Literature DB >> 35755937

Acceptability and Experiences with the Use of 3D Scans to Measure Anthropometry of Young Children in Surveys and Surveillance Systems from the Perspective of Field Teams and Caregivers.

Maria Elena D Jefferds1, Zuguo Mei1, Mireya Palmieri2, Karla Mesarina2, Dickens Onyango3, Rael Mwando3, Victor Akelo4, Jianmeng Liu5, Yubo Zhou5, Ying Meng5, Karim Bougma6.   

Abstract

Background: Portable systems using three-dimensional (3D) scan data to calculate young child anthropometry measurements in population-based surveys and surveillance systems lack acceptability data from field workers and caregivers. Objective: The aim was to assess acceptability and experiences with 3D scans measuring child aged 0-59 mo anthropometry in population-based surveys and surveillance systems in Guatemala, Kenya, and China (0-23 mo only) among field teams and caregivers of young children as secondary objectives of an external effectiveness evaluation.
Methods: Manual data were collected twice and 12 images captured per child by anthropometrist/expert and assistant (AEA) field teams (individuals/country, n = 15/Guatemala, n = 8/Kenya, n = 6/China). Caregivers were interviewed after observing their child's manual and scan data collection. Mixed methods included an administered caregiver interview (Guatemala, n = 465; Kenya, n = 496; China, n = 297) and self-administered AEA questionnaire both with closed- and open-ended questions, and 6 field team focus group discussions (FGDs; Guatemala, n = 2; Kenya, n = 3; China, n = 1). Qualitative data were coded by 2 authors and quantitative data produced descriptive statistics. Mixed-method results were compared and triangulated.
Results: Most AEAs were female with secondary or higher education. Approximately 80-90% of caregivers were the child's mother. To collect all anthropometry data, 62.1% of the 29 AEAs preferred scan, while 31% preferred manual methods. In FGDs, a key barrier for manual and scan methods was lack of child cooperation. Across countries, approximately 30% to almost 50% of caregivers said their child was bothered by each manual and scan method, while ≥95% of caregivers were willing to have their child measured by scans in the future. Conclusions: Use of 3D scans to calculate anthropometry measurements was generally at least as acceptable as manual anthropometry measurement among AEA field workers and caregivers of young children aged <60 mo, and in some cases preferred. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D imaging system; acceptability; anthropometrists; anthropometry; caregivers; surveillance systems; surveys; young children

Year:  2022        PMID: 35755937      PMCID: PMC9213209          DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzac085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Dev Nutr        ISSN: 2475-2991


  11 in total

1.  Measurement and standardization protocols for anthropometry used in the construction of a new international growth reference.

Authors:  Mercedes de Onis; Adelheid W Onyango; Jan Van den Broeck; Wm Cameron Chumlea; Reynaldo Martorell
Journal:  Food Nutr Bull       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.069

2.  Reliability of anthropometric measurements in the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Acta Paediatr Suppl       Date:  2006-04

3.  Children and Adolescents' Anthropometrics Body Composition from 3-D Optical Surface Scans.

Authors:  Michael C Wong; Bennett K Ng; Samantha F Kennedy; Phoenix Hwaung; En Y Liu; Nisa N Kelly; Ian S Pagano; Andrea K Garber; Dominic C Chow; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 5.002

4.  Accuracy of a handheld 3D imaging system for child anthropometric measurements in population-based household surveys and surveillance platforms: an effectiveness validation study in Guatemala, Kenya, and China.

Authors:  Karim Bougma; Zuguo Mei; Mireya Palmieri; Dickens Onyango; Jianmeng Liu; Karla Mesarina; Victor Akelo; Rael Mwando; Yubao Zhou; Ying Meng; Maria Elena Jefferds
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 8.472

5.  Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee.

Authors: 
Journal:  World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser       Date:  1995

6.  A collaborative, mixed-methods evaluation of a low-cost, handheld 3D imaging system for child anthropometry.

Authors:  Joel Conkle; Kate Keirsey; Ashton Hughes; Jennifer Breiman; Usha Ramakrishnan; Parminder S Suchdev; Reynaldo Martorell
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Acceptability, Precision and Accuracy of 3D Photonic Scanning for Measurement of Body Shape in a Multi-Ethnic Sample of Children Aged 5-11 Years: The SLIC Study.

Authors:  Jonathan C K Wells; Janet Stocks; Rachel Bonner; Emma Raywood; Sarah Legg; Simon Lee; Philip Treleaven; Sooky Lum
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Two-dimensional digital photography for child body posture evaluation: standardized technique, reliable parameters and normative data for age 7-10 years.

Authors:  L Stolinski; M Kozinoga; D Czaprowski; M Tyrakowski; P Cerny; N Suzuki; T Kotwicki
Journal:  Scoliosis Spinal Disord       Date:  2017-12-19

9.  Accuracy and reliability of a low-cost, handheld 3D imaging system for child anthropometry.

Authors:  Joel Conkle; Parminder S Suchdev; Eugene Alexander; Rafael Flores-Ayala; Usha Ramakrishnan; Reynaldo Martorell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Digital anthropometric evaluation of young children: comparison to results acquired with conventional anthropometry.

Authors:  Samantha Kennedy; Brooke Smith; Sima Sobhiyeh; Marcelline E Dechenaud; Michael Wong; Nisa Kelly; John Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.016

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.