| Literature DB >> 30624600 |
Christine P Stewart1, Kathryn G Dewey1, Audrie Lin2, Amy J Pickering3, Kendra A Byrd1, Kaniz Jannat4, Shahjahan Ali4, Gouthami Rao5, Holly N Dentz1,5, Marion Kiprotich5, Charles D Arnold1, Benjamin F Arnold2, Lindsay H Allen6, Setareh Shahab-Ferdows6, Ayse Ercumen2, Jessica A Grembi3, Abu Mohd Naser4, Mahbubur Rahman4, Leanne Unicomb4, John M Colford2, Stephen P Luby7, Clair Null5.
Abstract
Background: Anemia in young children is a global health problem. Risk factors include poor nutrient intake and poor water quality, sanitation, or hygiene. Objective: We evaluated the effects of water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions on micronutrient status and anemia among children in rural Kenya and Bangladesh. Design: We nested substudies within 2 cluster-randomized controlled trials enrolling pregnant women and following their children for 2 y. These substudies included 4 groups: water, sanitation, and handwashing (WSH); nutrition (N), including lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNSs; ages 6-24 mo) and infant and young child feeding (IYCF) counseling; WSH+N; and control. Hemoglobin and micronutrient biomarkers were measured after 2 y of intervention and compared between groups using generalized linear models with robust SEs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30624600 PMCID: PMC6358037 DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Nutr ISSN: 0002-9165 Impact factor: 7.045
FIGURE 1Summary of participant enrollment, random assignment, retention, and analysis in the WASH Benefits Kenya Study. WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene.
Enrollment characteristics by intervention group in the WASH Benefits Kenya Trial[1]
| Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active control | WSH | N | WSH+N | |
| Households, | 632 | 550 | 521 | 525 |
| Maternal | ||||
| Age, y | 25.6 ± 6.2 | 25.7 ± 6.0 | 25.9 ± 6.1 | 25.8 ± 6.3 |
| Height, cm | 160.5 ± 5.8 | 160.1 ± 5.9 | 160.1 ± 6.0 | 160.3 ± 5.9 |
| Primiparous, % | 25.6 | 21.3 | 24.8 | 25.8 |
| Completed at least primary education, % | 45.3 | 46.0 | 49.5 | 50.3 |
| Paternal, % | ||||
| Completed at least primary education | 60.5 | 59.5 | 61.4 | 62.7 |
| Works in agriculture | 45.1 | 46.3 | 46.6 | 42.1 |
| Household | ||||
| People per compound, | 8.4 ± 5.6 | 8.4 ± 5.3 | 8.8 ± 7.1 | 8.8 ± 5.9 |
| Children aged <18 y in the household, | 2.8 ± 1.9 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 2.8 ± 2.0 | 2.9 ± 2.0 |
| Has electricity, % | 4.3 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.3 |
| Has a cement floor, % | 5.1 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 6.1 |
| Has an iron roof, % | 59.7 | 59.3 | 65.5 | 64.6 |
| Drinking water | ||||
| Walking time to primary water source, min | 10.0 ± 10.6 | 10.2 ± 10.9 | 10.6 ± 11.1 | 10.0 ± 11.3 |
| Primary drinking water source is improved,[ | 77.5 | 69.6 | 69.8 | 79.1 |
| Reported treating currently stored water, % | 11.3 | 12.6 | 6.9 | 13.5 |
| Sanitation, % | ||||
| Own any latrine | 81.6 | 83.8 | 84.1 | 86.8 |
| Access to improved latrine[ | 17.2 | 16.4 | 14.5 | 15.7 |
| Always or usually use primary toilet for defecation | 94.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.7 |
| Daily defecating in the open, children aged 0 to <3 y | 77.8 | 75.6 | 77.1 | 78.3 |
| Human feces observed in compound | 7.9 | 8.4 | 9.0 | 9.2 |
| Handwashing, % | ||||
| Has water ≤2 m of handwashing location | 24.1 | 27.5 | 28.4 | 28.1 |
| Has soap ≤2 m of handwashing location | 8.6 | 13.8 | 10.6 | 10.5 |
| Food security, % | ||||
| Prevalence of moderate to severe household hunger[ | 11.6 | 10.0 | 13.1 | 11.1 |
Values are means ± SDs except where noted. Enrollment characteristics excluding known pregnancy loss are presented. N, nutrition; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Drinking water and sanitation facilities were considered “improved” if they met the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program criteria. Improved drinking water was defined as piped water, public tap, tube well or borehole, protected well, or protected spring. Improved sanitation was defined as flush/pour flush pit latrine, ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet.
Moderate to severe hunger defined using the Household Hunger Scale (21).
FIGURE 2Summary of participant enrollment, random assignment, retention, and analysis in the WASH Benefits Bangladesh Study. WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene.
Enrollment characteristics by intervention group in the WASH Benefits Bangladesh Trial[1]
| Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active control | WSH | N | WSH+N | |
| Compounds, | 487 | 481 | 476 | 462 |
| Maternal | ||||
| Age, y | 23.4 ± 4.9 | 24.3 ± 5.4 | 23.7 ± 5.0 | 24.1 ± 5.4 |
| Height, cm | 150.8 ± 5.2 | 150.5 ± 5.5 | 150.2 ± 5.5 | 150.0 ± 5.2 |
| Previous births, | 1.2 ± 1.3 | 1.4 ± 1.4 | 1.4 ± 1.6 | 1.5 ± 1.5 |
| Completed at least primary education, % | 77.8 | 73.4 | 71.2 | 68.0 |
| Paternal, % | ||||
| Completed at least primary education | 63.0 | 60.3 | 57.8 | 57.1 |
| Works in agriculture | 24.0 | 28.5 | 33.4 | 28.4 |
| Household | ||||
| People per compound, | 10.0 ± 5.8 | 11.2 ± 6.3 | 11.5 ± 6.5 | 11.2 ± 6.7 |
| People per household, | 4.7 ± 2.5 | 4.6 ± 2.0 | 4.7 ± 2.3 | 4.9 ± 2.2 |
| Children aged <18 y in the household, | 1.5 ± 1.3 | 1.6 ± 1.2 | 1.6 ± 1.3 | 1.7 ± 1.3 |
| Has electricity, % | 58.9 | 60.9 | 60.5 | 60.8 |
| Has a cement floor, % | 16.4 | 12.1 | 11.8 | 11.7 |
| Has an iron roof, % | 99.4 | 98.3 | 98.3 | 98.5 |
| Drinking water, % | ||||
| Shallow tube well primary water source | 72.3 | 75.3 | 70.6 | 70.3 |
| Stored water observed at home | 52.2 | 45.1 | 48.1 | 51.5 |
| Reported treating currently stored water | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Sanitation, % | ||||
| Own any latrine | 59.8 | 54.1 | 54.0 | 51.5 |
| Open defecation by adult | 5.1 | 8.3 | 8.8 | 8.4 |
| Open defecation by child aged <8 y | 8.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 |
| Human feces observed in house or child play area | 5.5 | 7.7 | 9.2 | 8.0 |
| Handwashing, % | ||||
| Within 6 steps of latrine | ||||
| Has water | 17.5 | 11.2 | 9.5 | 11.9 |
| Has soap | 9.4 | 6.9 | 5.5 | 6.1 |
| Within 6 steps of kitchen | ||||
| Has water | 10.3 | 9.1 | 9.5 | 9.1 |
| Has soap | 3.7 | 2.3 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| Food security, % | ||||
| Prevalence of food insecurity[ | 27.7 | 33.1 | 30.3 | 29.1 |
Values are means ± SDs except where noted. Characteristics excluding known pregnancy loss are presented. N, nutrition; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Any level of food insecurity assessed using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (20).
Comparison of mean differences in hemoglobin between intervention groups in the WASH Benefits Kenya and Bangladesh Trials[1]
|
| Mean ± SD hemoglobin, g/L | Mean difference vs. control (95% CI) | Mean difference vs. WSH (95% CI) | Mean difference vs. N (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenya | |||||
| Control | 162 | 110 ± 13.1 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 138 | 110 ± 13.1 | −0.43 (−2.79, 1.94) | Ref | — |
| N | 196 | 113 ± 12.7 | 3.20 (0.41, 6.00)* | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 154 | 114 ± 12.2 | 4.44 (1.36, 7.51)** | 4.86 (2.20, 7.53)*** | 1.23 (−1.82, 4.28) |
| Bangladesh | |||||
| Control | 340 | 119 ± 9.7 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 384 | 119 ± 9.2 | 0.50 (−0.98, 1.97) | Ref | — |
| N | 356 | 121 ± 8.2 | 2.68 (1.11, 4.25)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 390 | 121 ± 8.4 | 2.44 (0.91, 3.96)** | 1.94 (0.74, 3.14)** | −0.25 (−1.54, 1.05) |
Mean differences and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. N, nutrition; Ref, reference; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
FIGURE 3Prevalence (95% CI) of anemia in each intervention group in the WASH Benefits Kenya (A) and Bangladesh (B) Trials. Prevalence ratios and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models using a binomial distribution and log link with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. N, nutrition; Ref, reference; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Comparison of biomarkers of micronutrient status between intervention groups in the WASH Benefits Kenya Trial[1]
| Outcome |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | Percentage difference vs. control (95% CI) | Percentage difference vs. WSH (95% CI) | Percentage difference vs. N (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBP, µmol/L | |||||
| Control | 157 | 0.81 (0.65, 1.03) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 0.86 (0.69, 1.04) | 5.6 (−2.5, 14.5) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 0.91 (0.77, 1.09) | 15.8 (6.9, 25.5)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 144 | 0.93 (0.78, 1.08) | 14.8 (6.7, 23.6)*** | 8.7 (0.7, 17.3)* | −0.9 (−7.6, 6.4) |
| Ferritin, µg/L | |||||
| Control | 157 | 18.0 (10.0, 30.8) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 15.6 (9.0, 30.2) | −8.3 (−25.9, 13.6) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 31.9 (19.8, 55.8) | 70.1 (41.9, 103.9)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 144 | 32.1 (20.4, 49.0) | 66.0 (35.6, 103.1)*** | 80.9 (48.1, 121.1)*** | −2.4 (−18.0, 16.1) |
| sTfR, mg/L | |||||
| Control | 157 | 12.1 (8.8, 16.9) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 12.0 (8.3, 18.0) | −1.1 (−10.1, 8.9) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 8.5 (7.3, 12.4) | −23.2 (−29.9, −15.8)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 144 | 9.6 (7.3, 12.8) | −20.2 (−28.5, −10.8)*** | −19.3 (−27.0, −10.9)*** | 3.9 (−4.3, 12.9) |
| Hepcidin, ng/mL | |||||
| Control | 158 | 6.0 (2.3, 13.5) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 131 | 5.1 (1.6, 10.6) | −22.6 (−46.7, 12.5) | Ref | — |
| N | 182 | 13.0 (6.8, 22.2) | 123.4 (56.8, 218.1)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 149 | 14.1 (7.0, 22.4) | 109.5 (46.3, 200.1)*** | 170.6 (80.7, 305.2)*** | −6.2 (−27.9, 22.0) |
| Vitamin B-12, pmol/L | |||||
| Control | 156 | 301.0 (225.5, 426.7) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 126 | 303.8 (231.9, 407.9) | −4.2 (−14.6, 7.4) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 357.9 (269.5, 519.2) | 18.5 (7.3, 30.9)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 142 | 371.6 (283.0, 515.7) | 20.9 (7.3, 36.2)** | 26.3 (12.8, 41.4)*** | 2.0 (−9.7, 15.2) |
Percentage differences and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. Outcomes were log-transformed for analysis. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. N, nutrition; RBP, retinol-binding protein; Q, quartile; Ref, reference; sTfR, soluble transferrin receptor; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Prevalence ratios between groups in the WASH Benefits Kenya Trial[1]
| Outcome |
| Prevalence, % | Ratio vs. control (95% CI) | Ratio vs. WSH (95% CI) | Ratio vs. N (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low hepcidin (<5.5 ng/mL) | |||||
| Control | 158 | 48.1 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 131 | 50.4 | 1.05 (0.85, 1.30) | Ref | — |
| N | 182 | 17.0 | 0.35 (0.25, 0.51)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 149 | 23.5 | 0.49 (0.33, 0.71)*** | 0.47 (0.32, 0.69)*** | 1.38 (0.82, 2.32) |
| Low ferritin (<12 µg/L) | |||||
| Control | 157 | 29.9 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 37.6 | 1.26 (0.92, 1.71) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 13.9 | 0.46 (0.29, 0.74)** | — | Ref |
| WSH + N | 144 | 9.0 | 0.30 (0.17, 0.55)*** | 0.24 (0.13, 0.43)*** | 0.65 (0.34, 1.24) |
| High sTfR (>8.3 mg/L) | |||||
| Control | 157 | 79.6 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 75.2 | 0.94 (0.82, 1.08) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 54.3 | 0.68 (0.60, 0.78)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 144 | 61.1 | 0.77 (0.65, 0.91)** | 0.81 (0.69, 0.94)** | 1.12 (0.94, 1.35) |
| Iron deficiency (ferritin < 12 µg/L or sTfR > 8.3 mg/L) | |||||
| Control | 157 | 80.9 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 77.6 | 0.96 (0.84, 1.10) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 57.2 | 0.71 (0.62, 0.80)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH + N | 144 | 62.5 | 0.77 (0.66, 0.90)** | 0.81 (0.69, 0.94)** | 1.09 (0.92, 1.29) |
| Iron deficiency anemia (anemic and iron deficient) | |||||
| Control | 152 | 40.8 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 131 | 38.2 | 0.94 (0.73, 1.20) | Ref | — |
| N | 189 | 23.8 | 0.58 (0.43, 0.78)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 154 | 20.1 | 0.49 (0.33, 0.73)*** | 0.53 (0.35, 0.79)** | 0.85 (0.54, 1.33) |
| Vitamin A deficiency (RBP | |||||
| Control | 157 | 52.9 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 125 | 44.0 | 0.83 (0.63, 1.10) | Ref | — |
| N | 173 | 34.7 | 0.66 (0.50, 0.87)** | — | Ref. |
| WSH+N | 144 | 28.5 | 0.54 (0.40, 0.72)*** | 0.65 (0.45, 0.93)* | 0.82 (0.59, 1.15 |
| Vitamin B-12 deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 156 | 4.5 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 126 | 5.6 | 1.24 (0.36, 4.20) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 3.9 | 0.88 (0.41, 1.90) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 142 | 2.8 | 0.63 (0.20, 2.01) | 0.51 (0.13, 1.96) | 0.72 (0.24, 2.13) |
| Vitamin B-12 depletion or deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 156 | 21.8 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 126 | 21.4 | 0.98 (0.63, 1.52) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 12.9 | 0.59 (0.39, 0.90)* | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 142 | 9.9 | 0.45 (0.25, 0.83)* | 0.46 (0.25, 0.86)* | 0.76 (0.42, 1.37) |
| Folate deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 156 | 9.6 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 129 | 14.0 | 1.45 (0.69, 3.06) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 1.1 | 0.12 (0.03, 0.54)** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 142 | 0.7 | 0.07 (0.01, 0.49)** | 0.05 (0.01, 0.38)** | 0.63 (0.06, 6.98) |
| High folate ( | |||||
| Control | 156 | 3.2 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 129 | 7.8 | 2.42 (0.83, 7.08) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 42.1 | 13.15 (5.97, 28.94)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 142 | 35.9 | 11.21 (4.79, 26.21)*** | 4.63 (2.53, 8.49)*** | 0.85 (0.63, 1.16) |
Prevalence ratios and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models using a binomial distribution and log link with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. N, nutrition; RBP, retinol-binding protein; Ref, reference; sTfR, soluble transferrin receptor; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Comparison of biomarkers of micronutrient status between intervention groups in the WASH Benefits Bangladesh Trial[1]
| Outcome |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | Percentage difference vs. control (95% CI) | Percentage difference vs. WSH (95% CI) | Percentage difference vs. N (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBP, µmol/L | |||||
| Control | 310 | 1.08 (0.91, 1.28) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 1.05 (0.86, 1.25) | −3.1 (−8.4, 2.5) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 1.09 (0.90, 1.28) | 0.1 (−5.3, 5.9) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 1.12 (0.94, 1.29) | 2.2 (−2.7, 7.4) | 5.5 (1.6, 9.5)** | 2.1 (−2.0, 6.3) |
| Folate, nmol/L | |||||
| Control | 304 | 30.2 (22.5, 37.5) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 359 | 26.0 (18.2, 34.0) | −13.9 (−20.6, −6.5)*** | Ref | — |
| N | 329 | 27.8 (19.7, 35.6) | −7.5 (−15.5, 1.2) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 26.8 (19.6, 35.4) | −8.7 (−15.4, −1.4)* | 6.0 (−1.4, 14.0) | −1.2 (−7.4, 5.4) |
| Ferritin, µg/L | |||||
| Control | 310 | 24.2 (14.1, 37.5) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 25.5 (14.6, 40.7) | 5.9 (−5.5, 18.7) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 37.9 (25.8, 51.9) | 56.2 (40.9, 73.2)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 39.3 (26.4, 53.6) | 63.6 (45.8, 83.5)*** | 54.4 (40.2, 70.2)*** | 4.7 (−4.6, 15.0) |
| sTfR, mg/L | |||||
| Control | 310 | 7.2 (6.1, 8.5) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 7.1 (6.1, 8.4) | −1.5 (−7.7, 5.1) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 6.5 (5.9, 7.5) | −12.4 (−17.9, −6.5)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 6.7 (6.0, 7.6) | −11.1 (−16.1, −5.7)*** | −9.7 (−13.0, −6.4)*** | 1.5 (−2.7, 5.9) |
| Hepcidin, ng/mL | |||||
| Control | 156 | 13.6 (5.9, 24.3) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 217 | 12.7 (6.3, 26.0) | −5.7 (−29.3, 25.9) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 16.9 (9.7, 28.0) | 48.8 (15.7, 91.6)** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 181 | 19.1 (11.8, 31.5) | 64.4 (30.6, 107.1)*** | 74.3 (35.6, 124.0)*** | 10.5 (−7.2, 31.6) |
| Vitamin B-12, pmol/L | |||||
| Control | 304 | 296.6 (239.8, 394.4) | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 360 | 314.5 (250.4, 426.4) | 5.1 (−2.1, 12.7) | Ref | — |
| N | 332 | 348.5 (276.0, 437.4) | 11.6 (3.8, 20.0)** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 344.3 (250.8, 447.3) | 11.8 (4.5, 19.7)** | 6.5 (0.8, 12.4)* | 0.2 (−6.1, 7.0) |
Percentage differences and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. Outcomes were log-transformed for analysis. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. N, nutrition; Q, quartile; RBP, retinol-binding protein; Ref, reference; sTfR, soluble transferrin receptor; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.
Prevalence ratios between groups in the WASH Benefits Bangladesh Trial[1]
| Outcome |
| Prevalence, % | Ratio vs. control (95% CI) | Ratio vs. WSH (95% CI) | Ratio vs. N (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low hepcidin (<5.5 ng/mL) | |||||
| Control | 156 | 23.7 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 217 | 20.7 | 0.87 (0.59, 1.29) | Ref | — |
| N | 178 | 9.6 | 0.40 (0.23, 0.70)** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 181 | 6.6 | 0.28 (0.16, 0.49)*** | 0.32 (0.18, 0.58)*** | 0.69 (0.35, 1.38) |
| Low ferritin (<12 µg/L) | |||||
| Control | 310 | 20.0 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 15.4 | 0.77 (0.56, 1.05) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 5.4 | 0.27 (0.16, 0.46)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 3.0 | 0.15 (0.09, 0.25)*** | 0.19 (0.11, 0.34)*** | 0.55 (0.29, 1.06) |
| High sTfR (>8.3 mg/L) | |||||
| Control | 310 | 27.1 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 26.8 | 0.99 (0.75, 1.30) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 12.5 | 0.46 (0.31, 0.68)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 13.2 | 0.49 (0.33, 0.71)*** | 0.49 (0.35, 0.69)*** | 1.05 (0.66, 1.67) |
| Iron deficiency (ferritin < 12 µg/L or sTfR >8.3 mg/L) | |||||
| Control | 310 | 34.8 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 32.2 | 0.92 (0.73, 1.16) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 15.8 | 0.45 (0.33, 0.62)*** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 14.8 | 0.42 (0.30, 0.60)*** | 0.46 (0.33, 0.63)*** | 0.94 (0.64, 1.38) |
| Iron deficiency anemia (anemic and iron deficient) | |||||
| Control | 329 | 9.7 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 378 | 6.6 | 0.68 (0.39, 1.18) | Ref | — |
| N | 351 | 2.6 | 0.26 (0.11, 0.62)** | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 387 | 1.3 | 0.13 (0.05, 0.35)*** | 0.20 (0.08, 0.49)*** | 0.50 (0.16, 1.57) |
| Vitamin A deficiency (RBP | |||||
| Control | 310 | 16.1 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 370 | 19.7 | 1.22 (0.83, 1.80) | Ref | — |
| N | 336 | 16.7 | 1.03 (0.66, 1.62) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 372 | 11.8 | 0.73 (0.49, 1.11) | 0.60 (0.41, 0.87)** | 0.71 (0.48, 1.04) |
| Vitamin B-12 deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 304 | 2.3 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 360 | 3.1 | 1.33 (0.48, 3.67) | Ref | — |
| N | 332 | 3.0 | 1.31 (0.40, 4.26) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 1.4 | 0.60 (0.17, 2.08) | 0.45 (0.15, 1.31) | 0.46 (0.14, 1.51) |
| Vitamin B-12 depletion or deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 304 | 20.7 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 360 | 16.1 | 0.78 (0.55, 1.10) | Ref | — |
| N | 332 | 11.4 | 0.55 (0.34, 0.89)* | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 16.3 | 0.78 (0.57, 1.08) | 1.01 (0.72, 1.42) | 1.42 (0.90, 2.25) |
| Folate deficiency ( | |||||
| Control | 304 | 2.3 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 359 | 5.8 | 2.54 (1.15, 5.60)* | Ref | — |
| N | 329 | 2.7 | 1.19 (0.46, 3.06) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 2.8 | 1.20 (0.51, 2.83) | 0.47 (0.24, 0.94)* | 1.01 (0.40, 2.55) |
| High folate ( | |||||
| Control | 304 | 9.2 | Ref | — | — |
| WSH | 359 | 8.1 | 0.88 (0.48, 1.60) | Ref | — |
| N | 329 | 8.5 | 0.92 (0.48, 1.77) | — | Ref |
| WSH+N | 363 | 7.4 | 0.81 (0.45, 1.44) | 0.92 (0.58, 1.45) | 0.87 (0.52, 1.46) |
Prevalence ratios and 95% CIs were derived from generalized linear models using a binomial distribution and log link with robust SEs controlling for clustering at the block level. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. N, nutrition; RBP, retinol-binding protein; Ref, reference; sTfR, soluble transferrin receptor; WASH, water, sanitation, and hygiene; WSH, water, sanitation, and handwashing.