| Literature DB >> 34716896 |
Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin1, Oluwaseun Aramide Otekunrin2, Idris Akanbi Ayinde3, Rahman Akintayo Sanusi3, Oluseye Olusegun Onabanjo4, Oluwaseun Ariyo5.
Abstract
Diverse and quality diets are crucial to sustainable growth and development of under-five children, especially those of rural farming households. This study investigated the dietary diversity, environment, and health-related factors of young children. The study employed the use of cross-sectional survey data from 140 under-five children of cassava farming households in Ogun and Oyo states, South-West Nigeria. The study estimated factors influencing dietary diversity of under-five children and assessed children dietary diversity, and the availability of some environment and health-related factors of the farming households. The findings indicated that 98.7% and 97.5% of children consumed grains, with roots and tubers while 36.7% and 36.3% consumed legumes in Ogun and Oyo states respectively. The results also found that 48.6% of children sampled met the minimum cut-off point of 4 food groups with dietary diversity mean score of 3.28. The logit regression analysis indicated that child's age, mothers' age, distance to farm, and food expenditure were among the significant determinants of children dietary diversity. Therefore, this study seeks the collaborative efforts of stakeholders in providing nutrition-sensitive intervention programs for household members, especially mothers and young children in order to promote consumption of diversified diets and enhance healthy living of rural farming households.Entities:
Keywords: Children dietary diversity score (CDDS); Diverse diets; Farm households; Malnutrition; Sustainable development goals; Under-five children
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34716896 PMCID: PMC8556792 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-17221-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Map of South-West Nigeria showing the study areas; Ogun and Oyo states.
Source: maps of South-West Nigeria (Legit.ng)
Description of household and child-related factors
| Variables | Description | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child’s age | Under-five child’s age (months) | 32.82 | 17.49 |
| Household size | Number of persons belonging to the household | 5.84 | 2.28 |
| Household head’s age | Head of household’s age (years) | 49.57 | 10.94 |
| Mother’s age | Age of child’s mother (years) | 39.49 | 9.62 |
| Household head education | Number of years of schooling of household head | 6.99 | 3.97 |
| Mother’s education | Number of years of schooling of child’s mother | 4.89 | 3.78 |
| DDS | Dietary diversity score of under-five (0–7) | 3.28 | 1.28 |
| Farm size | Size of the household cassava farmland (hectare) | 1.41 | 0.99 |
| Farm income | Total household farm income annually (naira) | 139,250 | 120,669 |
| Non-farm income | Annual household non-farm income (naira) | 66,250 | 64,641 |
| Food expenditure | Household food expenditure (monthly) | 21,892 | 8,824 |
| Distance to market | Distance from farm to closest market (Km) | 9.15 | 4.39 |
| Crop share ratio | Crop commercialization index (CCI) level | 0.6262 | 0.2808 |
Source: underlying survey data 2020. Exchange rate in February 2020: 1 US $ = N323 Number of under-five children = 140.
CDDS (under-five) of cassava farming household members’ food groups
| S/N | Food groups | Ogun ( | Oyo ( | Pooled ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| 1 | Grains, white roots and tubers | 58 (96.7) | 78 (97.5) | 136 (97.1) |
| 2 | Legumes, nuts and seeds | 22 (36.7) | 29 (36.3) | 51 (36.4) |
| 3 | Dairy products (milk, yoghurt, cheese) | 3 (5.0) | 11 (13.8) | 14 (10.0) |
| 4 | Flesh foods | 38 (63.3) | 53 (66.3) | 91 (65.0) |
| 5 | Eggs | 1 (1.7) | 6 (7.5) | 7 (5.0) |
| 6 | Vitamins A-rich fruits and vegetables | 11 (18.3) | 40 (50.0) | 51 (36.4) |
| 7 | Others fruits and vegetables | 42 (70.0) | 68 (85.0) | 110 (78.6) |
| < 4 Food groups | 40 (66.7) | 32 (40.0) | 72 (51.4) | |
| ≥ 4 Food groups | 20 (33.3) | 48 (60.0) | 68 (48.6) | |
| Mean score (± SD) | 2.90 (± 1.20) | 3.56 (± 1.27) | 3.28 (± 1.28) |
Field Survey Data, 2020. SD, standard deviation.
Fig. 2Under-five children DDS of cassava commercialization households in South-West Nigeria.
Source: authors’ graph from field survey 2020. DDS, dietary diversity score
Comparing CDDS (under-five) thresholds and CCI household levels
| CCI levels | CDDS (under-five) | State | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | Pooled ( | ||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Food groups < 4 | 6 (100) | 3 (27.3) | 9 (52.9) | |
| Food groups ≥ 4 | - | 8 (72.7) | 8 (47.1) | |
| Total | ||||
| Food groups > 4 | - | 3 (30) | 3 (30.0) | |
| Food groups ≥ 4 | - | 7 (70) | 7 (70.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Food groups > 4 | 15 (68.2) | 8 (26.7) | 23 (44.2) | |
| Food groups ≥ 4 | 7 (31.8) | 22 (73.3) | 29 (55.8) | |
| Total | ||||
| Food groups > 4 | 19 (59.4) | 18 (62.1) | 37 (60.7) | |
| Food groups ≥ 4 | 13 (40.6) | 11 (37.9) | 24 (39.3) | |
| Total | ||||
| Food groups > 4 | 40 (66.7) | 32 (40.0) | 72 (51.4) | |
| Food groups ≥ 4 | 20 (33.3) | 48 (60.0) | 68 (48.6) | |
| Total |
Field Survey Data, 2020.
Fig. 3The relationship between CDDS and CCI.
Source: authors’ graph from field survey data 2020
Percent distribution of mothers’ nutrition-related knowledge among cassava commercialization household levels
| CCI household levels | Mothers’ nutrition-related knowledge | State | Pooled ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | |||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Have nutrition knowledge | 1 (16.7) | 2 (18.2) | 3 (17.6) | |
| No nutrition training | 5 (83.3) | 9 (81.8) | 14 (82.4) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have nutrition training | - | 5 (50) | 5 (50.0) | |
| No nutrition training | - | 5 (50) | 5 (50.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Have nutrition training | 2 (9.1) | 7 (23.3) | 9 (17.3) | |
| No nutrition training | 20 (90.9) | 23 (76.7) | 43 (82.7) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have nutrition training | 6 (18.8) | 4 (13.8) | 10 (16.4) | |
| No nutrition training | 26 (81.3) | 25 (86.2) | 51 (83.6) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have nutrition training | 9 (15.0) | 18 (22.5) | 27 (19.3) | |
| No nutrition training | 51 (85.0) | 62 (77.5) | 113 (80.7) | |
| Total | ||||
Field Survey, 2020.
Percent distribution of access to piped water among cassava commercialization household levels
| CCI household levels | Access to piped water | State | Pooled ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | |||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Have access to piped water | 2 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (11.8) | |
| No access to piped water | 4 (66.7) | 11 (100) | 15 (88.2) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to piped water | - | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| No access to piped water | - | 10 (100) | 10 (100.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Have access to piped water | 8 (36.4) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (15.4) | |
| No access to piped water | 14 (63.6) | 30 (100) | 44 (84.6) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to piped water | 5 (15.6) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (8.2) | |
| No access to piped water | 27 (84.4) | 29 (100) | 56 (91.8) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to piped water | 15 (25.0) | 0 (0.0) | 15 (10.7) | |
| No access to piped water | 45 (75.0) | 80 (100) | 125 (89.3) | |
| Total | ||||
Field Survey, 2020.
Percent distribution of access to electricity among cassava commercialization household levels
| CCI household levels | Access to electricity | State | Pooled ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | |||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Have access to electricity | 5 (83.3) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (29.4) | |
| No access to electricity | 1 (16.7) | 11 (100) | 12 (70.6) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to electricity | - | 2 (20.0) | 2 (20.0) | |
| No access to electricity | - | 8 (80) | 8 (80.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Have access to electricity | 16 (72.7) | 4 (13.3) | 20 (38.5) | |
| No access to electricity | 6 (27.3) | 26 (86.7) | 32 (61.5) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to electricity | 16 (50.0) | 3 (10.3) | 19 (31.1) | |
| No access to electricity | 16 (50.0) | 26 (89.7) | 42 (68.9) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to electricity | 37 (61.7) | 9 (11.3) | 46 (32.9) | |
| No access to electricity | 23 (38.3) | 71 (88.8) | 94 (67.1) | |
| Total | ||||
Field Survey, 2020.
Percent distribution of access to healthcare services among cassava commercialization household levels
| CCI household levels | Access to healthcare services | State | Pooled ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | |||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Have access to healthcare | 5 (83.3) | 3 (27.3) | 8 (47.1) | |
| No access to healthcare | 1 (16.7) | 8 (72.7) | 9 (52.9) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to healthcare | - | 7 (70.0) | 7 (70.0) | |
| No access to healthcare | - | 3 (30) | 3 (30.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Have access to healthcare | 20 (90.9) | 17 (56.7) | 37 (71.2) | |
| No access to healthcare | 2 (9.1) | 13 (43.3) | 15 (28.8) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to healthcare | 18 (56.3) | 10 (34.5) | 28 (45.9) | |
| No access to healthcare | 14 (43.8) | 19 (65.5) | 33 (54.1) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to healthcare | 43 (71.7) | 37 (46.3) | 80 (57.1) | |
| No access to healthcare | 17 (28.3) | 43 (53.8) | 60 (42.9) | |
| Total | ||||
Field Survey, 2020.
Percent distribution of access to improved toilet among cassava commercialization household levels
| CCI household levels | Access to improved toilet | State | Pooled ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun ( | Oyo ( | |||
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| Have access to improved toilet | 3 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (17.6) | |
| No access to improved toilet | 3 (50.0) | 11 (100) | 14 (82.4) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to improved toilet | - | 1 (10.0) | 1 (10.0) | |
| No access to improved toilet | - | 9 (90) | 9 (90.0) | |
| Total | - | |||
| Have access to improved toilet | 8 (36.4) | 4 (13.3) | 12 (23.1) | |
| No access to improved toilet | 14 (63.6) | 26 (86.7) | 40 (76.9) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to improved toilet | 13 (40.6) | 3 (10.3) | 16 (26.2) | |
| No access to improved toilet | 19 (59.4) | 26 (89.7) | 45 (73.8) | |
| Total | ||||
| Have access to improved toilet | 24 (40.0) | 8 (10.0) | 32 (22.9) | |
| No access to improved toilet | 36 (60.0) | 72 (90.0) | 108 (77.1) | |
| Total | ||||
Field Survey, 2020.
Results of the logistic regression of children dietary diversity
| Variables | Estimated values | Robust standard error | Marginal effects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child age (months) | 0.0356*** | 0.0119 | 0.003 | 0.0088 |
| + Child gender | 0.8307* | 0.4695 | 0.077 | 0.2041 |
| Mothers’ age | 0.0505** | 0.0243 | 0.038 | 0.0126 |
| Mothers’ year of schooling | 0.1001* | 0.0564 | 0.076 | 0.0250 |
| Household Size | − 0.0107 | 0.0935 | 0.909 | − 0.0027 |
| Farm Size | 0.2226 | 0.3791 | 0.557 | 0.0556 |
| Farm Income | − 1.39e-06 | 2.69e-06 | 0.606 | − 3.46e-07 |
| Nonfarm Income | 3.96e-06 | 3.76e-06 | 0.291 | 9.87e-07 |
| Distance (farm to market) | − 0.1483** | 0.0573 | 0.010 | − 0.0370 |
| Food expenditure | − 0.00006** | 0.00003 | 0.030 | − 0.00002 |
| + Mothers’ nutrition knowledge | − 0.0353 | 0.5469 | 0.948 | − 0.0088 |
| + Access to healthcare | − 1.0501* | 0.5415 | 0.052 | − 0.2566 |
| + Access to electricity | 0.1670 | 0.6151 | 0.786 | − 0.0417 |
| + Access to toilet | -0.4911 | 0.5731 | 0.391 | − 0.1207 |
| Crop sold ratio | 0.0844 | 0.8321 | 0.919 | 0.0211 |
| Constant | − 1.1798 | 1.2531 | 0.346 |
( +) Represent dummy variable (0 or 1). ***Significance at 1% level, **significance at 5% level, *significance at 10% level.
Number of observation = 140.
Wald chi2 (15) = 34.25.
Prob > chi2 = 0.0031.
Log pseudo likelihood = − 77.862423.
Pseudo R2 = 0.1972.