.5 |
| Consumed vitamin A-rich foods (6–23 months) | 1502 | 24.8 | 1863 | 20.5 | 1115 | 27.8 |
| Consumed iron-rich foods (6–23 months) | 1502 | 29.6 | 1863 | 40.1 | 1115 | 30.6 |
| Fully immunized (9–23 months) | 1208 | 79.3 | 1557 | 81.5 | 934 | 72.2 |
| Received at least 1 vitamin A supplement (9–23 months) | 1208 | 73.7 | 1557 | 81.2 | 934 | 71.3 |
| Child received any service from ICDS in previous month, % | 2578 | 29.0 | 3455 | 60.7 | 2122 | 29.6 |
| Child received any service from MCGM in previous month, % | 2578 | 35.4 | 3455 | 51.5 | 2122 | 33.4 |
Abbreviations: ICDS, Integrated Child Development Services; MCGM, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
Pearson chi-square tests comparing baseline intervention to endline intervention and baseline intervention to endline comparison areas.
P≤.05; ** P≤.01; *** P≤.001.
Demographics of Participants in Qualitative Study
| Number | 13 |
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 35.2 (9) |
| Female, % | 62.0 |
| Years of association with the program, mean (SD) | 2.7 (1.2) |
| Number in each focus group discussion | 5 to 6 |
| Age, mean (SD) | 32.5 (8.5) |
| Female, % | 81 |
| Years of association with the program, mean (SD) | 2.4 (1.2) |
| Total number | 24 |
| Age of mother, mean (SD) | 26.6 (4) |
| No. of children in the family, mean (SD) | 3 (2) |
| Religion, % | |
| Hindu | 54 |
| Muslim | 38 |
| Christian | 8 |
| Cases severely wasted or moderately wasted, % | 63 |
| Cases with medical complications, % | 17 |
| Pregnant women, % | 17 |
| Number | 46 |
| No. of children in the family, mean (SD) | 3 (1) |
| Non-wasted children, % | 21 |
| Severely wasted/moderately wasted, % | 54 |
| Pregnant, % | 9 |
| Complicated cases requiring holistic intervention, % | 11 |
| Others (contraception, family planning), % | 4 |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
Strengths and Challenges of Key Program Activities as Reported by Stakeholders
| Strengths | Challenges |
|---|---|
Growth monitoring had become a regular and well-planned activity at the Anganwadi center. Most mothers acknowledged the usefulness of growth monitoring. Mothers conceded their inability to remember growth monitoring dates; hence, frontline health workers' repeated mobilization of the community was useful. | Most mothers were willing to bring their children for growth monitoring. Resistance to growth monitoring in the community mainly stemmed from practical difficulties (time, work pressure, and migration), rather than issues of cultural acceptance. |
Home visits by frontline health workers were well-accepted and welcomed by the community. Frontline health workers had been well-trained technically. In addition, most had been trained in and had acquired the soft skills for approaching households as well as for tailoring information. There was considerable oversight of frontline health workers that also played a role in ensuring home visits happened regularly and appropriately. | Some severely wasted children required more visits than those required as per protocol; the frontline health workers often did not record why and when these additional visits were done in the monitoring software. There was a need for training frontline health workers on information pertaining to the entire household rather than focusing on mothers alone. |
Health camps were held regularly. The community perceived health camps to be useful, mainly due tothe easy access to free medicines and tonics. Field staff felt that the main use of health camps was in confirming whether children were anthropometrically wasted or not. The partnership with NRRC and the adjoining government hospital worked well for the program. The community often reported that frontline health workers referred them to the government hospitaland even accompanied them there if required. | Health camps, when established, were meant specifically for wasted children and pregnant mothers. But it was difficult for camps to turn away other sick children; hence, the camps were largely being used as general health camps for all children, which made them crowded. |
The logistics for supply and distribution of medical nutrition therapyin the program had been clearly set by the time of scale-up of the program. A checklist format had been developed for tracking medical nutrition therapy consumption of each child; these checklists were being monitored closely. | Consumption of medical nutrition therapy in the program was lower than expected. It was therefore difficult to make strong conclusions on the effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in this context. Overseeing compliance of medical nutrition therapy consumption by frontline health workers was challenging. Frontline health workers delivered several days of cups at a time to a child, but consumption by the child was self-reported by the mother. While there were no serious issues with logistics (supply and storage) of medical nutrition therapy, there were mothers who found it difficult to feed the medical nutrition therapy cups to the severely wasted child for the full course of 56 days. Mothers and frontline health workers noted that some children got bored of the sweet flavor of the medical nutrition therapy and refused to eat it after a few days. There have been cases of children being pulled out of therapy due to persistent diarrhea or mere refusal to consume. |
Abbreviation: NRRC, Nutritional Rehabilitation and Research Center.
Process Indicators in Intervention Areas (150 Anganwadi Centers)
| Activity for Child Under Age 3 | Monthly Average Oct 2014–Sep 2015 |
|---|---|
| Total children monitored | 7009 |
| Total moderately wasted in the program | 617 |
| Total severely wasted in the program | 112 |
| Children weighed each month | 4834 |
| Moderately wasted children receiving home visits | 443 |
| Severely wasted children receiving home visits | 89 |
| Children attending health camps | 289 |
| Children consuming medical nutritional therapy | 24 |
Source of data: Routine monitoring data of the program.
Quotes from Participants Illustrating Program Features Contributing to its Success
| Themes | Illustrative Quotes |
|---|---|
| Constant field presence of staff | “Now if the community does not see me for one day, next day I get a call—where are you? Sometimes the community people even directly come to our center to inquire where I am. (Male field staff, 27 years, employed with SNEHA: 1.5 years) |
| Information-sharing with the community through reinforcement and as a tailored process | “… but doctors telling is different, their telling is different. Doctors are always in a hurry. They are under pressure because of patients, so they tell in shortcuts, some of it I understand and some I don't. These people (from SNEHA) are free, they tell us freely, each and everything, that you do this way. Then they come next day and ask whether we did the way we were told. Then we tell them that yes, we did. Then they again ask us after 1 week whether it was beneficial or not. It happens like this. And what will the doctors say, they just tell, whether we do it not, only we and our children are responsible. This is how doctors do it. And these people come and ask us regularly, ask us again after 1 week about whatever happened, whether the child is eating or not, whether the child is liking it or not, they ask us all of these. (Mother, 24 years, Muslim, 4 kids, 2 younger kids were severely wasted and 1 was on medical nutrition therapy) |
| Persistence of field staff and collective persuasion | “When she asked about the registration at that time she told that no, her husband has no time to pick up her to hospital. So she asked her father's mobile number. But they don't have that also. Then SNEHA frontline health worker asked for the neighbor's mobile number. The lady said okay. Then the next day, the SNEHA frontline health worker called her neighbor and spoke to her husband: ‘what is the reason why you did not register her for a pregnancy checkup?’ Then the program officer also called her husband and explained about the importance of the registration, medicine, everything. The next day the SNEHA frontline health worker, the ICDS frontline health worker, and the health post frontline health worker all went to her house and explained jointly. Then her husband took her to the hospital and did the registration. The continuous visits helped the family.” (Case study of a pregnant woman, age not known, Hindu, 3 children) |
| Holistic case management | “When the SNEHA frontline health worker first identified the child, he was 3 months old. She oriented the mother regarding SNEHA and its work. The child had a cleft palate. The SNEHA frontline health worker spoke to the mother regarding her feelings for the child, ongoing treatment, and her difficulties faced while feeding the child. The mother replied that they had recently shifted to Mumbai as her husband worked here and mainly for the child's treatment. She did not know any hospital and was looking for one. While talking, she was upset and in tears. She said that all her relatives blame her for her child's condition and they say that he looks like a mouse. The SNEHA frontline health worker counseled her that it was a birth defect and can be successfully treated with surgery. She referred her to the hospital and screened the child. The mother fed breast milk to the child with a bowl and spoon. Sometimes the mother did get irritated, too, she shared, and felt bad and angry when other people came home to see the child and gave suggestions. When the mother shared her concerns, the SNEHA frontline health worker could feel her helplessness. The SNEHA frontline health worker asked the mother to calm down and said she understood her feelings. The SNEHA frontline health worker inquired about the father and the mother replied that he was nice, but due to family pressure, he also felt it was the mother's fault. The mother cried a lot. In the hospital, the doctors advised an operation. After the operation, the child could feed better. The mother started top feeds and the child gained weight. (Case story of an 8-month-old boy, cleft palate, migrant population, mother's age not known.) |
Abbreviations: ICDS, Integrated Child Development Services; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
FIGURE 2.Success Factors of the SNEHA CMAM Program
Abbreviations: CMAM, Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.
Quotes from Participants Illustrating Successful Community Mechanisms in the Program
| Themes | Illustrative quotes |
|---|---|
| Community felt cared for and supported | “I remember how often we had to take [child's name] to the hospital, even in the rains. Now he is okay. Everyone in the neighborhood says that he's come back from death's jaw. There was no hope. His chest was full. [SNEHA frontline health worker] was here at that time, she walked in the rain and first took us to the small hospital, and then walked to the big hospital with us. She stayed until the admission process was over and then she left.” (Mother, 36 years, housewife, Muslim, 6 children, youngest boy, age 1.5 years, was severely wasted with pneumonia complications, recovered) |
| Community believed that the knowledge imparted by the SNEHA frontline health workers was useful | “This person from SNEHA, she comes daily … doctor comes once or 2 times a month … they advise us on weight and tell us about doctors. We get to know if child is not the right weight. We receive information so their visits are beneficial to us.” |
| Community felt monitored | “If they are there, it is good because then parents look after their children properly. They keep coming, so we also have to be attentive to our children.” |
Abbreviations: CMAM, community-based management of malnutrition; SNEHA, Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action.