We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
Age-based preventive targeting of food assistance and behaviour change and communication for reduction of childhood undernutrition in Haiti: a cluster randomised trial.
Lancet 2008 Februrary 17
BACKGROUND: Food-assisted maternal and child health and nutrition programmes usually target underweight children younger than 5 years of age. Previous evidence suggests that targeting nutrition interventions earlier in life, before children become undernourished, might be more effective for reduction of childhood undernutrition.
METHODS: We used a cluster randomised trial to compare two World Vision programmes for maternal and child health and nutrition, which included a behaviour change and communication component: a preventive model, targeting all children aged 6-23 months; and a recuperative model, targeting underweight (weight-for-age Z score <-2) children aged 6-60 months. Both models also targeted pregnant and lactating women. Clusters of communities (n=20) were paired on access to services and other factors and were randomly assigned to each model. Using two cross-sectional surveys (at baseline and 3 years later), we tested differences in undernutrition in children aged 12-41 months (roughly 1500 children per survey). Analyses were by intention to treat, both by pair-wise community-level comparisons and by child-level analyses adjusting for the clustering effect and child age and sex. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00210418.
FINDINGS: There were no differences between programme groups at baseline. At follow-up, stunting, underweight, and wasting (using WHO 2006 reference data) were 4-6 percentage points lower in preventive than in recuperative communities; and mean anthropometric indicators were higher by +0.14 Z scores (height for age; p=0.07), and +0.24 Z scores (weight for age and weight for height; p<0.0001). The effect was greater in children exposed to the preventive programme for the full span between 6 and 23 months of age than in children exposed for shorter durations during this period. The quality of implementation did not differ between the two programmes; nor did use of services for maternal and child health and nutrition.
INTERPRETATION: The preventive programme was more effective for the reduction of childhood undernutrition than the traditional recuperative model.
METHODS: We used a cluster randomised trial to compare two World Vision programmes for maternal and child health and nutrition, which included a behaviour change and communication component: a preventive model, targeting all children aged 6-23 months; and a recuperative model, targeting underweight (weight-for-age Z score <-2) children aged 6-60 months. Both models also targeted pregnant and lactating women. Clusters of communities (n=20) were paired on access to services and other factors and were randomly assigned to each model. Using two cross-sectional surveys (at baseline and 3 years later), we tested differences in undernutrition in children aged 12-41 months (roughly 1500 children per survey). Analyses were by intention to treat, both by pair-wise community-level comparisons and by child-level analyses adjusting for the clustering effect and child age and sex. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00210418.
FINDINGS: There were no differences between programme groups at baseline. At follow-up, stunting, underweight, and wasting (using WHO 2006 reference data) were 4-6 percentage points lower in preventive than in recuperative communities; and mean anthropometric indicators were higher by +0.14 Z scores (height for age; p=0.07), and +0.24 Z scores (weight for age and weight for height; p<0.0001). The effect was greater in children exposed to the preventive programme for the full span between 6 and 23 months of age than in children exposed for shorter durations during this period. The quality of implementation did not differ between the two programmes; nor did use of services for maternal and child health and nutrition.
INTERPRETATION: The preventive programme was more effective for the reduction of childhood undernutrition than the traditional recuperative model.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app