| Literature DB >> 35874987 |
Pradeep Kumar1, Sampurna Kundu1,2, Rahul Bawankule3.
Abstract
Introduction: Integrated Child Developmental Services (ICDS) is the most extensive government-run health program for children with its foot spread across the complete Indian Territory. ICDS Scheme, has been provided for 40 years and has been successful in some ways. The program in reducing the undernourishment among children over the past decade has been modest and slow in India than what has been reached in other countries with comparable socio-economic measure. Therefore, this study aims to identify the district level clustering of the utilization of ICDS services in India, and the present research also tried to relate it with socio-economic and demographic factors. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS); children; district; geospatial; non-utilization of ICDS
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35874987 PMCID: PMC9302607 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.874104
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Socio-demographic profile of the study population in India, 2015–16.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
|
| |
| No | 136,603 (45.9) |
| Yes | 159,019 (54.1) |
|
| |
| No schooling | 93,897 (30.6) |
| Educated | 201,749 (69.4) |
|
| |
| Poor | 147,166 (46.9) |
| Non-poor | 148,480 (53.1) |
|
| |
| Urban | 70,723 (28.5) |
| Rural | 224,923 (71.5) |
|
| |
| Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe | 114,875 (31.9) |
| Non-scheduled caste/scheduled tribe | 180,771 (68.1) |
|
| |
| Hindu | 213,390 (78.6) |
| Non-Hindu | 82,256 (21.4) |
|
| |
| No | 182,804 (60.8) |
| Yes | 112,842 (39.2) |
Results from bivariate and logistic regression analysis for children who received benefits from ICDS by background factors in India, 2015–16.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| No schooling | 51.6 | Ref. |
| Educated | 55.2 | 1.42*** (1.40–1.44) |
|
| ||
| Poor | 58.1 | 1.03*** (1.01–1.05) |
| Non-poor | 50.5 | Ref. |
|
| ||
| Urban | 40.2 | Ref. |
| Rural | 59.6 | 1.81*** (1.77–1.84) |
|
| ||
| Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe | 61.1 | 1.27*** (1.25–1.29) |
| Non-scheduled caste/scheduled tribe | 50.8 | Ref. |
|
| ||
| Hindu | 55.5 | Ref. |
| Non-Hindu | 48.7 | 0.72*** (0.7–0.73) |
|
| ||
| No | 49.3 | Ref. |
| Yes | 61.6 | 1.47*** (1.45–1.49) |
Ref, Reference; OR, Odds ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; BPL, Below Poverty Line; ICDS, Integrated Child Development Scheme.
***p < 0.001.
Univariate and Bivariate Moran's I Values for outcome and predictors in India, 2015–16.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Child received benefits from ICDS (%) | 0.61 (0.001) | - |
| Educated (%) | 0.68 (0.001) | 0.19 (0.001) |
| Poor wealth quintile (%) | 0.74 (0.001) | 0.03 (0.042) |
| Rural place of residence (%) | 0.42 (0.001) | 0.09 (0.001) |
| Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe (%) | 0.57 (0.001) | 0.06 (0.001) |
| Hindu (%) | 0.72 (0.001) | 0.25 (0.001) |
| Has BPL (%) | 0.71 (0.001) | 0.27 (0.001) |
Spatial regression model for estimating spatial association between benefits received from ICDS and background factors in India, 2015–16.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Educated (%) | 0.407 (0.001) | 0.26 (0.001) | 0.291 (0.000) |
| Poor wealth quintile (%) | 0.009 (0.800) | −0.018 (0.532) | 0.013 (0.765) |
| Rural place of residence (%) | 0.22 (0.001) | 0.20 (0.001) | 0.230 (0.000) |
| Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe (%) | 0.098 (0.001) | 0.062 (0.006) | 0.084 (0.003) |
| Hindu (%) | 0.196 (0.001) | 0.11 (0.001) | 0.122 (0.000) |
| Has BPL card (%) | 0.245 (0.001) | 0.13 (0.001) | 0.167 (0.000) |
| 640 | 640 | 640 | |
|
| 0.54 (0.000) | ||
|
| 0.74 (0.000) | ||
|
| 5,269.4 | 5,026 | 4,942 |
|
| 0.40 | 0.75 | 0.69 |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; OLS, Ordinary least square; SLM, Spatial lag model; SEM, Spatial error model.
Figure 1Percentage distribution of children who received benefits from ICDS.
Figure 2Univariate Local Indicator of Spatial Association (LISA) (cluster and significance) maps for outcome and independent variables for districts of India, 2015–16.
Figure 3Bivariate Local Indicator of Spatial Association (BiLISA) (cluster and significance) maps for outcome vs. predictor variables for districts of India, 2015–16.