Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 3;22(3):444–454. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018003075

Table 6.

Logistic regression results of the determinants of stunting in children in children aged 6–59 months in Kwara State, rural Nigeria, November 2014 (n 419)

Stunting (HAZ < −2) OR se 95 % CI Marginal effects
dy/dx se
Household consumed MRF 0·61 *** 0·01 0·58, 0·64 −0·11 *** 0·01
Child received VAS 1·99 0·89 0·83, 4·82 0·15 0·09
Children allocated more diverse diets 1·54 0·83 0·54, 4·43 0·09 0·11
Female adults allocated more diverse diets 0·76 0·19 0·46, 1·25 −0·06 0·05
Household consumed MRF × child received VAS 0·82 ** 0·07 0·69, 0·98 −0·04 ** 0·02
Household consumed MRF × children allocated more diverse diets 0·73 * 0·13 0·51, 1·04 −0·07 * 0·04
Household consumed MRF × female adults allocated more diverse diets 1·49 0·53 0·74, 2·97 0·08 0·08
Cattle, horses and camels (TLU) 1·17 ** 0·07 1·03, 1·32 0·03 ** 0·01
Sheep, goats and pigs (TLU) 0·57 *** 0·05 0·48, 0·67 −0·12 *** 0·02
Chicken and geese (TLU) 1·19 0·27 0·76, 1·86 0·04 0·05
Access to improved drinking-water 1·09 0·10 0·91, 1·32 0·02 0·02
Household has refrigerator 0·71 ** 0·12 0·52, 0·98 −0·07 ** 0·03
Nupe community 1·85 *** 0·01 1·83, 1·86 0·13 *** 0·00
Number of household members 1·10 *** 0·03 1·05, 1·16 0·02 *** 0·01
Mother completed primary education 0·95 0·21 0·62, 1·45 −0·01 0·05
Mother completed secondary education 0·64 *** 0·02 0·60, 0·68 −0·09 *** 0·01
Mother is underweight 0·89 0·37 0·40, 2·01 −0·02 0·09
Mother’s age in years 1·00 0·01 0·98, 1·01 1·3 × 10–5 1·2 × 10–7
Boy child 1·33 0·26 0·91, 1·95 0·06 0·04
Child did not experience morbidity 0·62 ** 0·15 0·39, 1·01 −0·10 ** 0·05
Child’s age (6–11 months) 0·91 0·07 0·78, 1·06 −0·02 0·02
Child’s age (12–23 months) 0·86 0·36 0·38, 1·97 −0·03 0·09
Child’s age (24–35 months) 1·06 0·39 0·51, 2·21 0·01 0·08
Constant 0·72 0·19 0·44, 1·19
Pseudo R 2 0·12
Log pseudolikelihood −256·59

HAZ, height-for-age Z-score; MRF, micronutrient-rich foods; VAS, vitamin A supplement; TLU, Tropical Livestock Unit.

Robust se adjusted for the two community clusters.

Results reported as marginal effects:

*

10 % level of significance (P < 0·1)

**

5 % level of significance (P < 0·05)

***

1 % level of significance (P < 0·01).