| Literature DB >> 33632364 |
Michelle K Nakphong1,2, Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Cambodian population has experienced an increase in the proportion of stunted children who have overweight mothers during a period of rapid social and economic growth. We aimed to identify socio-economic factors associated with this household-level double burden over time.Entities:
Keywords: Cambodia; Child stunting; Maternal nutrition; Socio-economic factors
Year: 2021 PMID: 33632364 PMCID: PMC8094435 DOI: 10.1017/S1368980021000689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Public Health Nutr ISSN: 1368-9800 Impact factor: 4.022
Characteristics of the full sample of children by period and stunting status (period 1, n 7033; period 2, n 7955)
| Period 1 (2000–2005) | Period 2 (2010–2014) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stunted | Not sunted |
| Stunted | Not stunted |
| |
| Total number in group | 2985 | 4048 | 2417 | 5538 | ||
| Maternal weight status | ||||||
| Not overweight | 94·3 % | 92·8 % | 0·012 | 89·2 % | 84·6 % | < 0·001 |
| Overweight | 5·7 % | 7·2 % | 10·8 % | 15·4 % | ||
| Household wealth | ||||||
| Poorest | 33·4 % | 23·6 % | < 0·001 | 32·9 % | 20·9 % | < 0·001 |
| Poorer | 24·7 % | 21·9 % | 22·8 % | 17·4 % | ||
| Middle | 19·7 % | 20·1 % | 17·3 % | 16·1 % | ||
| Richer | 14·0 % | 16·8 % | 14·6 % | 18·9 % | ||
| Richest | 8·2 % | 17·6 % | 12·4 % | 26·7 % | ||
| Maternal short stature | ||||||
| Not short | 75·3 % | 62·7 % | < 0·001 | 57·8 % | 76·2 % | < 0·001 |
| Short | 24·7 % | 37·3 % | 42·2 % | 23·9 % | ||
| Mother's highest level of education | ||||||
| No education | 38·9 % | 28·5 % | < 0·001 | 23·2 % | 15·2 % | < 0·001 |
| Primary education | 52·0 % | 54·8 % | 54·2 % | 49·8 % | ||
| Secondary education | 9·1 % | 16·4 % | 21·6 % | 31·5 % | ||
| Higher than secondary education | 0·0 % | 0·4 % | 1·0 % | 3·5 % | ||
| Maternal employment | ||||||
| Not working | 32·1 % | 35·0 % | < 0·001 | 29·5 % | 35·2 % | < 0·001 |
| Professional/technical/clerical/sales | 11·2 % | 16·8 % | 15·7 % | 22·5 % | ||
| Agricultural/services/manual | 56·7 % | 48·2 % | 54·8 % | 42·3 % | ||
| Residence | ||||||
| Urban | 15·4 % | 19·0 % | < 0·001 | 19·9 % | 29·7 % | < 0·001 |
| Rural | 84·6 % | 81·0 % | 80·1 % | 70·3 % | ||
| Maternal age (in years) | ||||||
| 15–24 | 19·2 % | 23·9 % | < 0·001 | 24·8 % | 27·3 % | < 0·001 |
| 25–34 | 48·1 % | 48·5 % | 54·8 % | 56·5 % | ||
| 35–49 | 32·6 % | 27·6 % | 20·4 % | 16·3 % | ||
| Mother's total number of births | ||||||
| Mean | 4·2 | 3·63 | < 0·001 | 2·96 | 2·45 | < 0·001 |
| | 2·52 | 2·29 | 1·97 | 1·56 | ||
| Maternal smoking status | ||||||
| Non-smoker | 77·2 % | 86·4 % | < 0·001 | 87·6 % | 95·0 % | < 0·001 |
| Smoker | 22·8 % | 13·6 % | 12·4 % | 5·0 % | ||
| Mother born during Khmer Rouge (1975-1979) | ||||||
| Not born during Khmer Rouge | 81·5 % | 81·2 % | 0·812 | 84·2 % | 88·0 % | < 0·001 |
| Born during Khmer Rouge | 18·5 % | 18·8 % | 15·8 % | 12·0 % | ||
| Child's age (in years) | ||||||
| Less than 1 | 7·5 % | 29·0 % | < 0·001 | 7·3 % | 25·0 % | < 0·001 |
| 1 | 20·1 % | 18·2 % | 26·7 % | 18·9 % | ||
| 2 | 20·9 % | 18·0 % | 19·1 % | 21·0 % | ||
| 3 | 25·5 % | 18·3 % | 21·1 % | 18·2 % | ||
| 4 | 26·0 % | 16·5 % | 25·8 % | 16·9 % | ||
| Child's sex | ||||||
| Male | 50·4 % | 50·7 % | 0·805 | 50·2 % | 51·2 % | 0·418 |
Fig. 1Distribution of wealth indices by wealth quintiles and period among (a) the full sample of children. Period 2000–2005; 2010–2014 and (b) the subsample of children of overweight mothers. , 2000–2005; , 2010–2014
Characteristics of the subsample of children with overweight mothers by period and stunting status (period 1, n 459; period 2, n 1113)
| Period 1 (2000–2005) | Period 2 (2010–2014) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stunted | Not stunted |
| Stunted | Not stunted |
| |
| Total number in group | 169 | 290 | 262 | 851 | ||
| Household wealth | ||||||
| Poorest | 18·9 % | 12·1 % | < 0·001 | 18·3 % | 10·8 % | < 0·001 |
| Poorer | 19·5 % | 10·0 % | 18·7 % | 15·0 % | ||
| Middle | 14·2 % | 15·9 % | 19·5 % | 16·3 % | ||
| Richer | 24·3 % | 20·7 % | 19·5 % | 22·2 % | ||
| Richest | 23·1 % | 41·4 % | 24·0 % | 35·6 % | ||
| Maternal short stature | ||||||
| Not short | 62·1 % | 79·3 % | < 0·001 | 60·0 % | 74·3 % | < 0·001 |
| Short | 37·9 % | 20·7 % | 40·1 % | 25·7 % | ||
| Mother’s highest level of education | ||||||
| No education | 23·7 % | 25·2 % | 0·026 | 18·7 % | 14·3 % | 0·012 |
| Primary education | 62·7 % | 50·7 % | 52·7 % | 49·6 % | ||
| Secondary education | 13·6 % | 23·4 % | 27·9 % | 31·8 % | ||
| Higher than secondary education | 0·0 % | 0·7 % | 0·8 % | 4·2 % | ||
| Maternal employment | ||||||
| Not working | 34·3 % | 32·1 % | 0·393 | 25·2 % | 33·5 % | < 0·001 |
| Professional/technical/clerical/sales | 31·4 % | 37·6 % | 25·2 % | 31·4 % | ||
| Agricultural/services/manual | 34·3 % | 30·3 % | 49·6 % | 35·1 % | ||
| Residence | ||||||
| Urban | 23·1 % | 34·5 % | 0·01 | 33·6 % | 38·4 % | 0·157 |
| Rural | 76·9 % | 65·5 % | 66·4 % | 61·6 % | ||
| Maternal age | ||||||
| 15–24 | 7·1 % | 13·1 % | 0·098 | 11·1 % | 14·2 % | 0·240 |
| 25–34 | 48·5 % | 49·0 % | 63·4 % | 57·9 % | ||
| 35–49 | 44·4 % | 37·9 % | 25·6 % | 27·8 % | ||
| Mother’s total number of births | ||||||
| Mean | 4·6 | 3·71 | < 0·001 | 3·26 | 2·72 | < 0·001 |
| | 2·63 | 2·31 | 1·95 | 1·56 | ||
| Maternal smoking status | ||||||
| Non-smoker | 91·7 % | 92·8 % | 0·685 | 93·1 % | 97·2 % | 0·003 |
| Smoker | 8·3 % | 7·2 % | 6·9 % | 2·8 % | ||
| Mother born during Khmer Rouge (1975–1979) | ||||||
| Not born during Khmer Rouge | 87·6 % | 90·0 % | 0·421 | 79·8 % | 82·4 % | 0·340 |
| Born during Khmer Rouge | 12·4 % | 10·0 % | 20·2 % | 17·6 % | ||
| Child’s age (in years) | ||||||
| Less than 1 | 3·0 % | 23·8 % | < 0·001 | 5·7 % | 18·9 % | < 0·001 |
| 1 | 14·2 % | 13·4 % | 24·0 % | 15·9 % | ||
| 2 | 21·9 % | 23·4 % | 21·8 % | 21·5 % | ||
| 3 | 29·0 % | 17·9 % | 21·0 % | 22·1 % | ||
| 4 | 32·0 % | 21·4 % | 27·5 % | 21·6 % | ||
| Child’s sex | ||||||
| Male | 45·0 % | 49·3 % | 0·369 | 47·7 % | 49·9 % | 0·528 |
| Female | 55·0 % | 50·7 % | 52·3 % | 50·1 % | ||
Coefficient estimates from logistic regressions for the association between child stunting and socio-economic, maternal health, and child characteristics among the full sample of children by period (period 1, n 7033; period 2, n 7955)†
| Model 1: maternal weight status and household wealth | Model 2: Model 1 + mother’s characteristics | Model 3: Model 2 + child characteristics | Model 4: Model 3 + residence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aOR | 95 % CI | aOR | 95 % CI | aOR | 95 % CI | aOR | 95 % CI | |
| Period 1 (2000–2005) | ||||||||
| Mother overweight (ref, Not overweight) | 0·98 | 0·81, 1·20 | 0·98 | 0·80, 1·20 | 0·95 | 0·77, 1·18 | 0·95 | 0·77, 1·18 |
| Household wealth quintile (ref, richest) | ||||||||
| Poorest | 3·01*** | 2·52, 3·60 | 1·94*** | 1·59, 2·38 | 2·05*** | 1·66, 2·52 | 2·10*** | 1·69, 2·62 |
| Poorer | 2·41*** | 2·01, 2·89 | 1·73*** | 1·42, 2·11 | 1·80*** | 1·46, 2·21 | 1·84*** | 1·48, 2·29 |
| Middle | 2·09*** | 1·73, 2·53 | 1·62*** | 1·32, 1·97 | 1·68*** | 1·36, 2·06 | 1·72*** | 1·38, 2·13 |
| Richer | 1·78*** | 1·46, 2·17 | 1·51*** | 1·24, 1·85 | 1·56*** | 1·26, 1·92 | 1·59*** | 1·28, 1·97 |
| Period 2 (2010–2014) | ||||||||
| Mother overweight (ref, not overweight) | 0·79** | 0·67, 0·92 | 0·74*** | 0·63, 0·87 | 0·73*** | 0·62, 0·86 | 0·72*** | 0·61, 0·85 |
| Household wealth quintile (ref, richest) | ||||||||
| Poorest | 3·31*** | 2·82, 3·87 | 2·28*** | 1·87, 2·77 | 2·33*** | 1·90, 2·85 | 2·61*** | 2·07, 3·29 |
| Poorer | 2·76*** | 2·34, 3·26 | 2·09*** | 1·72, 2·54 | 2·12*** | 1·73, 2·59 | 2·37*** | 1·88, 2·97 |
| Middle | 2·30*** | 1·93, 2·74 | 1·88*** | 1·54, 2·28 | 1·93*** | 1·58, 2·35 | 2·13*** | 1·71, 2·65 |
| Richer | 1·66*** | 1·39, 1·98 | 1·50*** | 1·24, 1·81 | 1·52*** | 1·26, 1·85 | 1·64*** | 1·33, 2·01 |
*P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
Cluster robust standard errors were used. A full table of results is shown in Appendix 1.
Model 1: child stunting = α + β1 maternal weight + β2 household wealth + ϵ
Model 2 adds the following covariates to Model 1: mother’s education, maternal employment, maternal age, parity, maternal smoking, maternal short stature and mother’s birth during the Khmer Rouge.
Model 3 adds the following covariates to Model 2: child’s age and child’s sex.
Model 4 adds residence (urban v. rural) to Model 3.
Fig. 2Predicted probabilities of child stunting by wealth quintile, maternal overweight status and period among the full sample (period 1, n 7033; period 2, n 7955)1. , 2000–2005; , 2010–2014; , mother not overweight; , mother overweight. 1Predicted probabilities of stunting using coefficient estimates from Table 3, Model 4 among children of mothers aged 30 years, with three total children, non-smokers, not short, with no education, employed in an agricultural, service or manual occupation, rural residence, and not born during the Khmer Rouge famine. Characteristics were selected based on modal values (e.g. smoking status, occupation, etc.) or values close to sample means (e.g. age, number of children). Child’s age and sex were taken at their means. Points were horizontally dodged to show contrast
Factors associated with child stunting among the subsample of children with overweight mothers by period (period 1, n 459; period 2, n 1113)†
| Model 1: household wealth | Model 2: Model 1 + SES factors and residence | Model 3: Model 2 + maternal health indicators | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aOR | 95 % CI | aOR | 95 % CI | aOR | 95 % CI | |
| Period 1 (2000–2005) | ||||||
| Household wealth quintile (ref, richest) | ||||||
| Poorest | 2·81*** | 1·58, 5·00 | 2·53* | 1·25, 5·13 | 1·85 | 0·86, 4·01 |
| Poorer | 3·50*** | 1·88, 6·53 | 3·16** | 1·62, 6·19 | 2·70** | 1·36, 5·37 |
| Middle | 1·61 | 0·87, 2·97 | 1·46 | 0·76, 2·80 | 1·26 | 0·63, 2·50 |
| Richer | 2·10** | 1·22, 3·64 | 1·89* | 1·08, 3·32 | 1·69 | 0·95, 2·98 |
| Period 2 (2010–2014) | ||||||
| Household wealth quintile (ref, richest) | ||||||
| Poorest | 2·51*** | 1·60, 3·93 | 2·61** | 1·43, 4·77 | 1·96* | 1·05, 3·69 |
| Poorer | 1·84** | 1·19, 2·85 | 1·92* | 1·07, 3·43 | 1·62 | 0·88, 2·98 |
| Middle | 1·76* | 1·14, 2·73 | 1·88* | 1·12, 3·16 | 1·53 | 0·89, 2·65 |
| Richer | 1·30 | 0·85, 1·97 | 1·34 | 0·85, 2·11 | 1·25 | 0·79, 2·00 |
*P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
Cluster robust standard errors were used. A full table of results is shown in Appendix 2.
Model 1: child stunting = α + β1 household wealth + ϵ
Model 2 adds the following covariates to Model 1: mother’s education, maternal employment and residence (urban v. rural)
Model 3 adds the following covariates to Model 2: maternal age, parity, maternal smoking, maternal short stature and mother’s birth during the Khmer Rouge.