| Literature DB >> 31856424 |
Estefania Custodio1, Francois Kayikatire1, Sonia Fortin2, Anne-Claire Thomas1, Yves Kameli2, Tharcisse Nkunzimana1, Biram Ndiaye3, Yves Martin-Prevel2.
Abstract
Micronutrient malnutrition is a challenge for women of reproductive age, who are particularly vulnerable due to greater micronutrient needs. The minimum dietary diversity for women (MDD-W) indicator is a micronutrient adequacy's proxy for those women, but little is known about its relation to other dimensions. We assessed MDD-W and its association with other socioeconomic, food security and purchasing practices in urban Burkina Faso. We conducted multi-stage cluster sampling in two main cities of Burkina Faso, stratified by type of district, and interviewed 12 754 women in the 2009-2011 period. We obtained food consumption data through unquantified 24 hour recalls and computed MDD-W as consuming at least five out of ten predefined food groups. We constructed multivariable regression models with sociodemographic and food security covariates. MDD-W in urban Burkina Faso was 31%, higher in Ouagadougou (33%) than in Bobo-Dioulasso (29%), and lower in unstructured districts. The most frequently consumed food groups were 'all starchy', 'vitamin A rich dark green leafy vegetables' and 'other vegetables'. Household's expenses were associated with higher likelihood of MDD-W, while the association with household food security indicators varied by year and type of district. Purchasing foods in markets and choosing the place of purchase based on large choice rather than proximity showed a positive association with the MDD-W. Only one in three women in urban Burkina Faso reached the minimum dietary diversity, and although socioeconomic and food security variables had the greatest effect on MDD-W, purchasing practices, like going to the market, also showed a positive effect.Entities:
Keywords: Burkina Faso; adolescent girls; dietary diversity; micronutrients; urban; women of reproductive age
Year: 2019 PMID: 31856424 PMCID: PMC7083435 DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12897
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Matern Child Nutr ISSN: 1740-8695 Impact factor: 3.092
Figure 1Conceptual framework for the assessment of MDD‐W associated factors
Sample characteristics of Ouagadougou and Bobo Dioulasso stratified by type of district (2009‐2011)
| Ouagadougou | Bobo Dioulasso | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Structured | Unstructured | Structured | Unstructured | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| % | % | % | % | ||
| Total expenses (quintiles) 1st quintile | 19.1 | 14.2 | 26.7 | 11.8 | 49.9 |
| 2nd quintile | 20.7 | 17.4 | 28.2 | 19.4 | 23.8 |
| 3rd quintile | 21.0 | 20.0 | 23.6 | 22.1 | 15.1 |
| 4th quintile | 20.3 | 23.3 | 14.8 | 23.6 | 7.6 |
| 5th quintile | 18.9 | 25.2 | 6.7 | 23.1 | 3.6 |
| Socioeconomic score Low | 33.7 | 22.1 | 60.6 | 19.4 | 80.8 |
| Middle | 30.3 | 31.6 | 29.6 | 33.4 | 15.4 |
| High | 34.0 | 34.0 | 9.9 | 47.2 | 3.8 |
| Household dependency ratio score (mean) | 4.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Household youth ratio score (mean) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Age of head of household (mean) | 41.2 | 41.5 | 37.5 | 42.7 | 40.6 |
| Female headed households | 10.5 | 10.9 | 7.2 | 12.0 | 8.5 |
| Head of household education status None | 46.2 | 39.9 | 50.6 | 44.3 | 65.8 |
| Primary school | 10.1 | 8.4 | 15.4 | 9.6 | 8.1 |
| Secondary school | 20.3 | 22.2 | 19.9 | 19.1 | 16.5 |
| Higher education | 23.5 | 29.5 | 14.1 | 27.0 | 6.7 |
| Severely food insecure household | 51.3 | 49.2 | 68.3 | 44.3 | 56.8 |
| Household food stocks None | 35.2 | 33.3 | 43.8 | 35.0 | 27.6 |
| At least 5 kgs of cereals | 35.1 | 33.1 | 41.4 | 35.6 | 36.5 |
| At least 20 kgs of cereals | 29.8 | 33.6 | 14.9 | 31.4 | 36.8 |
| Household owns agriculture parcel | 16.2 | 14.1 | 20.9 | 12.4 | 29.6 |
| Household owns small livestock or poultry | 18.4 | 16.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 44.3 |
| Household reports montly expenses on meat | 14.4 | 17.9 | 4.6 | 18.6 | 3.9 |
| Household reports monthly expenses on fish | 57.1 | 61.4 | 55.8 | 55.9 | 50.5 |
| Household reports monthly expenses on prepared dishes | 39.1 | 43.7 | 48.9 | 35.3 | 23.4 |
| Place of choice to purchase food‐market | 75.2 | 72.3 | 47.6 | 92.2 | 62.9 |
| Reason to choose on place of food purchase‐large choice | 16.5 | 28.2 | 14.4 | 15.5 | 12.6 |
| Reason to choose on place of food purchase‐proximity | 81.1 | 80.4 | 78.9 | 84.4 | 74.4 |
Figure 2Mean WDDS‐10 and percentage of food groups consumed by women of reproductive age in Ouagadougou and Bobo‐Dioulasso for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 years period, by type of district
Factors associated with MDD‐W in Ouagadougou and Bobo‐Dioulasso in the 2009‐2001 years period*
| Interaction term year of survey | Overall | Ouagadougou | Bobo‐Dioulasso | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Structured ( | Unstructured ( | Structured ( | Unstructured ( | ||
| Explanatory terms | AdjOR (CI 95%) | AdjOR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | |
| Year of survey | p=0.0028 | |||||
| 2009 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 2010 | 0.7(0.5‐1.1) | 1.1 (0.7‐2.0) | 0.4 (0.1‐1.1) | 0.8 (0.4‐1.3) | 1.5(0.3‐6.2) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.7‐1.3) | 1.4 (1.0‐2.2) | 0.7(0.3‐1.6) | 0.8(0.5‐1.4) | 0.5(0.1‐1.9) | |
| Total expenses (quintiles) | ||||||
| 1st quintile | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 2nd quintile | 1.5(1.2‐1.9) | 1.6(1.1‐2.3) | 1.2(0.8‐1.6) | 1.7(1.2‐2.6) | 1.6(1.0‐2.6) | |
| 3rd quintile | 2.1(1.7‐2.6) | 1.8(1.2‐2.7) | 1.3(0.9‐1.9) | 3.1(2.2‐4.5) | 3.0(1.1‐7.7) | |
| 4th quintile | 2.8(2.2‐3.4) | 2.4(1.6‐3.7) | 1.8(1.3‐2.6) | 4.2(3.0‐6.0) | 2.3(0.6‐8.4) | |
| 5th quintile | 4.2(3.3‐5.4) | 3.6(2.3‐5.7) | 2.2(1.3‐3.5) | 6.8(4.6‐10.1) | 2.8(0.9‐8.5) | |
| Socioeconomic score | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Middle | 1.0(0.9‐1.2) | 1.1(0.9‐1.4) | 0.9(0.8‐1.1) | 1.1(0.9‐1.4) | 0.6(0.5‐5.2) | |
| High | 1.3(1.1‐1.6) | 1.4(1.1‐2.1) | 1.5(1.1‐2.3) | 1.3(1.0‐1.7) | 1.0(0.6‐1.7) | |
| Household dependence ratio score | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Middle | 0.9(0.8‐1.0) | 0.9 (0.7‐1.2) | 0.8(0.6‐1.1) | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 1.0(0.6‐1.7) | |
| High | 0.7(0.6‐0.8) | 0.8(0.7‐1.0) | 0.6(0.5‐0.8) | 0.6(0.5‐0.7) | 0.9(0.5‐1.5) | |
| Age of head of household | ||||||
| <30 years | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 30‐39 years | 0.9(0.8‐1.0) | 0.8 (0.7‐1.0) | 1.1(0.7‐1.6) | 1.0(0.7‐1.2) | 0.5(0.2‐0.8) | |
| 40‐49 years | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 0.7 (0.6‐0.9) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.9(0.7‐1.2) | 0.4(0.2‐0.8) | |
| >50 years | 0.4(0.3‐0.7) | 0.6 (0.5‐0.8) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 0.3(0.1‐1.0) | |
| Household food security‐HFIAS | ||||||
| Food secure | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Severely food insecure | 2009 | 0.8(0.6‐0.9) | 1.1(0.8‐1.6) | 0.5(0.3‐0.7) | 0.7(0.5‐1.0) | 0.5(0.3‐1.1) |
| 2010 | 0.8(0.7‐0.9) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.2(0.8‐1.9) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 0.4(0.2‐0.6) | |
| 2011 | 0.8(0.7‐0.9) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.0(0.6‐1.5) | 0.8(0.6‐1.1) | 0.6(0.2‐1.6) | |
| Household food stocks | ||||||
| None | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| At least 5 kgs of cereals | 2009 | 0.8(0.7‐1.0) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 0.8(0.4‐1.8) | 0.9(0.6‐1.3) | 0.4(0.1‐1.3) |
| 2010 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.5(0.8‐2.8) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 0.6(0.2‐1.5) | |
| 2011 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.8(1.2‐2.9) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 1.8(0.8‐4.2) | |
| At least 20 kgs of cereals | 2009 | 0.9(0.8‐1.2) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.0(0.5‐2.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.4) | 0.9(0.3‐2.8) |
| 2010 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.2(0.7‐2.1) | 4.8(2.3‐10.2) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.8(0.4‐1.8) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.8‐1.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.4) | 1.6(0.7‐4.0) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 1.8(0.6‐5.7) | |
| Household owns small livestock | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 2009 | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 1.0(0.6‐1.5) | 0.7(0.3‐1.5) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.9(0.9‐4.2) |
| 2010 | 1.0(0.9‐1.3) | 0.9(0.7‐1.2) | 0.8(0.3‐2.0) | 1.3(0.9‐1.9) | 1.1(0.4‐3.6) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.8‐1.2) | 0.9(0.7‐1.3) | 0.8(0.5‐1.3) | 1.1(0.8‐1.7) | 1.8(1.0‐3.2) | |
| Household owns home garden | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| Yes | 1.1(0.9‐1.3 | 0.9 (0.7‐1.2) | 1.3(0.7‐2.3) | 1.2(0.9‐1.4) | 1.7(1.0‐2.9) | |
| HH reports montly expenses on meat | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 4.2(3.5‐5.1) | 3.9(3.8‐5.4) | 3.9(2.8‐5.5) | 4.4(3.3‐5.9) | 3.8(1.3‐11.1) | |
| HH reports monthly expenses on fish | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 2.5(2.2‐2.9) | 2.3(1.8‐2.9) | 2.1(1.7‐2.8) | 2.6(2.1‐3.2) | 4.4(2.9‐6.8) | |
| HH reports monthly expenses on prepared dishes | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.2(1.0‐1.3) | 1.3(1.1‐1.6) | 1.3(1.0‐1.6) | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 2.1(1.7‐2.7) | |
| Place of choice to purchase food | ||||||
| Other | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Market | 1.1(1.0‐1.3) | 1.4(1.1‐1.7) | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 1.7(1.1‐2.7) | 2.0(1.0‐3.7) | |
| Reason to choose place of food purchase‐large choice | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.4(1.2‐1.7) | 1.5(1.2‐2.0) | 1.4(0.9‐2.4) | 1.3(1.0‐1.6) | 2.0(1.4‐2.7) | |
| Reason to choose place of food purchase‐proximity | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.0(0.9‐1.1) | 1.0(0.8‐1.3) | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.4(0.8‐2.6) | |
Multivariable models are run with registries that have no missing data for any of the covariates included, thus N does not match with initial number.