| Literature DB >> 35392969 |
E Beckstead1, G Mulokozi2, M Jensen3, J Smith3, M Baldauf3, K A Dearden2, M Linehan2, S Torres2, J Glenn3, J H West3, P C Hall3, B T Crookston3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal infant and young child feeding practices (IYCFP) reduce childhood stunting and are associated with additional health benefits. In Tanzania, IYCFP are far from optimal where 32% of children under the age of 5 years are stunted. The purpose of this study was to examine whether behavior change communication focused on reducing child undernutrition was associated with improved IYCFP in Tanzania.Entities:
Keywords: Behavior change communication; Child undernutrition; Infant and young child feeding practices; Mass media intervention
Year: 2022 PMID: 35392969 PMCID: PMC8988343 DOI: 10.1186/s40795-022-00511-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nutr ISSN: 2055-0928
Fig. 1Map of intervention area. This map was provided by the ASTUTE program and is used with permission
Demographics
| Description | Baseline (percent) | Endline (percent) | Combined total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural | 4301 (86.02) | 4296 (85.99) | 8,597 (86.00) |
| Urban | 699 (13.98) | 700 (14.01) | 1,399 (14.00) |
| Christians | 4166 (83.32) | – | 4,166(83.32) |
| Muslim | 541 (10.82) | – | 541 (10.82) |
| Other religion | 102 (2.04) | – | 102 (2.04) |
| No religion | 191 (3.82) | – | 191 (3.82) |
| Single—never married | 293 (5.86) | 211 (4.22) | 504 (5.04) |
| Married—monogamous | 3549 (70.98) | 3850 (77.06) | 7399 (74.02) |
| Married – polygamous | 291 (5.82) | 490 (9.81) | 781 (7.81) |
| Informal union | 425 (8.50) | 75 (1.50) | 500 (5.00) |
| Single – Previously married | 442 (8.84) | 365 (7.3) | 807 (8.07) |
| Crop farming | 3576 (71.52) | 3498 (70.02) | 7074 (70.77) |
| Self-employed | 386 (7.72) | 699 (13.99) | 1085 (10.85) |
| Housewife/ Househusband | 755 (15.10) | 605 (12.11) | 1360 (13.61) |
| Other | 278 (6.7) | 194 (3.88) | 472 (4.72) |
| Yes | 3684 (73.68) | 3903 (78.17) | 7587 (75.92) |
| No | 1285 (25.70) | 1090 (21.83) | 2375 (23.77) |
| Less than primary school | 1546 (30.92) | 1481 (29.65) | 3027 (30.29) |
| Completed primary school | 2808 (56.16) | 2840 (56.86) | 5648 (56.51) |
| Some secondary education or more | 646 (12.92) | 674 (13.49) | 1320 (13.21) |
| 0.314 (SD 0.185) | 0.364 (SD 0.176) | 0.338 (SD 0.182) | |
| 9.38 (SD 6.60) | 9.68 (SD6.70) | 9.51 (SD 6.64) | |
| 1,114 | 3,084 | 4,198 | |
| Less than primary school | 215 (18.79) | – | – |
| Completed primary school | 751 (65.65) | – | – |
| Some secondary education or more | 178 (15.56) | – | – |
astatistically significant
Note: The wealth variable was created by combining two other indices: access to services (access to water and safe sanitation) and ownership of eight specific consumer durables (TV, radio, automobile, etcetera). It is an average of these two and assumes they are equal. The result is a value between 0 and 1, a score closer to 1 indicating a higher socio-economic status [17]
IYCF behaviors frequency baseline vs. endline
| Variable | Baseline % (n) | Endline % (n) | Chi Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | 82.98 (4149) | 90.12 (4417) | < .0001 |
| Knowledge of when to start complementary feeding | 72.66 (3633) | 87.21 (4349) | < .0001 |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | 64.53 (2963) | 83.62 (4008) | < .0001 |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 28.69 (503) | 83.25 (1426) | < .0001 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 60.19 (375) | 77.62 (496) | < .0001 |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | 81.76 (632) | 90.79 (739) | < .0001 |
| Minimum meal frequency (MMF) | –––––––- | 70.33 (4326) | N/A |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) for child (4 food groups) | –––––––- | 47.46 (1558) | N/A |
| Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) | –––––––- | 22.34 (717) | N/A |
Regression analysis for maternal exposure to radio IYCFP Intervention and key IYCF knowledge and practice
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | 0.682 | 0.536–0.868a |
| Knowledge of when to initiate complementary feeding | 1.183 | 0.923–1.516 |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | 1.051 | 0.850–1.300 |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 1.004 | 0.703–1.432 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 2.227 | 1.256–3.948a |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | 1.488 | 0.789–2.805 |
| Minimum meal frequency | 1.222 | 1.004–1.486a |
| Minimum diversity for child (4 food groups) | 1.618 | 1.328–1.972a |
| Minimum acceptable diet | 1.511 | 1.213–1.883a |
astatistically significant
Note: Multivariate logistic regression model predicting key IYCFP knowledge and practices using intervention exposure: whether the mother saw a TV commercial or heard a radio spot promoting key IYCFP messages from the behavior change communication. Each indicator estimate is derived from a multivariate analysis that estimates the probability of the health indicator given exposure to the intervention. All model estimates control for maternal age, maternal education level, and wealth index
Regression analysis for male head of household’s IYCFP exposure to radio intervention and maternal IYCF knowledge and practice
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | 1.455 | 1.087–1.949a |
| Knowledge of when to initiate complementary feeding | 1.192 | 0.930–1.529 |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | 1.379 | 1.072–1.772a |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 0.703 | 0.486–1.017 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 0.946 | 0.554–1.616 |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | 1.113 | 0.546–2.268 |
| Minimum meal frequency (MMF) | 1.181 | 0.966–1.443 |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) for child (4 food groups) | 0.979 | 0.802–1.195 |
Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) | 1.167 | 0.923–1.477 |
astatistically significant
Note: Multivariate logistic regression model predicting key IYCFP knowledge and practices using intervention exposure: whether the male head of household saw a TV commercial or heard a radio spot promoting key IYCFP messages from the behavior change communication. Each indicator estimate is derived from a multivariate regression model that estimates the probability of the health indicator given exposure to the intervention. All model estimates control for maternal age, maternal education level, and wealth index
Regression analysis for maternal exposure to IYCFP TV messages and IYCF knowledge and practice
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | 0.872 | 0.702–1.084 |
| Knowledge of when to initiate complementary feeding | 1.335 | 1.078–1.652a |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | 1.130 | 0.940–1.360 |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 0.791 | 0.585–1.068 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 1.206 | 0.750–1.938 |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | 0.950 | 0.545–1.657 |
| Minimum meal frequency (MMF) | 1.021 | 0.864–1.207 |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) for child (4 food groups) | 1.360 | 1.151–1.607a |
Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) | 1.268 | 1.046–1.537* |
astatistically significant
Note: Multivariate logistic regression model predicting key IYCF knowledge and practices using intervention exposure: whether the mother saw a TV commercial or heard a radio spot promoting key IYCFP messages from the behavior change communication. Each indicator estimate is derived from a multivariate logistic regression model that estimates the probability of the health indicator given exposure to the intervention. All model estimates control for maternal age, maternal education level, and wealth index
Regression analysis for male head of household’s exposure to IYCF TV messages and maternal key IYCF knowledge and practice
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | 0.659 | 0.505–0.860a |
| Knowledge of when to initiate complementary feeding | 0.974 | 0.760–1.249 |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | 0.976 | 0.771–1.234 |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 1.141 | 0.778–1.676 |
| Timely complementary feeding | 0.829 | 0.468–1.466 |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | 0.593 | 0.302–1.163 |
| Minimum meal frequency (MMF) | 1.087 | 0.884–1.337 |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) for child (4 food groups) | 1.495 | 1.217–1.836* |
Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) | 1.455 | 1.147–1.845a |
astatistically significant
Note: Multivariate logistic regression model predicting key IYCF knowledge and practices using intervention exposure: whether the male head of household saw a TV commercial or heard a radio spot promoting key IYCFP messages from the behavior change communication. Each indicator estimate is derived from a multivariate logistic regression model that estimates the probability of the health indicator given exposure to the intervention. All model estimates control for maternal age, maternal education level, and wealth index
Regression analysis for maternal exposure to behavior change communication and key IYCF knowledge and practice
| No Exposure OR (CI) | Media Only OR (CI) | IPC Only OR (CI) | Media + IPC OR (CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of when to initiate breastfeeding | – | 0.74 (0.48, 1.15) | 0.68 (0.54, 0.86)a | 0.60 (0.44, 0.81)a |
| Knowledge of when to initiate complementary feeding | – | 0.94 (0.65, 1.36) | 1.04 (0.85, 1.26) | 0.91 (0.70, 1.20) |
| Timely initiation of breastfeeding | – | 0.82 (0.58, 1.17) | 0.75 (0.63, 0.90)a | 1.00 (0.77, 1.31) |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | – | 1.08 (0.56, 2.07) | 0.90 (0.66, 1.23) | 0.57 (0.38, 0.85) |
| Timely complementary feeding | – | 0.63 (0.25, 1.59) | 1.06 (0.68, 1.68) | 1.10 (0.56, 2.14) |
| Continued breastfeeding at 1 year | – | 4.38 (0.57, 33.58) | 0.93 (0.53, 1.64) | 1.40 (0.62, 3.16) |
| Minimum meal frequency (MMF) | – | 1.11 (0.81, 1.53) | 1.12 (0.95, 1.33) | 1.00 (0.80, 1.26) |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) for child (4 food groups) | – | 1.17 (0.85, 1.61) | 1.24 (1.05, 1.47)a | 1.56 (1.24, 1.97)a |
Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) | – | 1.30 (0.88, 1.91) | 1.28 (1.04, 1.57)a | 1.25 (0.95, 1.64) |
astatistically significant
Note: Multivariate logistic regression model predicting key IYCF knowledge and practices using intervention exposure: whether the mother saw any TV commercial or heard any radio spot from the ASTUTE intervention (not just those specific to nutrition). Each indicator estimate is derived from a multivariate logistic regression model that estimates the probability of the health indicator given exposure to the intervention. All model estimates control for maternal age, maternal education level, and wealth index. The “No Exposure” group refers to those who did not report any interpersonal communication (IPC) or media exposure