| Literature DB >> 29880562 |
Molly Scott1, Bansi Malde2,3, Carina King4, Tambosi Phiri5, Hilda Chapota5, Esther Kainja5, Florida Banda5, Marcos Vera-Hernandez2,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parents may rely on information provided by extended family members when making decisions concerning the health of their children. We evaluate whether extended family members affected the success of an information intervention promoting infant health.Entities:
Keywords: child health; extended family; health promotion; nutrition; sub-saharan africa
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29880562 PMCID: PMC6009513 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Distribution of household and women characteristics in controls and differences with treatment group
| Analysis sample | |||
| Control group | Difference: | p values | |
|
| |||
| Number of members† | 5.621 | 0.114 | 0.875 |
| Number of sleeping rooms† | 2.036 | 0.232 | 0.034** |
| Household has electricity?‡ | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.827 |
| Household has radio?‡ | 65.1% | 0.4% | 0.897 |
| Household has bicycle?‡ | 49.9% | 1.9% | 0.699 |
| Household has motorbike?‡ | 0.8% | −0.1% | 0.879 |
| Household has paraffin lamp?‡ | 93.9% | 1.7% | 0.815 |
| Household has oxcart?‡ | 5.1% | −1.9% | 0.198 |
| Agricultural household‡ | 100% | −0.2% | 0.422 |
| Main flooring material: dirt, sand or dung‡ | 92.4% | −1.7% | 0.565 |
| Main roofing material: natural material‡ | 87.6% | −1.7% | 0.697 |
| Piped water‡ | 1.5% | 2.2% | 0.494 |
| Traditional pit toilet‡ | 78.3% | 4.4% | 0.356 |
| Wealth index† | −0.087 | 0.034 | 0.897 |
|
| |||
| Married‡ | 71.8% | −4.9% | 0.046** |
| Completed primary education‡ | 70.9% | 2.8% | 0.529 |
| Completed secondary education‡ | 7.6% | −2.2% | 0.268 |
| Age† | 24.592 | −0.993 | 0.026** |
| Chewa‡ | 95.4% | −3.9% | 0.452 |
| Christian‡ | 98.3% | 0.5% | 0.609 |
| Farmer‡ | 70.9% | −4.5% | 0.316 |
| Student‡ | 16.4% | 2.3% | 0.380 |
| Small business owner‡ | 4.0% | 2.1% | 0.356 |
| N | 411 | 475 | |
Household and mother level characteristics in 2004 corresponding to married main respondent mothers present in the second follow-up survey with children born after the intervention began in July 2005.
*p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. P values are calculated using the wild cluster bootstrap t procedure described by Cameron et al.37
†Continuous variable, for which the mean is reported.
‡ Binary variable, for which proportions are reported.
Distribution of family networks indicators in controls and differences with treatment group for sampled children.
| Control group | Difference: treatment− control | p values | N | |
| Maternal grandmother* | 87.3% | 1.2% | 0.739 | 2260 |
| Paternal grandmother* | 80.7% | 6.3% | 0.132 | 2252 |
| Mother’s sisters† | 2.835 | 0.047 | 0.835 | 2266 |
| Mother’s brothers† | 2.556 | 0.207 | 0.180 | 2263 |
| Father’s sisters† | 2.336 | 0.246 | 0.290 | 2266 |
| Father’s brothers† | 2.453 | 0.213 | 0.288 | 2267 |
Sample includes all children born since July 2005, who were aged 0–53 months at the time of interview, and whose mothers were married main respondents to the follow-up surveys in 2008–2009 and 2009–2010. A pooled dataset from both follow-up surveys is used to construct means.
*Binary variable for which percentages are reported.
Discrete, non-binary variables for which mean values are reported.
Relationship between baseline characteristics and family network size, with p values
| Panel A: household characteristics | |||
| Number of members | Number of rooms | Wealth index | |
| Maternal grandmother alive (0/1) | 0.027 | −0.04 | 0.256** |
| SE | (0.307) | (0.103) | (0.114) |
| Cluster wild bootstrap t p value | (0.929) | (0.779) | (0.032) |
| Paternal grandmother alive (0/1) | −0.209 | −0.02 | −0.129 |
| SE | (0.276) | (0.094) | (0.186) |
| Cluster wild bootstrap t p value | (0.478) | (0.919) | (0.549) |
| Parents siblings alive | 0.025 | 0.01 | 0.016 |
| SE | (0.037) | (0.011) | (0.011) |
| Cluster wild bootstrap t p value | (0.627) | (0.400) | (0.144) |
| N | 881 | 879 | 881 |
Ordinary Least Squares regressions with baseline characteristics gathered in 2004 as the dependent variable and family networks as independent variables. Sample contains married main respondent mothers present in the second follow-up survey with children born after the intervention began in July 2005. SEs computed using the cluster-correlated Huber-White estimator are reported in parentheses and p values are also reported in parentheses. P values are calculated using the wild cluster bootstrap t procedure described by Cameron et al. 37 The wealth index was calculated using principal components analysis as recommended by Filmer and Pritchett.36
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.
Estimated effects on height-for-age z-scores with 95% CIs from three linear regression models
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
| Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | |
| Treatment | 0.296*** | (0.116 to 0.484) | 0.441 | (−0.335 to 1.028) | 0.467 | (−0.344 to 1.050) |
| Maternal grandmother | −0.265** | (−0.528 to 0.021) | −0.259** | (−0.503 to 0.019) | ||
| Maternal grandmother*T | 0.168 | (−0.296 to 0.615) | 0.145 | (−0.324 to 0.575) | ||
| Paternal grandmother | 0.008 | (−0.200 to 0.236) | 0.006 | (−0.192 to 0.238) | ||
| Paternal grandmother×*T | −0.253* | (−0.529 to 0.029) | −0.235* | (−0.493 to 0.039) | ||
| Mothers sisters | 0.031 | (−0.052 to 0.103) | ||||
| Mothers sisters×*T | −0.056 | (−0.163 to 0.057) | ||||
| Fathers sisters | 0.002 | (−0.140 to 0.140) | ||||
| Fathers sisters*T | 0.042 | (−0.110 to 0.188) | ||||
| Mothers brothers | −0.001 | (−0.116 to 0.082) | ||||
| Mothers brothers*T | 0.024 | (−0.109 to 0.170) | ||||
| Fathers brothers | 0.016 | (−0.064 to 0.115) | ||||
| Fathers brothers*T | −0.034 | (−0.148 to 0.075) | ||||
| Total siblings of mother | 0.016 | (−0.032 to 0.062) | ||||
| Total siblings of mother×*T | −0.019 | (−0.069 to 0.037) | ||||
| Total siblings of father | 0.01 | (−0.038 to 0.054) | ||||
| Total siblings of father×*T | 0.001 | (−0.080 to 0.072) | ||||
| R2 | 0.19 | 0.195 | 0.193 | |||
| N | 2017 | 2017 | 2017 | |||
OLS regressions with height-for-age (HAZ) scores as dependent variable. Model 1 estimates the overall effect of exposure to the programme. Models 2 and 3 estimate regressions that allow the programme effect to vary with different extended family members. Inference is conducted using the wild cluster bootstrap t procedure recommended by Cameron et al 37; 95% CIs calculated according to the method recommended by Colin Cameron and Miller.38
All regressions include the following controls: cluster level controls: education and Chewa ethnicity in 2004, household level controls: a wealth index calculated in 2004, mother level controls: whether she had completed primary school, was working as a farmer or was a student in 2004, current age, age2 and logarithmic height. Child level controls: month of measurement, age, age2, gender, number of older siblings, number of older siblings2.
Sample includes all children born after the intervention start date in July 2005 to married main respondent mothers, who were aged 0–53 months at the time of measurement. Column 1 indicates the effect of intervention assignment on HAZ scores, for the sample where family networks information is not missing. Models 2–3 indicate how intervention effects on HAZ scores vary with the presence of different extended family members.
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.
HAZ, height-for-age z-scores.