| Literature DB >> 30282952 |
Yannick Caron1, Rathmony Hong2, Ludovic Gauthier3, Arnaud Laillou4, Frank T Wieringa5, Jacques Berger6, Etienne Poirot7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adverse outcomes of malnutrition on the development of a child are well acknowledged as are the broad variety of contextual factors that may impact child nutritional status. Adequate nutrient intake and the adoption of appropriate water, sanitation and hygiene measures are largely documented for their positive influence on health. Improved sanitation and protection from human feces can significantly lower the incidence of diarrhea and environmental enteropathy. However, the impact of excessive exposure to animal feces on child health is less well documented.Entities:
Keywords: Giardia duodenalis; diarrhea; feces; livestock ownership; stunting
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30282952 PMCID: PMC6213534 DOI: 10.3390/nu10101420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Summary of the selected sample characteristics.
| Kratie | Ratanak Kiri | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | ||||
| 378 | 322 | 700 | ||
| Child play outside, % (SE) | 91.8 (1.4) | 90.7 (1.6) | 91.3 (1.1) | 0.594 |
| Study sample | ||||
| 347 | 292 | 639 | ||
| Demographic variable | ||||
| Age in months, mean (SD) | 20.7 (±8.2) | 20.6 (±8.1) | 20.6 (±8.2) | 0.854 |
| Boys, % (SE) | 50.1 (2.7) | 49.0 (2.9) | 49.6 (1.2) | 0.768 |
| Morbidity | ||||
| Giardia Duodenalis, % (SE) | 23.6 (2.3) | 22.3 (2.4) | 23 (1.7) | 0.682 |
| Had diarrhea last 15 days, % (SE) | 7.2 (1.4) | 21.2 (2.4) | 13.6 (1.4) | 0.000 |
| Animal owned | ||||
| Pig, % (SE) | 27.7 (2.4) | 52.7 (2.9) | 39.1 (1.9) | 0.000 |
| Cow, % (SE) | 62.2 (2.6) | 13.4 (2) | 39.9 (1.9) | 0.000 |
| Chicken, % (SE) | 10.4 (1.6) | 18.2 (2.3) | 13.9 (1.4) | 0.005 |
| Socio-economic variables | ||||
| Wealth index, % (SE) | 0.414 | |||
| Poor | 47.8 (2.7) | 53.1 (2.9) | 50.2 (2) | |
| Middle | 28.5 (2.4) | 26 (2.6) | 27.4 (1.8) | |
| Rich | 23.6 (2.3) | 20.9 (2.4) | 22.4 (1.7) | |
| Mother education, % (SE) | 0.000 | |||
| No education | 10.7 (1.7) | 47.9 (2.9) | 27.7 (1.8) | |
| Primary | 53.6 (2.7) | 36 (2.8) | 45.5 (2.0) | |
| Secondary + | 35.7 (2.6) | 16.1 (2.2) | 26.8 (1.8) | |
| Wash variables | ||||
| Improved sanitation facilities, % (SE) | 36.0 (2.6) | 31.2 (2.7) | 33.8 (1.9) | 0.196 |
| Improved source of drinking water, % (SE) | 64.0 (2.6) | 46.6 (2.9) | 56.0 (2.0) | 0.000 |
| Child usually defecates in a safe place, % (SE) | 43.2 (2.7) | 26.4 (2.6) | 35.5 (1.9) | 0.000 |
| Anthropometric sample | ||||
| 302 | 291 | 593 | ||
| HAZ, mean (SD) | −1.38 (±1.04) | −1.74 (±1.06) | −1.56 (±1.06) | <0.001 |
| Stunting, % (SE) | 26.5 (2.5) | 41.9 (2.9) | 34.1 (1.90) | <0.001 |
| WHZ, mean (SD) | −0.81 (±0.95) | −1.08 (±0.94) | −1.05 (±0.95) | <0.001 |
| MUAC, mean (SD) | 14.07 (±1.05) | 13.74 (±1.11) | 13.91 (±1.09) | <0.001 |
| Wasting: WHZ < −2, % (SE) | 9.9 (1.7) | 12.7 (2.0) | 11.3 (1.3) | 0.285 |
| Wasting ‡: WHZ < −2 and/or MUAC < 12.5, % (SE) | 11.3 (1.8) | 15.8 (2.1) | 13.5 (1.4) | 0.105 |
SD = Standard Deviation. SE = Standard Error. HAZ = Height for Age Z-scores. WHZ = Weight for Height Z-scores; MUA = Middle Upper Arm Circonference; † Testing differences in the distribution of the variable between the two regions: Chi-square test for categorical variable and one-way anova for normally distributed variables; ‡ Following WHO definition, the MUAC cut-off was applied for children who are more than 6 months.
A logistic regression model explaining the presence of G. duodenalis in children.
| % c | Unadjusted a | Adjusted b | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odd-Ratio | C.I. | Odd-Ratio | C.I. | |||||
| Animals owned | ||||||||
| Pig | ||||||||
| No | 389 | 18.2 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Yes | 250 | 30.4 | 1.96 | (1.35, 2.84) | <0.001 | 2.10 | (1.33, 3.30) | 0.001 |
| Cow | ||||||||
| No | 384 | 21.1 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Yes | 255 | 25.9 | 1.31 | (0.90, 1.90) | 0.16 | 1.15 | (0.71, 1.85) | 0.577 |
| Chicken | ||||||||
| No | 89 | 20.2 | 0.83 | (0.48, 1.44) | 0.502 | 1.08 | (0.59, 2.00) | 0.800 |
| Yes | 550 | 23.4 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Socio-economic position | ||||||||
| Wealth index d | ||||||||
| Poor | 321 | 26.8 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Middle/Rich | 318 | 19.2 | 0.65 | (0.45, 0.94) | 0.023 | 0.86 | (0.56, 1.30) | 0.467 |
| Mother-education | ||||||||
| No education | 177 | 28.2 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Primary | 291 | 24.4 | 0.82 | (0.54, 1.25) | 0.357 | 0.91 | (0.55, 1.51) | 0.725 |
| Secondary | 171 | 15.2 | 0.46 | (0.27, 0.77) | 0.004 | 0.49 | (0.26, 0.92) | 0.027 |
| Wash variable | ||||||||
| Sanitation facilities | ||||||||
| Non improved | 423 | 25.8 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Improved | 216 | 17.6 | 0.61 | (0.41, 0.93) | 0.021 | 0.73 | (0.45, 1.19) | 0.202 |
| Source of drinking water | ||||||||
| Non improved | 281 | 25.6 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Improved | 358 | 20.9 | 0.77 | (0.53, 1.11) | 0.164 | 1.1 | (0.72, 1.70) | 0.657 |
| Usual place child defecates | ||||||||
| Unsafe | 412 | 25.2 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Safe | 227 | 18.9 | 0.69 | (0.46, 1.03) | 0.071 | 1.08 | (0.66, 1.76) | 0.759 |
| Demographic variable | ||||||||
| Age in months e | 639 | - | 4.13 | (2.49–6.87) | <0.001 | 4.72 | (2.77, 8.05) | <0.001 |
| Region | ||||||||
| Kratie | 347 | 23.6 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Ratanak Kiri | 292 | 22.2 | 0.93 | (0.64, 1.34) | 0.682 | 0.7 | (0.42, 1.19) | 0.186 |
a Unadjusted: univariate analysis; b Adjusted for all the covariates included in the model; c Prevalence of G. Duodenalis; d Middle and Rich categories were merged together because their associated odd-ratio were similar; e Log transformed variable.
Figure 1(Left): Predicted probability of G. duodenalis infection by age. (Right): Average marginal effect of the giardia variable on acute diarrhea. Both, figures were estimated using the multivariate models presented respectively in Table 2 and Table 3. Shaded areas represent 95% CI (Confidence Interval).
Logistic regression model for the association between acute diarrhea and selected covariates.
| Diarrhea | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %c | Unadjusted a | Adjusted b | ||||||
| Odd-Ratio | C.I. | Odd-Ratio | C.I. | |||||
| Giardia | ||||||||
| No | 492 | 15.0 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Yes | 147 | 8.8 | 0.55 | (0.29, 1.02) | 0.058 | 0.45 | (0.23, 0.87) | 0.017 |
| Have Pig | ||||||||
| No | 385 | 8.5 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Yes | 254 | 21.6 | 2.34 | (1.45, 3.80) | 0.001 | 2.00 | (1.19, 3.35) | 0.009 |
| Wealth index d | ||||||||
| Poor | 321 | 18.4 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Middle/Rich | 318 | 8.8 | 0.43 | (0.27, 0.69) | 0.001 | 0.54 | (0.32, 0.92) | 0.023 |
| Sanitation facilities | ||||||||
| Non improved | 423 | 16.3 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Improved | 216 | 8.3 | 0.48 | (0.28, 0.84) | 0.011 | 0.71 | (0.38, 1.33) | 0.286 |
| Usual place child defecates | ||||||||
| Unsafe | 412 | 17.0 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Safe | 227 | 7.5 | 0.48 | (0.27, 0.84) | 0.010 | 0.73 | (0.38, 1.39) | 0.34 |
| Age in months | 639 | - | 0.97 | (0.95, 1.00) | 0.056 | 0.98 | (0.95, 1.01) | 0.211 |
| Region | ||||||||
| Kratie | 347 | 7.2 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | ||
| Ratanak Kiri | 292 | 21.2 | 3.42 | (2.12, 5.69) | <0.001 | 2.69 | (1.59, 4.55) | <0.001 |
a Have Pig, sanitation facilities and usual place child defecates were adjusted for region; b Adjusted for all the covariates in the model; c Prevalence of diarrhea; d Middle and rich categories were merged together because their associated odd-ratios were similar.
Linear regression models explaining the associations between anthropometric z-score and selected covariates.
| HAZ † | WHZ ‡ | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted a | Adjusted b | Unadjusted a | Adjusted b | ||||||||||
| Coeff. | C.I | Coeff. | C.I. | Coeff. | C.I | Coeff | C.I. | ||||||
| Giardia | |||||||||||||
| No | 464 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Yes | 129 | −0.27 | (−0.47, −0.06) | 0.012 | −0.07 | (−0.27, 0.13) | 0.501 | −0.06 | (−0.25, 0.12) | 0.516 | 0.10 | (−0.09, 0.28) | 0.317 |
| Have Pig | |||||||||||||
| No | 364 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Yes | 229 | −0.20 | (−0.38, −0.01) | 0.035 | −0.05 | (−0.23, 0.13) | 0.595 | −0.23 | (−0.40, −0.07) | 0.005 | −0.21 | (−0.37, −0.04) | 0.014 |
| Wealth index | |||||||||||||
| Poor | 290 | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
| Middle | 167 | 0.30 | (0.10, 0.50) | 0.003 | 0.18 | (−0.02, 0.38) | 0.071 | ||||||
| Rich | 136 | 0.56 | (0.34, 0.77) | <0.001 | 0.38 | (0.16, 0.6) | <0.001 | ||||||
| Mother Education | |||||||||||||
| No education | 171 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Primary | 263 | 0.31 | (0.09, 0.52) | 0.005 | 0.20 | (−0.01, 0.41) | 0.068 | 0.11 | (−0.09, 0.30) | 0.278 | 0.05 | (−0.14, 0.24) | 0.600 |
| Secondary and more | 159 | 0.56 | (0.32, 0.81) | <0.001 | 0.41 | (0.16, 0.66) | <0.001 | 0.30 | (0.08, 0.52) | 0.008 | 0.27 | (0.05, 0.50) | 0.019 |
| Sanitation facilities | |||||||||||||
| Non improved | 389 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Improved | 204 | 0.36 | (0.18, 0.53) | <0.001 | 0.20 | (0.02, 0.38) | 0.032 | 0.15 | (−0.01, 0.31) | 0.059 | 0.10 | (−0.06, 0.26) | 0.226 |
| Gender | |||||||||||||
| Female | 301 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Male | 292 | −0.13 | (−0.31, 0.04) | 0.126 | −0.15 | (−0.31, 0.01) | 0.067 | 0.00 | (−0.15, 0.15) | 0.995 | 0.01 | (−0.14, 0.16) | 0.912 |
| Region | |||||||||||||
| Female | 302 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Male | 291 | -0.35 | (−0.52, −0.18) | <0.001 | −0.18 | (−0.36, 0.00) | 0.050 | −0.28 | (−0.43, −0.12) | <0.001 | −0.14 | (−0.31, 0.02) | 0.093 |
HAZ = Height for Age z-scores. WHZ= Weight for Age z-scores. Wealth index variables was not included in the final model for WHZ; † R2 for adjusted HAZ model: 14.2 %, p-Value of the model: 0.00001; ‡ R2 for adjusted WHZ model: 9.1%, p-Value of the model: 0.00001; a Have Pig, mother education and sanitation facilites were adjusted for region; b Adjusted for all the covariates in the model, Age and Age squared (coefficients not shown).