| Literature DB >> 34217308 |
Sabu Ulahannan Kochupurackal1, Yogish Channa Basappa1, Sangeetha Joice Vazhamplackal2, Prashanth N Srinivas3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional inequality in India has been estimated typically using stunting, wasting and underweight separately which hide the overall magnitude and severity of undernutrition. We used the Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF) that combines all three forms of anthropometric failures to assess the severity of undernutrition and identify the most vulnerable social groups and geographical hotspots.Entities:
Keywords: CIAF; India; Inequality; Intersectionality; NFHS
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34217308 PMCID: PMC8254924 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-021-01499-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Distribution of CIAF by intersecting sub-groups of Caste, Economic position, Gender and Place of Residence
| Intersecting Sub-groups | N | % | Only wasting | Underweight and Wasted | Stunted underweighted and wasted | Stunted and Underweighted | Only Stunted | Only underweight | CIAF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ST Poor Female Rural | 16,492.00 | 6.66 | 6.60 | 10.80 | 9.60 | 24.00 | 12.70 | 3.20 | 66.90 |
| ST Poor Female Urban | 727.00 | 0.29 | 6.98 | 7.97 | 9.07 | 21.32 | 15.07 | 1.56 | 61.97 |
| ST Poor Male Rural | 17,084.00 | 6.88 | 5.75 | 11.76 | 12.60 | 23.32 | 12.71 | 3.03 | 69.17 |
| ST Poor Male Urban | 770.00 | 0.31 | 8.30 | 9.50 | 9.00 | 21.80 | 16.40 | 6.90 | 71.90 |
| ST Non-Poor Female Rural | 5503.00 | 2.21 | 6.80 | 7.50 | 6.80 | 17.00 | 12.20 | 3.00 | 53.30 |
| ST Non-Poor Female Urban | 2881.00 | 1.16 | 8.45 | 8.28 | 5.76 | 13.96 | 11.05 | 2.18 | 49.68 |
| ST Non-Poor Male Rural | 5762.00 | 2.32 | 7.50 | 8.20 | 9.10 | 16.10 | 13.70 | 1.90 | 56.50 |
| ST Non-Poor Male Urban | 2980.00 | 1.20 | 5.90 | 12.60 | 6.40 | 13.50 | 11.40 | 2.50 | 52.30 |
| SC Poor Female Rural | 12,461.00 | 5.02 | 4.80 | 8.30 | 8.20 | 26.70 | 15.40 | 2.70 | 66.10 |
| SC Poor Female Urban | 1139.00 | 0.45 | 7.90 | 9.40 | 9.50 | 23.70 | 12.10 | 4.00 | 66.60 |
| SC Poor Male Rural | 13,279.00 | 5.35 | 4.50 | 8.70 | 10.20 | 25.20 | 15.70 | 2.30 | 66.60 |
| SC Poor Male Urban | 1134.00 | 0.45 | 6.59 | 7.11 | 8.75 | 22.38 | 15.23 | 7.17 | 67.23 |
| SC Non-Poor Female Rural | 6294.00 | 2.53 | 7.46 | 7.89 | 3.74 | 15.01 | 13.23 | 2.55 | 49.88 |
| SC Non-Poor Female Urban | 3806.00 | 1.53 | 7.10 | 6.90 | 4.30 | 15.70 | 13.70 | 2.50 | 50.20 |
| SC Non-Poor Male Rural | 6739.00 | 2.71 | 6.10 | 7.90 | 6.80 | 14.40 | 14.40 | 2.20 | 51.80 |
| SC Non-Poor Male Urban | 4199.00 | 1.69 | 6.34 | 7.73 | 5.78 | 15.38 | 13.80 | 2.18 | 51.21 |
| Other Poor Female Rural | 27,055.00 | 10.90 | 5.40 | 8.30 | 7.20 | 25.30 | 15.30 | 2.80 | 64.30 |
| Other Poor Female Urban | 2501.00 | 1.00 | 5.76 | 7.66 | 8.24 | 25.03 | 12.54 | 2.12 | 61.35 |
| Other Poor Male Rural | 29,018.00 | 11.72 | 5.20 | 8.30 | 9.20 | 23.80 | 15.10 | 2.20 | 63.80 |
| Other Poor Male Urban | 2707.00 | 1.10 | 5.00 | 8.80 | 10.30 | 23.00 | 15.10 | 2.40 | 64.60 |
| Other Non-Poor Female Rural | 23,121.00 | 9.31 | 6.70 | 7.10 | 4.00 | 13.40 | 13.00 | 2.50 | 46.70 |
| Other Non-Poor Female Urban | 16,921.00 | 6.80 | 7.41 | 7.18 | 3.72 | 11.58 | 11.26 | 2.55 | 43.70 |
| Other Non-Poor Male Rural | 26,476.00 | 10.71 | 6.60 | 7.80 | 5.10 | 13.10 | 13.10 | 2.00 | 47.70 |
| Other Non-Poor Male Urban | 19,006.00 | 7.70 | 7.10 | 8.30 | 4.75 | 11.49 | 11.70 | 2.19 | 45.53 |
| Total | 248,055.00 | 100.00 | 6.19 | 8.22 | 6.62 | 18.33 | 13.41 | 2.55 | 55.32 |
Fig. 1Concentration Curve for CIAF and all three anthropometric failure by Caste Category
Economic Position Differences in All Three Failures and CIAF by Intersectional Sub-groups
| All three failures | CIAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
| Intersecting Sub-groups | OR | LCI | UCI | OR | LCI | UCI |
| ST Poor Female Rural | 2.07 | 1.81 | 2.38 | 2.37 | 2.21 | 2.54 |
| ST Non-Poor Female Rural | 1.43 | 1.08 | 1.89 | 1.34 | 1.18 | 1.52 |
| ST Poor Female Urban | 1.96 | 0.98 | 3.93 | 1.91 | 1.40 | 2.61 |
| ST Non-Poor Female Urban | 1.2 | 0.75 | 1.93 | 1.17 | 0.92 | 1.50 |
| ST Poor Male Rural | 2.85 | 2.51 | 3.24 | 2.68 | 2.5 | 2.88 |
| ST Non-Poor Male Rural | 1.95 | 1.52 | 2.52 | 1.52 | 1.35 | 1.72 |
| ST Poor Male Urban | 1.94 | 1.2 | 3.15 | 3 | 2.18 | 4.12 |
| ST Non-Poor Male Urban | 1.33 | 0.9 | 1.98 | 1.29 | 1.02 | 1.62 |
| SC Poor Female Rural | 1.75 | 1.53 | 2 | 2.29 | 2.14 | 2.46 |
| SC Non-Poor Female Rural | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.93 | 1.18 | 1.09 | 1.29 |
| SC Poor Female Urban | 2.06 | 1.5 | 2.83 | 2.34 | 1.93 | 2.84 |
| SC Non-poor Female Urban | 0.87 | 0.65 | 1.16 | 1.18 | 1.04 | 1.35 |
| SC Poor Male Rural | 2.24 | 1.97 | 2.54 | 2.34 | 2.19 | 2.51 |
| SC Non-Poor Male Rural | 1.42 | 1.2 | 1.68 | 1.26 | 1.16 | 1.37 |
| SC Poor Male Urban | 1.93 | 1.44 | 2.59 | 2.48 | 2.03 | 3.03 |
| SC Non-Poor Male Urban | 1.23 | 0.99 | 1.52 | 1.25 | 1.1 | 1.42 |
| Other Poor Female Rural | 1.53 | 1.35 | 1.72 | 2.12 | 2 | 2.24 |
| Other Non-Poor Female Rural | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.94 | 1.03 | 0.97 | 1.09 |
| Other Poor Female Urban | 1.77 | 1.34 | 2.35 | 1.92 | 1.63 | 2.25 |
| Other Non-Poor Female Urban | 0.78 | 0.66 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| Other Poor Male Rural | 2 | 1.78 | 2.24 | 2.07 | 1.95 | 2.19 |
| Other Non-Poor Male Rural | 1.05 | 0.92 | 1.19 | 1.07 | 1.01 | 1.13 |
| Other Poor Male Urban | 2.26 | 1.79 | 2.85 | 2.14 | 1.85 | 2.47 |
| Other Non-Poor Male Urban | 1 | 1 | ||||
Non-overlapping confidence interval
Marginally overlapping confidence interval
Fig. 2Undernutrition hotspots in India. Map of India showing the undernutrition hotspots; Critical districts = High prevalence in all three failures, stunting and underweight, and underweight and wasting. Very serious districts = High prevalence in all three failures, stunting and underweight or underweight and wasting. Serious districts = High prevalence in all three failures or high prevalence in stunting and underweight, and underweight and wasting
Fig. 3Univariate LISA maps of India showing clustering of undernutrition hotspot and cold spot by two dimensional and three-dimensional anthropometric failures