| Literature DB >> 29950927 |
Faith Agbozo1,2, Esi Colecraft3, Albrecht Jahn2, Timothy Guetterman4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) programmes promote not only child health but serve as a service delivery strategy to enhance coverage for other crucial nutrition-specific interventions. This study compared community-based and facility-based GMP programme with respect to attendance rates, children's nutritional status, caregivers' satisfaction with services received and perceptions of service providers and users on factors influencing utilization.Entities:
Keywords: Child health; Community health nursing; Growth monitoring and promotion; Nutritional surveillance; Quantitative and qualitative research; Research methodology; Service utilization
Year: 2018 PMID: 29950927 PMCID: PMC6009038 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-018-0294-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nurs ISSN: 1472-6955
Fig. 1Explanatory sequential mixed methods procedural diagram
Comparison of anthropometric characteristics at baseline and after the 12-months observation period
| Characteristics | Baseline | 12th month | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community-based ( | Facility-based ( | Community-based (n = 104) | Facility-based (n = 116) | |||||||
| Mean±SD | 95% CI | Mean±SD | 95% CI | Mean±SD | 95% CI | Mean±SD | 95% CI | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||||||
| Age (months) a | 2.25±0.86 | 2.08–2.24 | 2.16±0.95 | 1.98–2.33 | 0.439 | 13.25±0.86 | 13.08–13.42 | 13.17±0.97 | 13.00–13.36 | 0.532 |
| Weight (kg) a | 5.29±1.43 | 4.80–6.10 | 4.85±1.28 | 4.38–5.30 | 0.035 | 8.97±1.95 | 8.55–9.24 | 8.79±1.35 | 8.26–9.15 | 0.547 |
| WAZ a | − 0.60±1.04 | −0.81 - -0.40 | − 0.94±1.44 | −1.21 - -0.71 | 0.049 | − 0.27±1.32 | −0.56 - 0.02 | − 0.62±1.65 | −0.94 - -0.33 | 0.081 |
| Underweight (%) b | 9(8.7) | 3.8–14.4 | 23(19.8) | 12.9–26.7 | 0.022 | 12(11.5) | 5.8–18.3 | 18(15.5) | 9.5–22.4 | 0.436 |
aunpaired t test
bFisher’s exact test
Attendance levels and change in weight-for-age z-score during first and last appearance on the programme in the 12-months period
| Characteristics | Community-based (n = 104) | Facility-based (n = 116) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD n (%) | 95% CI | Mean ± SD n (%) | 95% CI | ||
| Average annual visits a | 5.95 ± 2.77 | 5.42–6.47 | 6.05 ± 3.06 | 5.48–6.62 | 0.800 |
| Attend ≥6 times (%) b | 48 (46.2) | 36.5–55.8 | 55 (47.4) | 38.8–56.0 | 0.893 |
| Attend ≥9 times (%) b | 13 (12.5) | 5.8–18.3 | 17 (14.7%) | 8.6–21.6 | 0.697 |
| Average annual WAZ b | − 0.48 ± 1.02 | −0.68 - -0.29 | − 0.86 ± 1.54 | − 1.14 - 0.57 | 0.035 |
| Change in WAZ (%) b | 0.772 | ||||
| Improved | 70.2% (73) | 61.5–77.9 | 68.1% (79) | 59.5–75.9 | |
| Deteriorated | 29.8% (31) | 22.1–38.5 | 31.9% (37) | 24.1–40.5 | |
aunpaired t test
bFisher’s exact test
Fig. 2Monthly attendance and underweight prevalence per month (a), and the mean weight and weight-for-age z scores (b) in the community-based (CB) and facility-based (FB) programmes. A superscript on the month implies p < 0.05. Statistically significant difference for ¶attendance; *underweight; †weight-for-age z-score; and ‡mean weight
Binary logistic regression model showing factors that predicted an increase in weight-for-age z-score between the first and last attendance on the programme
| Variables |
| % | Adjusted regression model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOR | 95% CI | ||||
| Programme (Facility-based) | 116 | 47.3 | Ref | ||
| Community-based | 104 | 52.7 | 1.27 | 0.70–2.33 | 0.434 |
| Age at registration (> 4 weeks) | 148 | 67.3 | Ref | ||
| Neonatal (≤4 weeks) | 72 | 32.7 | 0.75 | 0.39–1.44 | 0.382 |
| Sex (male) | 110 | 50.0 | Ref | ||
| Female | 110 | 50.0 | 1.97 | 1.07–3.62 | 0.029 |
| Underweight at baseline (No) | 188 | 85.5 | Ref | ||
| Yes | 32 | 14.5 | 11.07 | 3.95–31.03 | < 0.0001 |
| Annual attendance (< 6 visits) | 117 | 53.2 | Ref | ||
| ≥ 6 visits | 103 | 46.8 | 2.15 | 1.14–4.07 | 0.018 |
| Attendance (< 9 annual visits) | 190 | 86.4 | Ref | ||
| ≥ 9 annual visits | 30 | 13.6 | 4.65 | 1.44–15.06 | 0.010 |
Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, Chi-square = 10.192, p = 0.252. Cox and Snell R2 = 0.155, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.210
Caregivers’ experiences with the community- and facility-based child growth monitoring and promotion programmes
| Variables | Community-based ( | Facility-based (n = 108) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | 95% CI | n (%) | 95% CI | ||
| Enrollment time | 0.047 | ||||
| At birth | 33 (26.6) | 18.5–35.5 | 29 (26.9) | 18.5–35.2 | |
| Two weeks after birth | 36 (29.0) | 21.8–37.9 | 43 (39.8) | 29.6–50.0 | |
| 1 month after birth | 31 (25.0) | 17.7–33.1 | 28 (25.9) | 18.5–35.2 | |
| After neonatal period | 24 (19.4) | 12.9–25.8 | 8 (7.4) | 2.8–13.0 | |
| Visited at home | 39 (31.5) | 23.4–39.5 | 57.4 (62) | 48.1–66.7 | < 0.0001 |
| Motivation for participation | 0.004 | ||||
| Know child’s growth | 58 (46.8) | 38.7–56.5 | 39 (36.1) | 26.9–45.4 | |
| Receive vaccinations | 38 (30.6) | 22.6–38.7 | 19 (17.6) | 11.1–25.0 | |
| Treat minor ailments | 22 (17.7) | 11.3–25.0 | 38 (35.2) | 25.9–43.5 | |
| Nutrition education | 4 (3.2) | 0.8–6.5 | 8.3 (9) | 3.7–13.9 | |
| None | 2 (1.6) | 0–4.0 | 3 (2.8) | 0.0–6.5 | |
| Satisfied with services | 0.437 | ||||
| Yes | 43 (34.7) | 25.8–42.7 | 29 (26.9) | 5.6–16.7 | |
| Neutral | 12 (9.7) | 4.8–15.3 | 12 (11.1) | 18.5–35.2 | |
| No | 69 (55.6) | 46.8–64.5 | 97 (62.0) | 52.8–70.4 | |
| Reasons for satisfaction | 0.774 | ||||
| Knowledge on child’s growth | 31 (70.5) | 56.8–81.8 | 19 (65.5) | 48.3–82.8 | |
| Educated on child care | 8 (18.2) | 6.8–29.5 | 5 (17.2) | 3.4–31.0 | |
| Free complementary services | 5 (11.4) | 2.3–20.5 | 5 (17.2) | 3.4–31.0 | |
| Reasons for dissatisfaction | 0.051 | ||||
| Long waiting times | 43 (62.3) | 52.2–73.9 | 53 (77.9) | 67.6–86.8 | |
| Unfriendly staff attitude | 15 (21.7) | 13.0–31.9 | 12 (17.6) | 8.8–27.9 | |
| Extortion of money | 11 (15.9) | 7.3–24.6 | 3 (4.4) | 0–10.3 | |
Side-by-side display of key quantitative and qualitative findings and implications for practice
| Attribute | Quantitative findings | Qualitative findings | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attendance to the growth monitoring and promotion programme | - Mean annual attendance 6.0 ± 2.9 | Attendance based on maternal age, parity, postpartum socio-cultural practices, financial constraints, irregular staff remuneration, delays, unprofessional staff behaviours, high premium on vaccinations & general misconceptions about GMP programme | Increase home visitations and target the following mothers: teenagers, single parents, women above 40 years, and those with parity above four children |
| Change in weight-for-age z-score during participation and the determining factors | WAZ of 69.1% of the children improved. | Deterioration in growth attributed to drop-out rates from the GMP programme, inadequate counselling, ineffective staff-client rapport, communication lapses, emphasis on achieving meeting vaccinations to the neglect of the other components of the programme | - Sensitization on contribution of routine growth monitoring and promotion to early child development and the dangers associated with unidentified growth faltering |
| Motivation to attend and level of satisfaction with service delivery | - Motivators for attendance were knowledge of child’s growth status and child vaccination. | Satisfied as result of awareness of child’s growth and education provided on child care. | - Primary healthcare systems should be strengthened to improve service delivery by increasing availability and accessibility to the service; staff supervision, training and monitoring |