| Literature DB >> 35062930 |
Nadia Diamond-Smith1, Lakshmi Gopalakrishnan2, Dilys Walker3, Lia Fernald2, Purnima Menon4, Sumeet Patil5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices in India do not meet recommendations. Community health care workers (CHWs) are often the primary source of information for pregnant and postpartum women about Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices. While existing research has evaluated the effectiveness of content and delivery of information through CHWs, little is known about the quality of the interpersonal communication (respectful care). We analyzed the effect of respectful interactions on recommended IYCF practices.Entities:
Keywords: Anganwadi workers; Health behaviors; Infant health; Nutrition; Quality interactions; Quality of care
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062930 PMCID: PMC8783456 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07352-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Conceptual and Analytical Model
Socio-demographics of the study population [n = 5679]
| n | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (mean, IQR) | 24.23 | 21–26 |
| Number of pregnancies (mean, IQR) | 2.6 | 1–3 |
| Education in years (mean, IQR) | 4.8 | 0–9 |
| Paid Work | 1564 | 17.3 |
| Scheduled Caste or Tribe | 4006 | 44.3 |
| Hindu | 8366 | 92.3 |
| Recalls at least 50% of counseling messages | 1559 | 23.5 |
| State | ||
| Bihar | 4767 | 52.8 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 4266 | 47.2 |
| Received adequate number of visits from AWW | 2380 | 35.87 |
Components of respectful interaction between women and AWWs
| No. | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Felt like you could trust the AWW | ||
| No | 1357 | 23.9 |
| Yes | 4322 | 76.1 |
| Felt that the AWW had your best interest in mind | ||
| No | 1532 | 27.0 |
| Yes | 4147 | 73.0 |
| Felt the AWW was interested in your health | ||
| No | 1532 | 27.0 |
| Yes | 4147 | 73.0 |
| Felt the AWW treated you with respect | ||
| No | 1320 | 23.2 |
| Yes | 4359 | 76.8 |
| Felt the AWW spent time at your visit | ||
| No | 1820 | 32.0 |
| Yes | 3859 | 68.0 |
| Felt the AWW talked in a friendly manner | ||
| No | 1319 | 23.2 |
| Yes | 4360 | 76.8 |
| Felt comfortable asking the AWW questions | ||
| No | 1714 | 30.2 |
| Yes | 3965 | 69.8 |
| Binary Summary Score: 1 = positive on all indicators, 0 = positive on 6 or less | ||
| Not positive | 2612 | 46.0 |
| Positive | 3067 | 54.0 |
| Total | 5679 | 100.0 |
Bivariate association between child feeding indicators and respectful care (binary)
| Low respectful care | High respectful care | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
| % infants 0- < 6 m of age who received only breastmilk during the previous day*** | ||||||
| 0 | 267 | 40 | 257 | 23.4 | 524 | 29.7 |
| 1 | 400 | 60 | 841 | 76.6 | 1241 | 70.3 |
| Total | 667 | 100 | 1098 | 100 | 1765 | 100 |
| % beneficiaries with 0-12 m child who breastfed their child within an hour of birth* | ||||||
| 0 | 217 | 17.6 | 306 | 14.9 | 523 | 15.9 |
| 1 | 1015 | 82.4 | 1743 | 85.1 | 2758 | 84.1 |
| Total | 1232 | 100 | 2049 | 100 | 3281 | 100 |
| Children aged 0-12 m who received adequate diet as per their age in last 24 h*** | ||||||
| 0 | 773 | 62.7 | 1076 | 52.5 | 1849 | 56.4 |
| 1 | 459 | 37.3 | 973 | 47.5 | 1432 | 43.6 |
| Total | 1232 | 100 | 2049 | 100 | 3281 | 100 |
| Children aged 6–12 months who received adequate number of meals in last 24 h | ||||||
| 0 | 254 | 45 | 382 | 40.2 | 636 | 42 |
| 1 | 311 | 55 | 569 | 59.8 | 880 | 58 |
| Total | 565 | 100 | 951 | 100 | 1516 | 100 |
| Children 6–12 months received 4 or more food groups* | ||||||
| 0 | 497 | 88 | 792 | 83.3 | 1289 | 85 |
| 1 | 68 | 12 | 159 | 16.7 | 227 | 15 |
| Total | 565 | 100 | 951 | 100 | 1516 | 100 |
p* < 0.5, p** < 0.01, p*** < 0.001
Association between respectful care, knowledge recall and breastfeeding practices, multivariable logistic regression models (Odds Ratios, 95%CI)
| Recall 50% of messages | Only breastmilk last 24 h | Breastfed within 1 h of birth | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Children 0–12 months | Children< 6 months | Children 0–12 months | ||
| More respectful interaction with AWW (binary) | 2.49*** (1.98–3.15) | 1.55*** (1.22–1.98) | 1.40*** (1.09–1.79) | 1.12 (0.87–1.44) | 1.02 (0.79–1.32) |
| Recall 50% of messages | 1.60*** (1.22–2.08) | 1.58*** (1.29–1.94) | |||
| Woman’s age (in years) | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.99 (0.95–1.03) | 0.99 (0.95–1.04) | 0.99 (0.96–1.03) | 0.99 (0.96–1.03) |
| Woman’s education (in years) | 1.02** (1.00–1.04) | 1.04** (1.01–1.07) | 1.04** (1.01–1.07) | 1.01 (0.99–1.04) | 1.01 (0.98–1.04) |
| Woman working outside the house (compared to not) | 1.12 (0.89–1.39) | 0.88 (0.59–1.29) | 0.87 (0.58–1.30) | 0.67*** (0.51–0.89) | 0.66*** (0.50–0.87) |
| Parity | 1.02 (0.96–1.07) | 0.99 (0.90–1.09) | 0.99 (0.90–1.09) | 1.09 (0.97–1.21) | 1.08 (0.97–1.21) |
| Scheduled Caste or Tribe (compared to no/higher caste) | 0.74*** (0.63–0.88) | 1.25* (0.99–1.57) | 1.30** (1.03–1.64) | 0.92 (0.70–1.22) | 0.95 (0.72–1.25) |
| Hindu (compared to not Hindu) | 1.25 (0.87–1.79) | 1.45* (0.93–2.24) | 1.40 (0.91–2.16) | 1.40 (0.86–2.27) | 1.37 (0.84–2.22) |
| Wealth quartile | 1.08* (1.00–1.17) | 0.88* (0.77–1.01) | 0.87** (0.76–0.99) | 0.86*** (0.78–0.95) | 0.85*** (0.77–0.94) |
| Received adequate number of visits | 1.50*** (1.26–1.78) | 0.46*** (0.32–0.66) | 0.43*** (0.30–0.61) | 1.39*** (1.17–1.66) | 1.33*** (1.12–1.59) |
| State | 1.04*** (1.02–1.05) | 1.17*** (1.15–1.20) | 1.17*** (1.14–1.19) | 1.03*** (1.01–1.06) | 1.03** (1.01–1.06) |
| Treatment Arm | 1.60*** (1.34–1.92) | 1.19 (0.92–1.54) | 1.12 (0.85–1.47) | 1.02 (0.78–1.33) | 0.97 (0.74–1.27) |
| Constant | 0.08*** (0.04–0.16) | 0.13*** (0.05–0.35) | 0.14*** (0.05–0.35) | 2.38* (0.92–6.13) | 2.48* (0.96–6.42) |
| N | 3266 | 1753 | 1753 | 3266 | 3266 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 and robust confidence interval in parentheses
Association between respectful care, knowledge recall and child feeding practices, multivariable logistic regression models (Odds Ratios, 95%CI; p < 0.1* p < 0.05** p < 0.001***)
| Received adequate diet as per age in last 24 h | Received adequate number of meals in last 24 h | Received 4 or more food groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Children 0–12 months | Children 6–12 months | Children 6–12 months | |||
| More respectful interaction with AWW (binary) | 1.34*** (1.16–1.56) | 1.14* (0.98–1.33) | 1.30** (1.01–1.67) | 1.25* (0.96–1.62) | 1.55*** (1.14–2.09) | 1.26 (0.89–1.77) |
| Recall 50% of messages | 2.38*** (2.07–2.75) | 1.25* (1.00–1.57) | 2.42*** (1.58–3.69) | |||
| Woman’s age (in years) | 0.98* (0.95–1.00) | 0.98* (0.95–1.00) | 1.03 (0.99–1.06) | 1.03 (0.99–1.06) | 1.01 (0.97–1.05) | 1.01 (0.96–1.05) |
| Woman’s education (in years) | 1.03*** (1.01–1.05) | 1.03*** (1.01–1.05) | 1.05*** (1.02–1.08) | 1.05*** (1.02–1.08) | 1.02 (0.98–1.06) | 1.02 (0.98–1.06) |
| Woman working outside the house (compared to not) | 0.90 (0.74–1.11) | 0.88 (0.72–1.08) | 1.33 (0.93–1.90) | 1.32 (0.92–1.89) | 1.18 (0.75–1.87) | 1.13 (0.74–1.73) |
| Parity | 1.04 (0.98–1.12) | 1.04 (0.97–1.11) | 0.97 (0.90–1.04) | 0.97 (0.90–1.04) | 0.95 (0.84–1.08) | 0.95 (0.83–1.08) |
| Scheduled Caste or Tribe (compared to no caste) | 1.04 (0.88–1.24) | 1.11 (0.92–1.34) | 1.23* (0.97–1.57) | 1.25* (0.98–1.59) | 0.70** (0.51–0.96) | 0.73* (0.52–1.01) |
| Hindu (compared to not Hindu) | 1.27 (0.89–1.81) | 1.23 (0.90–1.68) | 1.33 (0.89–1.98) | 1.33 (0.90–1.98) | 0.62* (0.36–1.07) | 0.60* (0.35–1.04) |
| Wealth quartile | 0.96 (0.89–1.05) | 0.95 (0.87–1.03) | 1.12** (1.00–1.25) | 1.12** (1.00–1.25) | 1.13 (0.96–1.34) | 1.14 (0.96–1.35) |
| Received adequate number of visits | 0.30*** (0.24–0.36) | 0.26*** (0.22–0.31) | 0.54*** (0.40–0.73) | 0.51*** (0.38–0.70) | 1.32 (0.86–2.04) | 1.10 (0.71–1.70) |
| State | 1.10*** (1.08–1.12) | 1.09*** (1.08–1.11) | 0.97* (0.95–1.00) | 0.97* (0.95–1.00) | 0.95*** (0.92–0.98) | 0.95*** (0.92–0.98) |
| Treatment Arm | 1.20 (0.95–1.52) | 1.10 (0.86–1.40) | 0.94 (0.67–1.31) | 0.92 (0.66–1.28) | 1.26 (0.89–1.80) | 1.17 (0.81–1.69) |
| Constant | 0.27*** (0.13–0.55) | 0.28*** (0.14–0.57) | 0.74 (0.23–2.32) | 0.74 (0.24–2.34) | 0.21*** (0.07–0.64) | 0.22*** (0.07–0.69) |
| N | 3266 | 3266 | 1513 | 1513 | 1513 | 1513 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 and robust confidence interval in parentheses