| Literature DB >> 36245816 |
Imelda A Agdeppa1, Jezreel Ann T Zamora1.
Abstract
Milk feeding can be an effective response to the high prevalence of child undernutrition as it provides significant amounts of nutrients. This study investigated and compared the effects of coconut skim milk (CocoM) and coco-dairy milk blend (CDMB) to cow's milk (CM) on improving the nutritional status of Filipino schoolchildren. The study followed a randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group design. A total of 444 underweight/stunted schoolchildren aged 6.0-8.4 years old enrolled in Guadalupe Elementary School in Cebu City, Philippines, have participated. The participants were randomly allocated into three groups, that is, CocoM, CDMB, and CM, in which the milk products were packed in 200 ml color and number-coded bottles given for 95 days. The bottles were similar in form and shape, and the only differentiating factors were the code and color. Weight and height were measured using standard techniques. Nutritional indices such as weight-for-age z-score (WAZ), height-for-age z-score (HAZ), and BMI-for-age z-score (BAZ) were measured using the WHO Child Growth Standards (CGS), and the acceptability test was measured using the 5-point facial hedonic scale. The study found that the mean WAZ and BAZ had significantly increased from baseline to endpoint across all groups. Moreover, the prevalence of underweight has also significantly declined from baseline to endpoint in all groups, and the prevalence of stunting significantly declined from baseline to endpoint in the CocoM group only. Lastly, the three milk products were rated as generally acceptable. Overall, the findings indicate that coconut milk consumption could be beneficial for improving a child's WAZ and BAZ, as well as improving the nutritional status of underweight and stunted schoolchildren. CocoM and CDMB were found to be equally beneficial to child nutrition as cow's milk. Hence, the present study suggests that CocoM and CDMB could be also provided in school-based feeding programs with the aim of targeting child undernutrition.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36245816 PMCID: PMC9553716 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6793866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Metab ISSN: 2090-0724
Comparative nutrient analyses of milk products.
| Parameters | Coconut skim milk | Cow's milk | Coco-dairy milk blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal/100 g) | 41.4 | 64.3 | 61.9 |
| Carbohydrate (g/100 g) | 4.0 | 4.9 | 3.8 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 4.1 | 3.3 | 3.8 |
| Fat (g/100 g) | 1.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
Distribution of dropouts by group.
| Cow's milk | Coco-dairy milk | Coconut skim milk | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Relocation/transferred to other school | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 5.4 |
| Participation withdrawal by parents/guardians | 4 | 2.7 | 9 | 6.1 | 8 | 5.4 |
| No endpoint data (anthropometry)/left for vacations in other places | 19 | 2.8 | 38 | 25.7 | 32 | 23 |
| Total drop out | 26 | 17.6 | 53 | 35.8 | 48 | 32.4 |
| Total endpoint count | 122 | 82.4 | 95 | 64.2 | 100 | 67.6 |
Profile of child participants.
| All | Control group | Intervention groups | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow's milk | Coconut skim milk | Coco-dairy milk blend | ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Characteristics | ||||||||
| Age, mean | 7.23 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.3 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| 6 | 68 | 21.5 | 27 | 22.1 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 22.1 |
| 7 | 127 | 40.1 | 46 | 37.7 | 47 | 47 | 34 | 35.8 |
| 8 | 103 | 32.5 | 41 | 33.6 | 27 | 27 | 35 | 36.8 |
| 9 | 19 | 6 | 8 | 6.6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5.3 |
|
| ||||||||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 167 | 52.7 | 64 | 52.5 | 49 | 49 | 54 | 56.8 |
| Female | 150 | 47.3 | 58 | 47.5 | 51 | 51 | 41 | 43.2 |
Percentage distribution of socio-economic and demographic profile of study participants.
| Variables | All | Control group | Intervention group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow's milk | Coconut skim milk | Coco-dairy milk blend | ||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Family type | ||||||||
| Nuclear | 190 | 59.9 | 70 | 57.4 | 61 | 61 | 59 | 62.1 |
| Extended | 127 | 40.1 | 52 | 42.5 | 39 | 39 | 36 | 37.9 |
|
| ||||||||
| Household size | ||||||||
| 1–10 members | 298 | 94 | 115 | 94.3 | 94 | 94 | 89 | 93.7 |
| 10–20 members | 19 | 5.99 | 7 | 5.74 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6.3 |
|
| ||||||||
| Mother's educational attainment | ||||||||
| No education | 3 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.82 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Some elementary | 13 | 4.1 | 2 | 1.64 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5.3 |
| Elementary graduate | 27 | 8.52 | 8 | 6.56 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9.5 |
| Some high school | 40 | 12.6 | 14 | 11.5 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11.6 |
| High school graduate | 123 | 38.8 | 56 | 45.9 | 36 | 36 | 31 | 32.6 |
| Some vocational | 17 | 5.36 | 6 | 4.92 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3.2 |
| Vocational graduate | 7 | 2.21 | 4 | 3.28 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3.2 |
| Some college | 43 | 13.6 | 13 | 10.7 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 16.8 |
| College graduate | 38 | 12 | 16 | 13.1 | 8 | 8 | 14 | 14.7 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Not sure | 6 | 1.89 | 2 | 1.64 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3.2 |
|
| ||||||||
| Father's educational attainment | ||||||||
| No education | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Some elementary | 21 | 6.62 | 7 | 5.74 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Elementary graduate | 28 | 8.83 | 9 | 7.38 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11.6 |
| Some high school | 31 | 9.78 | 16 | 13.1 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.4 |
| High school graduate | 90 | 28.4 | 33 | 27.1 | 26 | 26 | 31 | 32.6 |
| Some vocational | 16 | 5.05 | 6 | 4.92 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2.1 |
| Vocational graduate | 13 | 4.1 | 5 | 4.1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Some college | 43 | 13.6 | 16 | 13.1 | 17 | 17 | 10 | 10.5 |
| College graduate | 43 | 13.6 | 15 | 12.3 | 10 | 10 | 18 | 19.0 |
| Others | 2 | 0.63 | 1 | 0.82 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Not sure | 29 | 9.15 | 13 | 10.7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8.4 |
|
| ||||||||
| Main occupation | ||||||||
| Agriculture (fishing and farming) | 3 | 0.95 | 2 | 1.64 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Production related worker | 57 | 18 | 24 | 19.7 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 15.8 |
| Service-related worker | 129 | 40.7 | 52 | 42.6 | 33 | 33 | 44 | 46.3 |
| Business/self-employed | 24 | 7.57 | 10 | 8.2 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8.4 |
| Transportation related worker | 53 | 16.7 | 15 | 12.3 | 23 | 23 | 15 | 15.8 |
| Professional/technical | 21 | 6.62 | 8 | 6.56 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6.3 |
| Clerical related worker | 14 | 4.42 | 3 | 2.46 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Others | 12 | 3.79 | 7 | 5.74 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2.1 |
| Not sure | 4 | 1.26 | 1 | 0.82 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1.1 |
|
| ||||||||
| Number of earning family members | ||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 0.32 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | 214 | 67.5 | 81 | 66.4 | 64 | 64 | 69 | 72.6 |
| 2 | 90 | 28.4 | 35 | 28.7 | 31 | 31 | 24 | 25.3 |
| 3 | 6 | 1.89 | 3 | 2.46 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2.1 |
| 4 | 3 | 0.95 | 2 | 1.64 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 5 | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 6 | 2 | 0.63 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Estimated monthly family income | ||||||||
| <Php 5000 | 55 | 17.4 | 25 | 20.5 | 17 | 17 | 13 | 13.7 |
| Php 5000–10000 | 155 | 48.9 | 56 | 45.9 | 48 | 48 | 51 | 53.7 |
| Php 10000–15000 | 43 | 13.6 | 13 | 10.7 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 14.7 |
| >Php 15000 | 42 | 13.3 | 18 | 14.8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13.7 |
| Not sure | 22 | 6.94 | 10 | 8.2 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Estimated monthly family income, mean | 9451.36 | 8945.6 | 9632.7 | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Food expenditure | ||||||||
| <250 per day | 206 | 65 | 79 | 64.8 | 56 | 56 | 71 | 74.7 |
| >250 per day | 99 | 31.2 | 37 | 30.3 | 38 | 38 | 24 | 25.3 |
| Not sure | 15 | 4.73 | 6 | 4.92 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Food expenditure, mean | 237.2 | 254.09 | 225.25 | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Type of dwelling unit | ||||||||
| Single house | 281 | 88.6 | 107 | 87.7 | 93 | 93 | 81 | 85.3 |
| Duplex | 0 | 2.84 | 4 | 3.28 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Apartment/condominium/tenement/BLISS | 3 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.1 |
| Commercial | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Makeshift | 15 | 4.73 | 4 | 3.28 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7.4 |
| Others, specify | 7 | 2.21 | 4 | 3.28 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1.1 |
| Not sure | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Status of house | ||||||||
| Own | 168 | 53 | 67 | 54.9 | 52 | 52 | 49 | 51.6 |
| Rent | 56 | 17.7 | 19 | 15.6 | 17 | 17 | 20 | 21.1 |
| Free (owned by parents/relatives, caretaker) | 82 | 25.9 | 30 | 24.6 | 27 | 27 | 25 | 26.3 |
| Squat (settle in public/private dwelling without permission) | 11 | 3.47 | 6 | 4.92 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1.1 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Food storage | ||||||||
| Refrigerator | 120 | 37.9 | 42 | 34.4 | 35 | 35 | 43 | 45.3 |
| Screened/enclosed cabinet | 76 | 24 | 29 | 23.8 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 21.1 |
| On table with cover | 84 | 26.5 | 35 | 28.7 | 27 | 27 | 22 | 23.2 |
| Others, specify | 37 | 11.7 | 16 | 13.1 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10.5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Source of water | ||||||||
| Waterworks | 85 | 17.4 | 31 | 25.4 | 9 | 9 | 15 | 15.8 |
| Deep well | 23 | 7.26 | 6 | 4.92 | 13 | 13 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Dug well/shallow well | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Purified bottle water | 238 | 75.1 | 84 | 68.9 | 78 | 78 | 76 | 80 |
| Others | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Garbage | ||||||||
| Garbage collection system | 272 | 85.8 | 107 | 87.7 | 78 | 78 | 87 | 91.6 |
| Open pit | 11 | 3.47 | 4 | 3.28 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.2 |
| Covered pit | 2 | 0.63 | 2 | 1.64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Covered pit then burned | 24 | 7.57 | 8 | 6.56 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Open pit then burned | 4 | 1.26 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Throw anywhere | 4 | 1.26 | 1 | 0.82 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1.1 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Water disposal | ||||||||
| Water sealed | 317 | 100 | 122 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95 | 100 |
| Sanitary pit privy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bored hole latrine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mean weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ), height-for-age z-scores (HAZ), and BMI-for-age z-scores (BAZ) of child participants by group and time periods.
| Control group | Intervention groups |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow's milk | Coconut skim milk | Coco-dairy milk blend | ||
|
|
|
| ||
| WAZ | ||||
| Baseline | −2.44 (0.62) | −2.19 (0.62) | −2.19 (0.64) | 0.031 |
| Midline | −2.28 (0.69) | −2.01 (0.68) | −2.02 (0.69) | 0.029 |
| End line | −2.33 (0.69) | −2.10 (0.69) | −2.09 (0.70) | 0.039 |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| HAZ | ||||
| Baseline | −2.37 (0.64) | −2.35 (0.65) | −2.22 (0.52) | 0.342 |
| Midline | −2.38 (0.64) | −2.35 (0.63) | −2.21 (0.52) | 0.298 |
| End line | −2.40 (0.65) | −2.37 (0.65) | −2.26 (0.53) | 0.461 |
| | 0.259 | 0.124 | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| BAZ | ||||
| Baseline | −1.24 (0.87) | −0.90 (0.87) | −1.03 (0.92) | 0.147 |
| Midline | −1.00 (0.86) | −0.65 (0.83) | −0.81 (0.92) | 0.077 |
| End line | −1.07 (0.86) | −0.76 (0.85) | −0.87 (0.95) | 0.083 |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
1Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age, sex, household size, household estimated monthly income, mother's educations, and father's education. 2Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA); significant at α = 0.05; acow's milk is significantly different (lower) than coco-dairy milk blend and coconut skim milk intervention groups. Values were mean (standard deviation).
Prevalence of underweight, stunting, and wasting among child participants.
| Nutritional indices | Control group | Intervention groups |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow's milk | Coco-dairy milk blend | Coconut skim milk | |||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Underweight | |||||||
| Baseline | 96 | 78.7 | 66 | 699.5 | 68 | 68 | 0.15 |
| Endpoint | 81 | 66.4 | 49 | 51.6 | 59 | 59 | 0.087 |
| Change | −15 | 12.3 | −17 | 17.9 | −9 | 9 | |
| | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.049 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Stunting | |||||||
| Baseline | 93 | 76.2 | 74 | 77.9 | 83 | 83 | 0.452 |
| Endpoint | 92 | 75.4 | 69 | 72.6 | 74 | 74 | 0.897 |
| Change | −1 | 0.8 | −5 | 5.3 | −9 | 9 | |
| | 1 | 0.180 | 0.012 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Wasting | |||||||
| Baseline | 23 | 18.9 | 13 | 13.7 | 11 | 11 | 0.244 |
| Endpoint | 17 | 13.9 | 10 | 10.5 | 6 | 6 | 0.156 |
| Change | −6 | 5 | −3 | 3.2 | −5 | 5 | |
| | 0.12 | 0 | 0 | ||||
1McNemar's test. 2Chi-square test of independence. Significant at α = 0.05.
Figure 1Average acceptability scores of milk products according to appearance by months.
Figure 2Average acceptability scores of milk products according to odor by months.
Figure 3Average acceptability scores of milk products according to taste by months.
Figure 4Average acceptability scores of milk products according to overall liking by months.