| Literature DB >> 35886101 |
Abdullah Shinwari1,2, Alain Véron2, Mohammad Haris Abdianwall1, Elisabeth Jouve3, Remi Laporte4.
Abstract
Environmental influence on intelligence quotient (IQ) is poorly understood in developing countries. We conducted the first cross-sectional investigation to assess the role of socio-economic and environmental factors on schoolchildren's IQ in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. A representative sample of 245 schoolchildren aged 7-15 was randomly selected in five schools. Children's records included: non-verbal IQ TONI-1 scale, body mass index, socio-economic status, and further environmental indicators (water supply, proximity to a heavy-traffic road, use of surma traditional cosmetics). The mean age of the children was 11.7 years old (±2.0 years), and 70.2% and 29.8% were male and female, respectively. The children's mean IQ was 83.8 (±12.6). In total, 37 (14.9%) of the children were overweight, 78 (31.5%) were living below the USD 1.25 poverty line, 133 (53.6%) used tap water supply, 76 (30.6%) used surma, and 166 (66.9%) were exposed to heavy road traffic. The children's IQ was significantly and independently lowered by tap water use (-3.9; 95% CI [-7.1; -0.6]) and by aging (-1.4; 95% CI [-2.2; -0.6]), as revealed in multivariate analysis, independently of gender, socio-economic status, exposure to heavy road traffic, overweight status, and surma use. Lower IQ among older children is possibly attributed to chronic stress experienced by adolescents due to living conditions in Afghanistan. While using tap water prevents fecal peril, it may expose children to toxic elements such as lead which is known to lower their intellectual development.Entities:
Keywords: Afghanistan; TONI-1; age; intelligence quotient; schoolchildren; tap water
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886101 PMCID: PMC9321136 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map of Jalalabad and the studied schools with main roads.
Results from sample description with children’s predictors in each school. Data are means ± standard deviation, or n (percentage). Overweight: BMI for age z-score > 2 standard deviations.
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of students | 55 | 41 | 57 | 50 | 45 | ||
| Age | 11.4 ±2.0 | 10.8 ±2.1 | 12.4 ±1.9 | 12.1 ±2.0 | 11.4 ±1.9 | 0.001 | |
| Gender | male | 38 (69.1) | 41 (100) | 0 | 50 (100) | 45 (100) | <0.0005 |
| female | 17 (30.9) | 0 | 57 (100) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Home near major road | 32 (58) | 30 (73) | 35 (61) | 41 (82) | 28 (62) | 0.06 | |
| Use of surma | 18 (32) | 6 (14) | 20 (35) | 22 (44) | 10 (22) | <0.05 | |
| Tap water use | 40 (72.7) | 29 (70.7) | 34 (59.6) | 18 (36) | 12 (26.6) | <0.0005 | |
| Height for age z-score | −0.52 ± 1.44 | -0.30 ± 1.47 | −0.28 ± 1.39 | −0.76 ± 1.09 | −0.46 ± 1.25 | 0.37 | |
| BMI for age z-score | −0.15 ± 0.77 | −0.39 ±0.78 | 0.24 ± 1.07 | 0.13 ±1.10 | 0.10 ±1.12 | <0.05 | |
| Overweight | 4 (7.3) | 3 (7.3) | 11 (19.3) | 10 (20.4) | 9 (20.5) | 0.12 | |
| Below poverty | 19 (34.5) | 13 (31.7) | 23 (40.4) | 23 (46) | 11 (24.4) | 0.23 | |
| IQ | 83.7 ± 11.7 | 82.1 ± 10.2 | 79.9 ± 12.7 | 86.6 ± 13.7 | 87.2 ± 13.1 | <0.05 | |
Figure 2Box-whisker plots of children’s intellectual quotient for each school. Median (solid line). Mean (dot line).
Results from bivariate and multivariate analysis of children’s intellectual quotient with predictors. CI: Confidence interval.
| Bivariate Analyses | Multivariate Model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Coefficient [95% CI] | Coefficient [95% CI] | ||
| Intercept | Not shown | 105.1 [94.1; 116.1] | <0.001 | |
| Male | −1.8 [−8.0; 4.3] | 0.528 | −0.9 [−6.7; 4.9] | 0.729 |
| Poverty | −3.2 [−6.5; −0.01] | 0.049 | −2.6 [−5.8; 0.6] | 0.116 |
| Tap water use | −3.1 [−6.3; 0.1] | 0.058 | −3.9 [−7.1; −0.6] | 0.019 |
| Heavy traffic road | −1.5 [−4.8; 1.8] | 0.380 | −1.6 [−5.0; 1.8] | 0.351 |
| Age (years) | −1.3 [−2.0; −0.5] | 0.002 | −1.4 [−2.2; −0.6] | 0.001 |
| Surma use | −2.0 [−5.4; 1.4] | 0.252 | −2.4 [−6.0; 1.0] | 0.166 |
| Overweight | −2.6 [−10.7; 5.4] | 0.518 | −0.2 [−8.2; 7.8] | 0.956 |