| Literature DB >> 29670006 |
Somphos Vicheth Som1, Sophonneary Prak2, Arnaud Laillou3, Ludovic Gauthier4, Jacques Berger5, Etienne Poirot6, Frank T Wieringa7.
Abstract
Although several health and development indicators have improved significantly in Cambodia, inadequate breastfeeding and inappropriate complementary feeding practices leave many children at high risk of malnutrition during the early stages of life. In 2014, the prevalence of wasting and stunting among Cambodian children under 5 were 10% and 32%, respectively. Thus, a strong focus on improving feeding practices within the first 1000 days window to reduce child malnutrition prevalence in Cambodia is needed. This cross-sectional study assessed the current feeding practices among of women of reproductive age, pregnant women, lactating women and children less than 24 months living in six districts from Phnom Penh and two rural provinces in the North East of Cambodia. The nutritional status of pregnant women was poor, with 21.4% having a Middle Upper arm circumference below 23 cm. While breastfeeding was predominant within the first 6 months of age in every district, feeding practices of pregnant women and children were a concern, as >70% of the children were not meeting the minimum acceptable diet, and most of the women did not improve their diet during pregnancy. Inadequate nutrition during the first 1000 days is highly prevalent in Cambodia. A comprehensive national Mother, Infant and Young Child Nutrition strategy needs to be developed and operationalized to improve feeding practices of Cambodian women and children.Entities:
Keywords: Cambodia; complementary diet; early childhood development; exclusive breastfeeding; policy; strategy; women nutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29670006 PMCID: PMC5946285 DOI: 10.3390/nu10040500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristic of the sample.
| Characteristics | Phnom Penh (%) | Kratie (%) | Ratanakiri (%) | Chi-2 **** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | ||||
| Height for age z-score | ||||
| HAZ < −3 | 2.6 | 4.3 | 7.0 | |
| −3 ≤ HAZ < −2 | 8.6 | 11.9 | 20.8 | |
| −2 ≤ HAZ | 88.8 | 83.8 | 72.1 | |
| Weight for height z-score | ||||
| WHZ < −3 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 0.9 | |
| −3 ≤ WHZ < −2 | 8.5 | 15.0 | 11.7 | |
| −2 ≤ WHZ | 89.6 | 80.7 | 87.5 | |
| Wealth index *** | ||||
| Poorest | 6.5 | 31.0 | 23.7 | |
| Poorer | 10.3 | 27.2 | 28.1 | |
| Middle | 22.6 | 22.9 | 24.2 | |
| Richer | 22.8 | 11.9 | 11.0 | |
| Richest | 37.9 | 7.0 | 13.0 | |
| Mother Education | ||||
| no Education/Informal | 12.9 | 17.6 | 44.1 | |
| Primary | 37.3 | 48.9 | 33.4 | |
| Secondary and more | 49.8 | 33.5 | 22.5 | |
| Women | ||||
| BMI (kg/m2) * | ||||
| Underweight | 14.37 | 16.48 | 17.93 | |
| normal | 62.22 | 69.47 | 72.28 | |
| Overweight | 19.24 | 12.36 | 9.06 | |
| Obese | 4.17 | 1.68 | 0.73 | |
| MUAC (cm) ** | ||||
| <21 cm | 3.69 | 2.1 | 4 | |
| 21 ≤ MUAC < 23 | 14.39 | 20.47 | 18.91 | |
| >23 | 81.92 | 77.43 | 77.09 | |
| Wealth index *** | ||||
| 1st Quintile | 5.91 | 27.64 | 24.42 | |
| 2nd Quintile | 8.02 | 24.27 | 26.1 | |
| 3rd Quintile | 22.22 | 16.82 | 19.3 | |
| 4th Quintile | 29.1 | 19.24 | 16.59 | |
| 5th Quintile | 34.74 | 12.04 | 13.6 | |
| Mother Education | ||||
| no Education/Informal | 12.37 | 17.49 | 46.75 | |
| Primary | 40.31 | 48.47 | 33.86 | |
| Secondary and more | 47.32 | 34.04 | 19.39 |
Note: * measured for all women except pregnant; ** measured for pregnant women; *** wealth index gathers information regarding the accessibility and type of water and sanitation facilities, materials used for housing construction, type of fuel used for cooking, and ownership of selected assets such as a radio, television, refrigerator. The wealth index was then divided into quintiles; **** p < 0.05 shows a significant difference within sub-groups between provinces. HAZ: Z-scores below −2 for length/height-for-age; WHZ: Z-scores below −2 for weight-for-length/height; BMI: body mass index; MUAC: Middle Upper arm circumference.
Figure 1Comparison of women’s dietary diversity scores between regions and physiological status. *: Kruskal-Wallis test performed; ◦: out layers.
Figure 2Comparison of pregnant women’s MUAC (Middle Upper arm circumference) according to their dietary diversity score and regions. (Note: p < 0.05 shows a significant difference in the mean of MUAC within provinces between the 3 categories of WDDS (Women’s Dietary Diversity Score): (i) 1–2 food groups consumed; (ii) 3–4 food groups; (iii) above 4 food groups; ◦: out layers).
Figure 3Infant feeding practices by age (note: BF: continued breastfeeding).
Figure 4Percentage of infants exclusively breastfed (EBF) and percentage receiving liquids, solid, semi-solid or soft foods.
Infant and young child feeding practices.
| Phnom Penh Districts | Kratie Districts | Ratanakiri Districts | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background Characteristic | Minimum Dietary Diversity | Minimum Meal Frequency | Minimum Acceptable Diet | Minimum Dietary Diversity | Minimum Meal Frequency | Minimum Acceptable Diet | Minimum Dietary Diversity | Minimum Meal Frequency | Minimum Acceptable Diet | |||||||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Age | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6–11 | 339 | 28.6 | 328 | 59.1 | 328 | 14.9 | 414 | 17.1 | 365 | 75.9 | 365 | 14.5 | 329 | 21.9 | 289 | 81.3 | 289 | 20.4 |
| 12–17 | 305 | 36.7 | 303 | 53.8 | 302 | 22.2 | 316 | 23.4 | 299 | 69.6 | 299 | 18.1 | 345 | 33.9 | 324 | 79.3 | 324 | 27.8 |
| 18–24 | 213 | 38.0 | 209 | 46.9 | 209 | 19.6 | 274 | 28.1 | 259 | 50.2 | 259 | 11.2 | 225 | 33.3 | 211 | 78.2 | 211 | 23.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Breastfeeding | ||||||||||||||||||
| Non-breastfed | 394 | 34.3 | 394 | 18.5 | 393 | 6.1 | 230 | 33.5 | 219 | 29.7 | 219 | 8.7 | 191 | 47.6 | 182 | 69.8 | 182 | 33.5 |
| Breastfed | 451 | 33.0 | 446 | 85.7 | 446 | 29.8 | 774 | 18.7 | 704 | 78.1 | 704 | 16.6 | 708 | 24.4 | 642 | 82.6 | 642 | 21.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Wealth Index | ||||||||||||||||||
| Poorest | 123 | 27.6 | 120 | 51.7 | 110 | 15.8 | 430 | 17 | 390 | 71.5 | 390 | 13.8 | 413 | 22.3 | 374 | 78.1 | 374 | 17.6 |
| Middle | 172 | 37.2 | 167 | 68.3 | 167 | 24.6 | 157 | 21 | 143 | 82.5 | 143 | 18.2 | 196 | 33.2 | 176 | 76.7 | 176 | 27.3 |
| Richest | 458 | 34.5 | 450 | 49.1 | 450 | 18.0 | 129 | 23.3 | 121 | 83.5 | 121 | 20.7 | 223 | 39.5 | 211 | 86.3 | 211 | 33.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Mother Education | ||||||||||||||||||
| No education | 90 | 25.6 | 88 | 47.7 | 88 | 14.8 | 129 | 9.3 | 123 | 66.7 | 123 | 7.3 | 340 | 19.7 | 304 | 78.6 | 304 | 15.5 |
| Primary | 249 | 31.7 | 167 | 60.6 | 246 | 19.1 | 346 | 22.3 | 314 | 77.7 | 314 | 17.8 | 290 | 33.8 | 264 | 78.4 | 264 | 28.4 |
| Secondary | 339 | 38.9 | 450 | 53.9 | 330 | 23.0 | 236 | 19.5 | 213 | 79.8 | 213 | 18.8 | 202 | 39.6 | 193 | 84.5 | 193 | 32.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||||||||
| Male | 382 | 32.7 | 375 | 57.3 | 375 | 20.5 | 370 | 18.1 | 336 | 78.9 | 336 | 16.1 | 417 | 30.5 | 385 | 83.4 | 385 | 26.8 |
| Female | 371 | 35.3 | 362 | 50.3 | 362 | 17.7 | 346 | 19.9 | 318 | 73.3 | 318 | 16 | 415 | 28.4 | 376 | 76.6 | 376 | 21.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: p < 0.05 shows a significant difference in the prevalence of Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD), Minimum Meal Frequency (MMF) or Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) within province between sub-characteristic (age, breastfeeding, wealth index, mother education, gender).